economic and demographic characteristics including their gender, age, level of education, status of descent, language and employment status. Table 5.1 presents the gender distribution of the respondents.
Table 5.1: Gender distribution of household respondents (in %) Gender Respondents (n = 400)
Female 49.5
Male 50.5
Total 100.0
Table 5.1 illustrates that of the 400 respondents, there were marginally more male respondents than female respondents, with a total of 50.5% males and 49.5% females. A possible reason for this fair distribution is that data collection took place during working hours of weekdays and therefore many women were at home, allowing a significant number of female respondents despite many women declining to participate. In addition, and as mentioned in section 4.8, some of the limitations of women participation was due to respect for their husbands, however, this relatively fair distribution of respondents allows for a gender bias to be ruled out. Notwithstanding, with reference to environmental justice and voice, gender plays a significant role. It was noted that during data collection, many women declined to participate, stating that their husbands were not at home at the time. This confirms
81 the existence of gendered voice (Brocklesby et al., 2010: 38). Women often take on secondary and supportive positions (Hemson, 2002: 26). Despite the commitment to working against discrimination of women in society (Sithole, undated: 1) there still exists the scenario where women depend on their husbands or other male relatives for information and to voice their concerns (Brocklesby et al., 2010: 38). This was evident in that when asked to participate in the survey, many women responded but asked their husbands permission, as well as asked their husbands to sign the declaration form required for the ethical clearance aspect of the research (Appendix A).
Figure 5.1 depicts the age distribution of the respondents. Given that there was a wide distribution of ages, these were grouped into eight groups.
Figure 5.1: Age of respondents (n = 400)
Figure 5.1 shows that the majority (35 %) of the respondents fell within the age category of 21 – 30. Of the 400 respondents, 12% were between the ages of 18 and 20, 19% were between the ages of 31 and 40, 12% were between the ages of 41 and 50, 11% were between the ages of 51 and 60, 7% were between the ages of 61 and 70, 5% were between the ages of 71 and 80 and 0.8 were older than 80 years of age. The average age of the respondents was 37.83 and the ages ranged from 18 to 82 with a range of 64. Approximately 88% of the respondents fell within the age group considered to be economically active, yet a high level of unemployment (74%) was indicated (refer to table 5.5). It is interesting to note that despite the majority of the respondents being relatively young, there was still the lack of participation and knowledge of environmentally related considerations, with regards to conservation, EMF
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
18-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 older
Percent (%)
Age Categories
82 and EIA. A reason for this may be the fact that there are high levels of unemployment and therefore high poverty, resulting in the focus of these people being that of survival.
Table 5.2 shows the level of education of the respondents. The levels of education provided for selection in the questionnaire were primary, secondary, degree obtained, tertiary, diploma obtained, honours obtained, masters obtained or no education obtained.
Table 5.2: Level of education of respondents (in %)
Level of Education Percent (n = 400)
Primary 16.5
Secondary 66.0
Degree 0.5
Tertiary 5.8
Diploma certificate 3.3
Honours 1.0
Masters 0.3
No education 6.8
Total 100.0
It can be seen from Table 5.2 that 17 % of the respondents had an education level which did not extend beyond primary, 66% had a secondary level of education, 6% had a tertiary level of education, 3% held Diploma certificates, 1% hold Undergraduate degrees, 1% of the respondents holds an Honours degree, 0% holds a Master’s degree, and 7% of the respondents had no formal education. The results correlate with that of Census (2011), stating a low rate of education in the Ndwedwe area. The relatively low level of education could also be a contributing factor to the lack of attendance to the public open day. This could be an indication that the public did not have the necessary understanding of the processes and hence did not have confidence in their input.
Table 5.3 depicts the descent status of the 400 respondents. This question in the questionnaire asked whether the respondent’s forefathers or ancestors resided in their home area.
Table 5.3: Status of descent of respondents (in %)
Ancestors resided in area Percent (n = 393)
Yes 59.0
No 39.3
83 Of the 400 respondents, seven declined to answer this question, 236 (59%) stated that their ancestors resided in the areas they now live in and 157 (39%) stated that their ancestors were not from the area they live in and they either came to Ndwedwe because they married someone from the area or they live with friends and / or relatives. This table is discussed in greater detail in correlation with voice in section 5.3. With the majority of the respondents being direct descendants of people who previously lived in the study area, there should be ample opportunity for the sharing of indigenous knowledge, for both environmental planning and EIA, however, table 5.9 below indicates that the majority of the respondents do not see the benefit of public meetings, and hence must not have confidence in the willingness of officials to engage in indigenous knowledge sharing. Furthermore, table 5.15 indicates that 43.8% of respondents are dissatisfied with the level to which their voices are heard. This indicates a loss in the opportunity to use indigenous knowledge in the environmental planning of the study area.
Table 5.4 shows the first or dominant language spoken by the respondents. The options provided were English, IsiZulu and Xhosa as these are the dominant languages in the area.
An option was also provided for other languages which needed to be specified.
Table 5.4: Dominant language of the respondents (in %) Language Percent (n = 400)
English 0.3
IsiZulu 98.3
Xhosa 1.5
Total 100.0
Table 5.4 depicts that the dominant language in Ndwedwe is IsiZulu (98%). A comparatively low 0% of the respondents speak English as their first language and 2% of the respondents stated Xhosa to be their first language. Language is an important aspect to consider with regard to public participation and consultation as it presents a potential communication barrier (Buthelezi, 2010). The Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA) identifies language barriers as one of the major communication challenges in Southern Africa, stating that there are numerous languages spoken throughout the region.
Within a single environmental assessment process there may be stakeholders who come from several different language groups and this poses a significant challenge to ensure that all stakeholders can both be informed and be part of the dialogue (SAIEA, 2005). The SAIEA
84 (2005) further advises that when environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs), specialists or developers use inaccessible jargon, unfamiliar languages or behave in a way that is superior, a bad participation process is thereby encouraged and these should therefore be avoided.
The following table shows the level of employment among the respondents. As stated above, there is a high level of unemployment.
Table 5.5: Employment Status of Respondents (in %) Status Percent (n = 400)
Employed 21.8
Unemployed 73.5
Self-employed 2.8
Student 1.3
Pensioner .8
The table above illustrates that 22% of the respondents have some form of employment, 74%
are unemployed, 3% are self-employed, 1% are students, and 1% are pensioners. These findings correlate with Census (2011) which reported on high numbers of unemployment in Ndwedwe.