Controlling for Cyclone Pam's Destructiveness (and Rebuilding) when Considering whether Higher Rates of Seasonal Work Participation are Associated with Improved Housing Indicators
. | OLS Regression Coefficients (Robust t-statistics) and R2 . | Beta Coefficients . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | Ever Participated in Seasonal Work in . | Ever Participated in Seasonal Work in . | ||||
Welfare Indicator (and Covariates) . | NZ . | Australia . | Either . | NZ . | Australia . | Either . |
Iron roof on dwelling | ||||||
Seasonal work participation rate | 2.949 | 19.804 | 3.268 | 0.36 | 0.55 | 0.44 |
(2.99)*** | (5.11)*** | (3.59)*** | ||||
Cyclone Pam damage rate | 0.217 | 0.262 | 0.211 | |||
(2.16)** | (2.90)*** | (2.13)** | ||||
R2 | 0.22 | 0.39 | 0.28 | |||
Bush material roof on dwelling | ||||||
Seasonal work participation rate | −2.963 | −20.205 | −3.296 | −0.35 | −0.55 | −0.43 |
(2.89)*** | (5.20)*** | (3.48)*** | ||||
Cyclone Pam damage rate | −0.231 | −0.276 | −0.225 | |||
(2.21)** | (2.93)*** | (2.17)** | ||||
R2 | 0.22 | 0.39 | 0.28 | |||
Walls mainly concrete or brick | ||||||
Seasonal work participation rate | 1.976 | 7.876 | 1.954 | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.53 |
(4.65)*** | (2.50)** | (5.03)*** | ||||
Cyclone Pam damage rate | −0.047 | −0.016 | −0.047 | |||
(1.07) | (0.37) | (1.06) | ||||
R2 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.28 | |||
Walls mainly traditional material | ||||||
Seasonal work participation rate | −3.826 | −21.840 | −4.071 | −0.40 | −0.53 | −0.47 |
(3.59)*** | (5.04)*** | (4.21)*** | ||||
Cyclone Pam damage rate | −0.221 | −0.279 | −0.216 | |||
(1.85)* | (2.56)** | (1.83)* | ||||
R2 | 0.24 | 0.35 | 0.30 | |||
Lighting mainly from solar panels | ||||||
Seasonal work participation rate | 2.575 | 4.790 | 2.308 | 0.40 | 0.17 | 0.39 |
(4.28)*** | (1.22) | (3.83)*** | ||||
Cyclone Pam damage rate | −0.006 | 0.036 | −0.002 | |||
(0.07) | (0.40) | (0.02) | ||||
R2 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 0.16 |
. | OLS Regression Coefficients (Robust t-statistics) and R2 . | Beta Coefficients . | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | Ever Participated in Seasonal Work in . | Ever Participated in Seasonal Work in . | ||||
Welfare Indicator (and Covariates) . | NZ . | Australia . | Either . | NZ . | Australia . | Either . |
Iron roof on dwelling | ||||||
Seasonal work participation rate | 2.949 | 19.804 | 3.268 | 0.36 | 0.55 | 0.44 |
(2.99)*** | (5.11)*** | (3.59)*** | ||||
Cyclone Pam damage rate | 0.217 | 0.262 | 0.211 | |||
(2.16)** | (2.90)*** | (2.13)** | ||||
R2 | 0.22 | 0.39 | 0.28 | |||
Bush material roof on dwelling | ||||||
Seasonal work participation rate | −2.963 | −20.205 | −3.296 | −0.35 | −0.55 | −0.43 |
(2.89)*** | (5.20)*** | (3.48)*** | ||||
Cyclone Pam damage rate | −0.231 | −0.276 | −0.225 | |||
(2.21)** | (2.93)*** | (2.17)** | ||||
R2 | 0.22 | 0.39 | 0.28 | |||
Walls mainly concrete or brick | ||||||
Seasonal work participation rate | 1.976 | 7.876 | 1.954 | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.53 |
(4.65)*** | (2.50)** | (5.03)*** | ||||
Cyclone Pam damage rate | −0.047 | −0.016 | −0.047 | |||
(1.07) | (0.37) | (1.06) | ||||
R2 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.28 | |||
Walls mainly traditional material | ||||||
Seasonal work participation rate | −3.826 | −21.840 | −4.071 | −0.40 | −0.53 | −0.47 |
(3.59)*** | (5.04)*** | (4.21)*** | ||||
Cyclone Pam damage rate | −0.221 | −0.279 | −0.216 | |||
(1.85)* | (2.56)** | (1.83)* | ||||
R2 | 0.24 | 0.35 | 0.30 | |||
Lighting mainly from solar panels | ||||||
Seasonal work participation rate | 2.575 | 4.790 | 2.308 | 0.40 | 0.17 | 0.39 |
(4.28)*** | (1.22) | (3.83)*** | ||||
Cyclone Pam damage rate | −0.006 | 0.036 | −0.002 | |||
(0.07) | (0.40) | (0.02) | ||||
R2 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 0.16 |
NZ = New Zealand, OLS = ordinary least squares.
Notes: Sample size is 66 local council areas, regressions include a constant that is not reported, and t-statistics are from robust standard errors in parentheses. ***, **, * denote statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. The Cyclone Pam damage rate is the proportion of households that had dwellings completely destroyed by the cyclone, which ranges from zero to 98% across the local councils, averaging 31%.
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Note: This map was not produced by the cartography unit of the Asian Development Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of the Asian Development Bank, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries, colors, denominations, or information.
Note: This map was not produced by the cartography unit of the Asian Development Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of the Asian Development Bank, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries, colors, denominations, or information.
Note: This map was not produced by the cartography unit of the Asian Development Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of the Asian Development Bank, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries, colors, denominations, or information.
Note: This map was not produced by the cartography unit of the Asian Development Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of the Asian Development Bank, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries, colors, denominations, or information.