Shelter Recovery Assessment PRELIMINARY FINDINGS JUNE 2015 .?isvan- 1? v? a Informing ShelterCluster.org mm?ec?ve Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action CONTENT Introduction ……………………...…………………2 Methodology ..…………….………………………5 Demographics …………….…………………..…13 Core Findings ….………….…………………...…17 1 INTRODUCTION Informin ShelterCluster.org e?gc?ve Coordmatmg Humanitarian Shelter humanitari tion INTRODUCTION • On 25 April 2015, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Nepal, approximately 81km northwest of the country capital, Kathmandu. • Intense tremors, and subsequent aftershocks, landslides, and avalanches caused widespread damage to personal shelters, infrastructure, and livelihoods, affecting millions across an estimated total of 39 out of 75 districts. • On 27 April 2015, REACH was deployed to Nepal in the framework of its partnership with the Global Shelter Cluster to facilitate the implementation of a detailed inter-agency shelter & settlements vulnerability assessment. During the assessment, REACH was supported by Shelter Cluster members who seconded staff and vehicles. 3 ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES Objective: To inform operational and strategic planning for life saving and recovery activities regarding shelter, and to provide a shelter baseline study of those affected by the earthquake Specific Objectives: 1. To verify emergency shelter & NFI coverage assumptions and gap analysis 2. To enable the shelter cluster to define a comprehensive shelter & settlements recovery strategy 3. To inform the earthquake revised flash appeal 4. Establish a baseline and method for potential longitudinal study of recovery 4 METHODOLOGY Informin ShelterCluster.org e?gc?ve Coordmating Humanitarian Shelter humanitari tion ACCESSIBLE AREAS: SAMPLING • This preliminary analysis is based on data collection from 16 May to 4 June. • This assessment targeted all areas accessible by 4x4 vehicle of the 14 priority districts. • Over 1680 household interviews, 120 per district, were conducted. • At the district level, findings are representative of households living in accessible areas in each district to a 95% confidence level and 10% margin of error. 6 ACCESSIBLE AREAS: SAMPLING • Based on data of the 2011 National Population and Housing Census of Nepal, VDCs within each district were weighted and randomly sampled with a minimum of 10 households per district. • Up to 12 VDCs were sampled per District, in each of which a random Ward was sampled. • Inside the Ward, enumerators randomly selected the first house (pen toss), after which every 3rd household was assessed. • All enumerators were final-year civil engineering students at the Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University of Nepal. Additional staff from International Medical Corps, People in Need, and Plan International were seconded and trained to support in the field. 7 v?w" Earthquake and magnitude Priority District - Surveyed VDC a 3* Gorkha g. m, RaSuwa 3 Dhading l~ 2 I Sindhupalchok KN) (I a? 'E?i?mdu 73 Donna Kathmaw&' thaktapur Makawanpur 1L!a itpur Kabhrepalancnoio I, a. Ramec haa Okhaldhunga I sman 0 wk?) lnformin ShelterCluster.org e?gc?ve Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action NEPAL DIFFICULT ACCESS AREAS: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS • To provide complementary data on inaccessible areas, key informant interviews were conducted in five difficult to access valleys in four of the Northern priority districts: • Rasuwa • Gorkha • Sindupalchok • Dolakha • The findings on difficult to access areas will be incorporated directly into the Final Report. 9 ax to: Priority District . . s; Difficult-to-access VDC If: I Gorkha i. I. si i \k asuwa ?Vm?vg? 18("1 . . I as? I: Nuwakot Smdhupalchok Dolakha Kathmandu 7'3 Kathmandu?r Bhaktapur I. Makawanpur Lampur Kabhrepalanchok VOW) 9? Ramechhap Okhaldhunga Sindhuli NEPAL - ShelterCluster.org Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter 0 1 0 20 30 Informing more effective REAC - Assessed Valley Gork?ha District .gt at "br- Rasu/wa District 7.8 Sindhupalchok District Dolakha Kathmandu ., District lnformin ShelterCluster.org moree?gc?ve Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action LIMITATIONS • The data that is presented is only representative of areas that are accessible by 4x4 vehicles during the pre-monsoon season • Only 14 districts that were classified as priority districts by the Government of Nepal were assessed. Other potential damaged areas outside of these districts have not been included. • Several findings are data sub-sets, and as such will be less representative, depending on the number of entries per sub-set • This presentation is a preliminary analysis. These findings should not be used for final programming and targeting models, as, once all data has been collected, some results will be subject to modification. 12 DEMOGRAPHICS ShelterCluster.or Informing . . more effective Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action POPULATION AGE BREAKDOWN 10% $96 14 Informing ShelterCIuster.org a?ec?ve Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action DEMOGRAPHICS • On average, 19% households across all priority districts are female-headed. At 27%, Dhading reported the highest percentage • On average, 9% households across all priority districts have at least one disabled member At 19%, Okhaldhunga reported the highest percentage • On average, 3% of the households across all priority districts were hosting separated, orphaned or unaccompanied children At 7%, Sindhupalchok reported the highest percentage 15 LAND TENURE On average, 90% of the households across all priority districts reported being homeowners Of non-owners: • 8% of households reported they are paying renters • 1% of households reported staying for free with consent of the owner • <1% or households reported staying for free without consent of the owner • <1% of households reported staying in an institutional facility 16 DISPLACEMENT ShelterCluster.or Informing . . more effective Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action Pereentage ef lleusellelds in the prielity districts that are currently Hid ef deesedeids ie the enemy dis e'iefs sewer ?y diseased Silu?umhu Suki mam JL Fla if" "g In. Sinlhuli e; . new an ex. 5: laihyapur r! "lh?lnfl Informing ShelterCIuster.org motive Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action LOCATION OF DISPLACEMENT 68% of all displaced households report they live adjacent to their damaged homes* * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 19 Percentage at that reperted nesting displaeed individuals by distriets 3555 ad all daeae delete in title enmity dis diet: Salutliumliu 5.3% 10% - (9., -an% 5 Hum" Cl 31131.1% ?4nsarth 5 "mini" r" lilahlttali..-' Nat assessed 5m i ra a ShelterCluster.or Informing more effective Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action REASONS FOR DISPLACEMENT* * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 21 INTENTIONS • 83% of displaced* households intended to stay on site within 7 days of the assessment • 7% of displaced households intended to return to original house within 7 days of the assessment • 55% of displaced households intended to stay on site within 30 days of the assessment • 18% of displaced households intended to return to original house within 30 days of the assessment * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 22 INTENTIONS — 7 DAYS BY LAND TENURE Note: 91% of households in the priority districts own their own homes. Intentions of displaced households* in 7 days after assessment: * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 23 INTENTIONS — 30 DAYS BY LAND TENURE Note: 91% of households in the priority districts own their own homes. Intentions of displaced households* in 30 days after assessment: * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 24 PRE-CRISIS HOUSING Informin ShelterCluster.org e?gc?ve Coordmating Humanitarian Shelter humanitari tion HOUSING TYPOLOGY PRIORITY DISTRICTS CGI reef, etene and mud walls 40% REC frame 22% Slate reef etene er mud maeenry 19% Other CGI reef, brick and sand I 3% eement mertar Informin ShelterCluster.org e?gc?ve Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action HOUSING TYPOLOGY BY DISTRICT Ehainapur Dhading Dalakha Hammndu Hairrepalanchai: HE a Lalilpur lilaer 5'51 i 54% Hmkut 21% Ran-achhap Hasuwa a" '3 EH Sindhuli 17$ i? 61% ii Sindhupalchair F.- (D I CGI roof, brick and sand /cement mortar CGI roof, brick or stone and mud masonry RCC frame I Slate roof, stone and mud masonry ShelterCluster.or Informing more effective Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action PREDOMINANT PRE-CRISIS MATERIALS PER HOUSE COMPONENT • 50% of pre-crisis roofing was comprised of CGI • 65% of pre-crisis wall materials was made of mud-bonded brick or stone • 38% of pre-crisis floor materials consisted of dirt, and 27% of mudbonded brick or stone • 68% of pre-crisis foundation materials was made of mud-bonded brick or stone 28 DAMAGE Informin ShelterCluster.org e?gc?ve Coordmatmg Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action HOUSING DAMAGE BY DISTRICT 90% of households reported that their homes were damaged because of either the 25 April or 12 May earthquake, or both. This overview includes minor damages, e.g. small cracks. 30 DEGREE OF DAMAGE 55% of all households reported that their homes were either completely destroyed, or heavily damaged / partially collapsed 31 A harem Percentage ef heusehelds with damaged liming Rem If?: er eempletehl destreyed heuses if 5595 . .If? I - - rll. L1. I I :Ir- ll" H1 uNjM? Tandm i Hunk-t ?hitKathmaneu .Lx We; [I'llth lemuth {e waiteij Lyn?e [5 If?! Jr Hehewenpur gig Lalitpur'j. Wilt ?d'e I: .ml-?l I _h seem?40% ax Pars: nu Elnehull m.1ee-50ee -. "e - mun: .1. II. . 5 ?Mum wee-meta i mum ., I. I - EDDIE- I. 51 - - A rlahl -. .- CI 30.1% - 93% HR llalmturi} rt Nut ass-med "ham-Id? I I Sl?l?ll Elana-tars ShelterCluster.or Informing more effective Coordinating Humanitanan Shelter humanitarian action _m .e . DAMAGE BY TYPOLOGY* * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 33 DAMAGE PER SHELTER SECTION • 68% of all households reported that their walls were either completely destroyed, or heavily damaged • 43% of all households reported that their roofs were either completely destroyed, or heavily damaged • 36% of all households reported that their floors were either completely destroyed, or heavily damaged 34 ELECTRICITY Only 4% of households had no source of electricity before the crisis ?2 3 (A Community generator Dhm'm 5? 33% Isolated grid Other I Personal generator i! - Dulahha 39% 60m a Solar I No electricity source liaihmanm Havrepalanchoh T'll: Lalitpur 3% Hakwarpur Hi. Hmkat mm am as Ein?luli 8% HI 251i 41E ShelterCluster.or Informing more effective Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action ELECTRICITY Post-crisis, 31 of households reported to have no source of electricity Ehalttapur 13% arm I Mams Community generator Dhading 23% 55% 955 I Isolated grid Other Do'akha - Personal generator Gurkha solar I No electricity source Kathmandu Hayra palancholt Lalitpur Maltwanpur Nuwalmt Dlthaldhunga Hamaahhap 14% Rasuwa Sindhuli Sindhupalchak ShelterCluster.or Informing more effective Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT 42% of all households reported that they had received a structural assessment by a qualified engineer at the time of assessment 37 TEMPORARY SHELTER Informin ShelterCluster.org e?gc?ve Coordmatmg Humanitarian Shelter humanitari tion TEMPORARY SHELTER CONSTRUCTION 60% of households with damaged housing* reported that they have started constructing a temporary shelter * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 39 Mug if Kash a . lam-z - 1" Ia?l M: H: - 11)} t, 39 ?gr-K v" Iakawanpur ShelterCluster.org Coordmating Humanitarian Shelter Percentage of households that reported having built a temporary shelter 60% a! all households in (Ire priarity limiter Informing more effective humanitarian actlon SHELTER ROOF MATERIAL 38% of all temporary shelter roofs are made of CGI, while 30% are constructed from tarpaulins. [Only 5 most predominant types are displayed] 41 SHELTER WALL MATERIAL 17% of temporary shelter walls consist of tarpaulins, while 15% is plastic sheeting. [Only 5 most predominant types are displayed] 42 TEMPORARY SHELTER ASSISTANCE 57% of all households with housing damage report to having received shelter assistance* * It should be taken into account that all subset data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 43 Percentage ei with damaged hnese that reperted having assistanee 5e: ef aid heeseheids depnhrify disfriede Talil f/ [Etna if 23.3% - - 511% - - met. 5'3 - - - 3:111; - Nel med ShelterCluster.org lizigm?i?cme Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action SHELTER ASSISTANCE RECEIVED Tarpaulins are the predominant form of emergency shelter assistance that has been received 45 CASH ASSISTANCE RECEIVED Cash assistance was reported to have been received in 6 districts, predominantly in Rasuwa, Nuwakot, Dolakha. 46 PRIMARY SHELTER NEEDS 39% of all households reported CGI as their primary emergency shelter need; it is also the predominant reported secondary need. 47 Primer emergency shelter need reperteil liy heusellelds liy distn'et 3.95.: elf all heme def: reperfeef?? as theirde emeigmefsee?er - CGI Rm?ng ShelterCluster.org L'JLiszi?fEcuve Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action CURRENT SAFETY PERCEPTIONS ShelterCluster.org Coordinating nitarian er CURRENT WEATHER PROTECTION 25% of all households in the priority districts reported that they do not feel protected at all from current weather conditions 50 MONSOON SEASON PROTECTION Only 21% of all households in the priority districts reported that they feel protected against the upcoming monsoon season 51 WINTER SEASON PROTECTION Only 22% of all households in the priority districts reported that they feel protected against the upcoming winter season 52 HOUSING RECOVERY Informin ShelterCluster.org e?gc?ve Coordmatmg Humanitarian Shelter humanitari tion HOUSING RECOVERY 14% of all households with damaged housing* reported that they have started to rebuild or repair their original houses * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 54 Pereentage ef heusehehts that reperteit that they have started tn rehuiht er titteta?heesehet?sie repair their eriginal . the amt districts ?as? M, l-II-e - anae? wee - 10.1% znee - 31.1% - anee 30.1% 4M: 40.1% Ema Nut assessed ShelterCluster.org Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action CAN USE DEBRIS FOR RECOVERY 37% of all households with damaged housing* reported that they can use debris for housing recovery * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 56 DEBRIS REMOVAL ASSISTANCE 76% of all households with damaged housing* reported that they need some form of debris removal assistance * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 57 RECOVERY MATERIAL NEEDS 52% of all households with damaged homes* reported that CGI is their primary material need for housing recovery/rebuild * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 58 MATERIAL ACCESS Of all households in the priority districts that cited CGI as their primary need, 24% do not have any access to CGI, while 49% only reported some access 59 INFORMATION ON SAFE CONSTRUCTION 36% of households with damaged housing reported that they have ever received information related to safer construction practices 60 Informin ShelterCluster.org e?gc?ve Coordmatmg Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action WATER SOURCE — PRE-CRISIS 29% of all households cited municipal piped tap water as their main pre-crisis water source, while an equal 29% cited private piped water [Only 5 most predominant types are displayed] 62 WATER SOURCE — POST-CRISIS 25% of all households reported that municipal piped tap water is their current water source, while the usage of bottled water intake increased from 4% pre-crisis to 8% post-crisis [Only 5 most predominant types are displayed] 63 WATER SOURCE DAMAGE 86% of all households reported that their water source was not damaged by the crisis 64 EFFECT ON WATER QUANTITY 24% of all households reported that the quantity of their drinking water had decreased since the crisis 65 EFFECT ON WATER QUALITY 31% of all households in the priority districts reported that the quality of their drinking water had declined 66 TOILET FACILITIES — PRE-CRISIS 3% of all households in the priority districts reported that they did not have access to any toilet prior to the crisis 67 TOILET FACILITIES — POST-CRISIS 11% of all households in the priority districts reported that they currently do not have access to any toilet 68 TOILET FACILITY SHARING — PRE-CRISIS 10% of all households in the priority districts reported sharing a toilet with one or more households prior to the crisis 69 TOILET FACILITY SHARING — POST-CRISIS 22% of all households in the priority districts reported sharing a toilet with one or more households after the crisis 70 LIVELIHOODS ShelterCluster.or Informing . . I more effective Coordmatmg Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action REPORTED LIVELIHOODS At 55%, subsistence gardening was the most reported livelihood of all households in the priority districts 72 LOSS OF INCOME 69% of all households in the priority districts reported that their income had decreased as a result of the earthquakes 73 INCOME RECOVERY Of all households that reported a decreased in income, 59% said their income has not been restored at all since the crisis* * It should be taken into account that all sub-set data has a reduced level of representativeness, depending on the number of entries per sub-set. 74 COMMUNICATION ShelterCluster.or Informing . . more effective Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 44% of all households in the priority districts reported that their community was consulted prior to receiving assistance 76 WAYS OF RECEIVING PUBLIC INFORMATION 70% of all households in the priority districts reported that word-of-mouth is their primary way of receiving information 77 ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES ShelterCluster.org Coordinating nitarian er ACCESS TO EDUCATION 39% of all households reported that they did not have access to education services because their facilities were destroyed [only households reporting no access to services are depicted] 79 ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES 10% of all households reported that they did not have access to health services because their facilities were destroyed [only households reporting no access to services are depicted] 80 Informin ShelterCluster.org e?gc?ve Coordmatmg Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action PRIMARY NFI NEEDS 33% of all households in the priority districts cited sleeping mats as their primary NFI need First Second Third Sleeping mat 33% 13% 0% None 28% 39% 49% Hygiene items 11% 9% 10% Kitchen items 8% 13% 6% Gas fuel 7% 5% 5% Torches 6% 7% 6% Clothing 3% 7% 10% Gas cooker 3% 1% 1% Jerrycans 2% 5% 5% Footwear 0% 1% 2% Tarpaulin 0% 0% 5% Cash 0% 0% 0% 82 PRIMARY NFI NEEDS [only 5 most predominant needs are depicted] Sindhupamk 43% 4% 17% 17% Others Gas/Fuel I Kitchen Items Hygiene Items Kavrepalanchok 36% 20% 17% 15% None Ramechhap 39% 13% 20% - 18% Nuwakot 50% 23% 7% - 11% 25% 25% 10% 28% Kathmandu 33% I CD 7% 5% 11% 12% 11% 15% Bhaktapur 32% 37% 9% 13% Gorkha 28% 25% 15% 19% Sindhuli 24Okhaldhunga U1 o\ Makwanpur 10% ShelterCluster.or Informing more effective Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action SECONDARY NFI NEEDS 39% of all households in the priority districts reported that they had no secondary NFI need [only 5 most predominant needs are depicted] 84 PRIMARY HOUSEHOLD PRIORITY NEEDS 61% of all households in the priority districts cited shelter/housing as their primary household priority need First Second Third Shelter / Housing 61% 8% 4% None 9% 6% 24% Drinking water 8% 12% 4% Employment / Jobs 4% 13% 9% Building tools 3% 11% 8% Food 3% 17% 7% Wastewater disposal systems 2% 1% 2% Hygiene items 2% 3% 6% Security / Policing 2% 4% 3% Health 1% 5% 8% Education 1% 5% 6% Solid waste management 1% 2% 2% Electricity supply 1% 6% 5% 85 Primal} hnusehnld prinriiy need ??nfa?hnmhaidsin immunity rl"mm"! ll? dlSt?llt ?a Emmi: raping sbaifnrxi?msmg as ShelterCluster.org l?z?gm?a?cuve Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action PRIMARY HOUSEHOLD PRIORITY NEEDS [only 5 most predominant needs are depicted] Sindhupaldmi: Raauwa 3% F: p: I 4% Lr 25% Dnlaima 5% Dhatling Kawepalanchoi: 13% Sindhui 5.3% 11% 3% - 12% Mannanpur 5m 10% 1m HuwaI-mt 35% 4% - 6% Gurkha TEE-E 3% 3% 141% Lalitpur 5m 3% 15% 15% Bhaktapur Hr 21% 15% Kathmandu ms 20% 11% Others Drinking Water None I Employment I Shelter/Housing I Food ShelterCluster.or Informing more effective Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action SECONDARY HOUSEHOLD PRIORITY NEEDS 17% of all households in the priority districts cited food as their secondary priority need [only 5 most predominant needs are depicted] 88 WHAT IS NEXT? • Please provide written feedback by 8 June 6:00pm to: philip.bato@reach-initiative.org • Tentative publishing date Final Report: 15 June Incl. integration of difficult to access areas • Longitudinal analysis 89 About REACH Initiative REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through interagency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our global office: geneva@reach-initiative.org. Visit www.reach-intiative.org and follow us @REACH_info 90 THANK YOU Informin ShelterCluster.org e?gc?ve Coordmating Humanitarian Shelter humanitarian action