Assessing the Effectiveness of Coping Mechnisms Among the Vulnerable Communities Post Disasters: A Case Study of Kanyama Compound

This study investigated the effectiveness of post-disaster coping mechanisms among vulnerable households in Kanyama Compound, Lusaka, Zambia. A mixed-methods case study design was employed, with data collected from 150 households via structured questionnaires. Analysis using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests revealed a heavy reliance on informal coping strategies, including seeking help from relatives or friends (74.7%) and external aid from NGOs or government (70.0%). However, these mechanisms were largely ineffective and often erosive, with 80.7% of households reporting negative long-term consequences, primarily increased debt (47.9%) and loss of assets (43.0%). Chi-square analysis found no statistically significant association between the type of coping mechanism used and the respondent's gender (χ²=2.35, df=3, p=0.503), nor between perceived effectiveness and the education level of the household head (χ²=2.28, df=4, p=0.685), indicating uniformly challenging outcomes across demographic segments within this highly vulnerable context. Institutional support, while received by 65.3% of households, was predominantly short-term relief (86.7% received food aid) with minimal livelihood support (28.6%). The analysis showed no significant relationship between the receipt of institutional support and household income group (χ²=1.62, df=2, p=0.446), suggesting issues of either equitable distribution or uniform inadequacy. Finally, the type of disaster experienced (flood, fire, or disease) showed no significant association with recovery success (χ²=3.89, df=2, p=0.143), underscoring that underlying socio-economic vulnerabilities, rather than the specific hazard, are the primary determinants of poor recovery outcomes. The study concludes that the current system of household coping and institutional response in Kanyama is structured for immediate survival but systematically undermines long-term resilience. Recommendations are provided for a paradigm shift towards anticipatory action, investment in sustainable livelihoods, and pro-poor infrastructure to break the cycle of vulnerability.