Eindhoven University of Technology
MASTER
Migration and urban infrastructure services the impact of inteRnal migration and urban growth on infrastructure services in Trujillo, Peru
Jobse, R.M.
Award date: 2008
Link to publication
Disclaimer This document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Student theses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the document as presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the required minimum study period may vary in duration.
General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
MIGRATION AND URBAN
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
THE IMPACT OF INTERNAL MIGRATION AND URBAN GROWTH ON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES IN TRUJILLO , PERU
APPENDICES
INDEX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A: Maps ...... 555
Appendix B: Concepts and definitions ...... 13131313 B-I Definitions of “Urban” as used in different countries ...... 13 B-2 Local denominations of urban poor areas Latin America ...... 14 B-3 UN Habitat definitions...... 15 B-4 Framework for Livelihood Approach ...... 16
Appendix C: Survey results and statistatisticsstics ...... 17...... 171717 C-I Population Characteristics...... 17 C-II Migration...... 20 C-III Settlement...... 24 C-IV Infrastructure Combined ...... 26 C-V Water...... 27 C-VI Sanitation...... 32 C-VII Electricity ...... 35 C-VIII Telecommunications ...... 39 C-IX Solid Household Waste...... 44
Appendix D: Population statisticsstatistics...... 47474747
Appendix E: Migration statisticsstatistics...... 53535353
Appendix F: Water ...... 59...... 595959 F-1 Water Statistics...... 59 F-2 Public water net and facilities in different areas ...... 62
Appendix G: Sanitation ...... 65...... 656565 G-1 Sewerage statistics...... 65 G-2 Public sewerage net and facilities ...... 67
Appendix H: ElectricityElectricity...... 69...... 696969 H-1 Electricity Statistics...... 69 H-2 Public electricity net in different areas...... 71
Appendix I: Telecommunications statistics ...... 75...... 757575
Appendix J: Questionnaires ...... 80808080 J-1 Questionnaire - English version...... 80 J-2 Questionnaire- Spanish version...... 103
APPENDIX A: MAPS Figure A-1: Peru and its main cities, relief and roads
Source: Library University Texas, 2007, Perry-Castañada Library Map Collection , University of Texas, Austin. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/peru.html
APPENDIX A: MAPS 5
Figure A-2: Peru and its administrative departments
Source: Library University Texas, 2007, Perry-Castañada Library Map Collection , University of Texas, Austin. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/peru.html
6 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Figure A-3: The department La Libertad and its provinces
Source: MPT, 2007, Trujillo en Cifras y Mapas, Municipalidad Provincial de Trujillo, Trujillo. http://www.munitrujillo.gob.pe/Trujilloencifrasymapas/paginas/menutotal.htm
Figure A-4: The province of Trujillo and its districts
Source: MPT, 2007, Trujillo en Cifras y Mapas, Municipalidad Provincial de Trujillo, Trujillo. http://www.munitrujillo.gob.pe/Trujilloencifrasymapas/paginas/menutotal.htm
APPENDIX A: MAPS 7
Figure A-5: Urban evolution of the city Trujillo until 2001
Source: MPT, 2003, Atlas Ambiental de Trujillo – Perú , Municipalidad Provincial de Trujillo, Trujillo.
8 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Figure A-6: The location of the surveyed neighbourhoods in Trujillo
Notes: 1. This map has been updated by Plandemetru up till July 2007. Only the blocks in the northern part of the city are included, due to confidentiality and legal issues. Details of the blocks in the cases can be found below in Appendix A Figure 3. Source: Plandemetru, 2007, Trujillo
APPENDIX A: MAPS 9
Fig A-7.1: Map of blocks of houses and sectors of El Milagro Sector VII plus extension
Notes: 1. The line on the bottom part of the picture indicates the border with the Rio Seco, beyond that river no settlement is allowed. 2. The legal status of the various settlements is less clear in El Milagro. Sector VII, La Florida and part of Villa Hermosa have been planned and formalized by Plandemetru. Los Pedregales and Los Huertos are under jurisdiction of the Regional Government, the blocks are situated where former industrial areas ( coralones ) were located or planned. Las Molinas consists of squatter settlements without formal status. Source: Gobierno Regional, 2007, with own additions.
Fig A-7.2: Map of blocks of houses and sectors of La Esperanza Nueva Jerusalén
Note:
10 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
1. Sector I is planned and formalized by Plandemetru, whilst sector II is in the process of formalization. Sector III is a squatter settlement; plans for relocation or extension and formalization of sector III are being made. Source: Plandemetru, Sedalib, with own additions.
Fig A-7.3: Map of blocks of houses and sectors of Alto Trujillo 2B
Note: 1. The sector 2B has been planned and formalized by Plandemetru. Invasion I and Invasion II are squatter settlements. Invasion II is part of the property planned for an industrial park (by Plandemetru), whilst invasion I is part of land with no destination. Source: Plandemetru, 2007, with own additions.
APPENDIX A: MAPS 11
APPENDIX B: CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
B-I DEFINITIONS OF “U RBAN ” AS USED IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
Source: UN Statistics Division, retrieved 21 October 2006 from: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/densurb/Defintion_of%20Urban.pdf
AMERICA, SOUTH Argentina: Populated centres with 2 000 or more inhabitants. Bolivia: Localities of 2 000 or more inhabitants. Brazil: Urban and suburban zones of administrative centres of municipalities and districts. Chile: Populated centres which have definite urban characteristics such as certain public and municipal services. Colombia: Not available. Ecuador: Capitals of provinces and cantons. Falkland Isl. (Malvinas): Town of Stanley. Paraguay: Cities, towns and administrative centres of departments and districts. Peru: Populated centres with 100 or more dwellings. Suriname: Paramaribo town. Uruguay: Cities. Venezuela: Centres with a population of 1 000 or more inhabitants.
AMERAMERICA,ICA, NORTH Bahamas: Not available. Belize: Not available. Costa Rica: Administrative centres of cantons. Cuba: Population living in a nucleus of 2 000 or more inhabitants. Dominican R.: Administrative centres of municipalities and municipal districts, some of which include suburban zones of rural character. El Salvador: Administrative centres of municipalities. Greenland: Localities of 200 or more inhabitants. Guatemala: Municipality of Guatemala Department and officially recognized centres of other departments and municipalities. Haiti: Administrative centres of communes. Honduras: Localities of 2 000 or more inhabitants, having essentially urban characteristics. Jamaica: Not available. Mexico: Localities of 2 500 or more inhabitants. Nicaragua: Administrative centres of municipalities and localities of 1 000 or more inhabitants with streets and electric light. Panama: Localities of 1 500 or more inhabitants having essentially urban characteristics. Beginning 1970, localities of 1 500 or more inhabitants with such urban characteristics as streets, water supply systems, sewerage systems and electric light. Puerto Rico: Places of 2 500 or more inhabitants and densely settled urban fringes of urbanized areas.
APPENDIX B: CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS 13
B-2 LOCAL DENOMINATIONS OF URBAN POOR AREAS LATIN AMERICA
SelfSelf----sustainablesustainable sector (non(non----conventional)conventional) Institutional sector (conventional) Illegal status (invasion SemiSemi----legallegal status Legal status settlements) (allocation settlements) Comercial Social housing - Jacales (M) - Ciudades perdidas (M) - Ciudades perdidas (M) - Superbloques (C) - Corralones (L) - Azoteas (L) - Vecindades (M) - Unidades vecinales - Favelas de quintal (R) - Callejones/ Solares (L) (L) - Ranchitos (C) - Conventillos (BA/LP/S) - Conjuntos (R) - Precarios (SJo) - Casachorizos (BA) - Tugurios (A) - Pasajes/ Cités (S)
- Córtiços/ Avenidas/ Quintales/ Estalagems/ Casas de cômodo (R) - Mesones ES) - Palomares (G) Central city Central city Central city Central city - Colonias proletarias (M) - Colonias proletarias (M) - Fraccionamientos (M) - Poblaciones de - Colonias paracaidistas (M) - Fraccionamientos clandestinos - Urbanizaciones (B/LP) emergencia (S) - Barrios clandestinos (B) (M) - Suburbios (R) - Mediaguas (S) - Barrios de invasion (B) - Barrios clandestinos (B) - Billas de emergencia - Poblaciones callampas (S) - Barrios piratas (B) (BA) - Campamentos (S) - Villas/ Loteamientos (LP) - Parques proleatarios - Barriadas (L) (R) - Favelas (R) - Vilas (R) - Ranchos (C) - Caseríos (SJ) - Cantegriles (Mon) - Barracas (C) - Malocas (PA) - Alagados (SS) - Mocambos (Rec) - Villas (piratas) (LP) - Villas miserias (BA)
- Arrabales (SJ) - Barrios burjos (P) - Suburbios (Gq) - Tugurios (ES) Periphery Periphery - Precarios (SJo) Periphery Periphery A – Arequipa (Peru) Mon – Montevideo (Uruguay) B – Bogotá (Colombia) P – Panama City (Panama) BA – Buenos Aires (Argentina) PA – Porto Alegre (Brazil) C – Caracas (Venezuela) R – Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) ES – San Salvador (El Salvador) Rec – Recife (Brazil) G – Guatemala City (Guatemala) S – Santiago (Chile) Gq – Guayaquil (Ecuador) SJ – San Juan (Puerto Rico) L – Lima (Peru) SJo – San José (Costa Rica) LP – La Paz (Bolivia) SS – São Salvador (Brazil) M – Mexico City (Mexico) Source: Kleinpenning, J.M.G., and P.v. Lindert (eds.), 1997, Latijns Amerika , Van Gorcum, Assen.
14 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
B-3 UN HABITAT DEFINITIONS
Source: UN Habitat, 2003, Slums of the world; the face of urban poverty in the new millennium? , United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi.
Access to improved water: A household is considered to have access to improved drinking water if it has sufficient amount of water (20 litres/person/day) for family use, at an affordable price (less than 10% of the total household income), available to household members without being subject to extreme effort (less than one hour a day for the minimum sufficient quantity), especially to women and children. • Piped connection to house or plot • Public stand pipe serving no more than 5 households • Bore hole • Protected dug well • Protected spring • Rain water collection
Access to improved sanitation: A household is considered to have access to improved sanitation, if an excreta disposal system, either in the form of a private toilet or a public toilet shared with a reasonable number of people, is available to household members. • Direct connection to public sewer • Direct connection to septic tank • Pour flush latrine • Ventilated improved pit latrine.
SufficientSufficient----livingliving area, not overcrowded: A dwelling unit is considered to provide a sufficient living area for the household members if there are fewer than three people per habitable room. Additional indicators of overcrowding have been proposed: area level indicators such as average in-house living area per person or the number of households per area; housing-unit level indicators such as the number of persons per bed or the number of children under five per room may also be viable. However, the number of persons per room has been shown to correlate with adverse health risks and is more commonly collected through household surveys (UN-HABITAT (1998), “Crowding and Health in Low Income Settlements of Guinea Bissau”, SIEP Occasional Series No. 1). • Fewer than 3 persons per room (minimum of four square meter)
Structural quality/durability of dwellings A house is considered as “durable” if it is built on a non-hazardous location and has a structure permanent and adequate enough to protect its inhabitants from the extremes of climatic conditions such as rain, heat, cold, and humidity: • Permanency of Structure • Permanent building material for the walls, roof and floor • Compliance of building codes • The dwelling is not in a dilapidated state • The dwelling is not in need of major repair • Location of house (hazardous) • The dwelling is not located on or near toxic waste • The dwelling is not located in a flood plain • The dwelling is not located on a steep slope • The dwelling is not located in a dangerous right of way (rail, highway, airport, power lines).
Security of tenure Secure Tenure is the right of all individuals and groups to effective protection by the State against arbitrary unlawful evictions: • Evidence of documentation that can be used as proof of secure tenure status • Either de facto or perceived/protection from forced evictions.
APPENDIX B: CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS 15
B-4 FRAMEWORK FOR LIVELIHOOD APPROACH
Figure B-1: Livelihood Approach Framework
Source: Majale, M., 2004, Improving access to services through an integrated approach (ITDG) , Intermediate Technology Development Group, Rugby. http://www.livelihoods.org/lessons/docs/IUHDapproach.doc
16 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS
All statistics are derived from the data collected by the questionnaire as presented in Appendix J. For the complete dataset, see the attached CD or contact the author.
I Population Characteristics II Migration III Settlement IV Infrastructure Combined V Water VI Sanitation VII Electricity VIII Telecommunications IX Solid Household Waste
The three selected neighbourhoods (see Appendix A Figures A-6 and A-7) are referred to as: - AT 2B (Alto Trujillo Barrio 2B); - EM VII (El Milagro Sector VII); - LE NJ (La Esperanza Nueva Jerusalén).
C-I POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Table I-1: Number of surveys carried out per neighbourhood Frequency Area Frequency Percent Area Percent AT 2B Barrio 2B 30 12.5 Invasion I (Industrial Area) 10 4.2 Invasion II (Squatter NW) 20 60 8.3 25.0 EM VII Sector VII 21 8.8 Villa Hermosa 16 6.7 Los Pedregales 15 6.3 La Florida 7 2.9 La Molina 24 10.0 Los Huertos 7 90 2.9 37.5 LE NJ NJ 1 38 15.8 NJ 2 42 17.5 NJ 3 10 90 4.2 37.5 Total 240 240 100.0 Note: See Appendix A Figure A-3 for the location of the respective settlements.
Table I-2: Gender of the surveyed respondents by neighbourhood N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Female 50 69 79 198 Male 10 21 11 42 Total 60 90 90 240
Table I-3: Household and respondent characteristics N=240 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Age respondent 16 74 3334.3234.32 11.607 People in household younger 15 years 0 6 1.69 1.198 Household size 1 12 4.10 1.616
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 17
Table I-4: Age of the respondents N=240 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 15 – 24 53 22.1 22.1 25 - 34 87 36.3 58.3 35 - 44 56 23.3 81.7 45 - 54 29 12.1 93.8 55 - 64 15 6.3 100.0 Total 240 100.0
Table I-5: Number of people under 15 years in the surveyed households N=240 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 0 30 12.5 12.5 1 91 37.9 50.4 2 71 29.6 80.0 3 28 11.7 91.7 4 12 5.0 96.7 5 7 2.9 99.6 6 1 .4 100.0 Total 240 100.0
Table I-6: Household size per neighbourhood N=240 EM VII LE NJ AT 2B Total Cumulative Percent 1 2.2 .8 .8 2 7.8 6.7 15.0 9.2 10.0 3 26.7 36.7 30.0 31.3 41.3 4 27.8 31.1 26.7 28.8 70.0 5 13.3 12.2 13.3 12.9 82.9 6 11.1 7.8 8.3 9.2 92.1 7 5.6 3.3 3.3 4.2 96.3 8 2.2 1.1 1.3 97.5 9 2.2 1.1 3.3 2.1 99.6 12 1.1 .4 100.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table I-7: Changes in household size since settlement in the current neighbourhood N=240 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Decrease 16 6.7 6.7 No change 165 68.8 75.4 Increase 43 17.9 93.3 Variations 16 6.7 100.0 Total 240 100.0
Table I-8: Household income of the respondents (Soles per month) N=240 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 0 - 125 13 5.4 5.4 125 - 250 58 24.2 29.6 250 - 500 114 47.5 77.1 500 - 750 33 13.8 90.8 750 + 22 9.2 100.0 Total 240 100.0
18 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table I-9: Grouped household income (Soles per month) for the selected neighbourhoods N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total
0 – 250 36.7% 22 25.6% 23 28.9% 26 29.6% 71 250 – 500 46.7% 28 42.2% 38 53.3% 48 47.5% 114 500 + 16.7% 10 32.2% 29 17.8% 16 22.9% 55 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 90 100.0% 90 100.0% 240 Note: 1. This relatively large figure is mainly due to the number of richer inhabitants in Villa Hermosa and to lesser extent Los Libertadores.
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 8.168(a) 4 .086 < 95% a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 13.75.
Table I-10: Changes in household income (Soles per month) for the different income groups
N=240 0 - 250 250 - 500 500 + Total Decrease 7.0% 5 5.3% 6 7.3% 4 6.3% 15 No change 43.7% 31 64.0% 73 58.2% 32 56.7% 136 Increase 1.4% 1 4.4% 5 9.1% 5 4.6% 11 Variations 47.9% 34 26.3% 30 25.5% 14 32.5% 78 Total 100.0% 71 100.0% 114 100.0% 55 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 14.938(a) 6 .021 95% a 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.52.
Table I-11: Household size by income group 0 - 250 250 - 500 500 + Total 1 1.4% 1 1.8% 1 .8% 2 2 16.9% 12 7.9% 9 1.8% 1 9.2% 22 3 36.6% 26 29.8% 34 27.3% 15 31.3% 75 4 21.1% 15 33.3% 38 29.1% 16 28.8% 69 5 or more 23.9% 17 28.9% 33 40.0% 22 30.0% 72 Total 100.0% 71 100.0% 114 100.0% 55 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 15.968(a) 8 .043 95%
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 19
C-II MIGRATION
Table II-1: Department of birth by neighbourhood - percentages N = 240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total La Libertad 71.7 53.9 61.1 61.1 Cajamarca 13.3 18.0 12.2 14.6 San Martin 1.7 9.0 7.8 6.7 Loreto 1.7 5.6 3.3 3.8 Amazonas 1.7 3.4 2.2 2.5 Lambayeque 1.7 2.2 3.3 2.5 Ancash 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.1 Lima 1.1 4.4 2.1 Piura 3.4 2.2 2.1 Junin 5.0 1.1 1.7 Cuzco 1.1 0.4 Puno 1.7 0.4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table II-2: Department of birth (grouped) per neighbourhood - percentages N = 240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total La Libertad 71.7 54.4 61.1 61.3 Northern 20.0 41.1 31.1 32.1 Southern 8.3 4.4 7.8 6.7 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table II-3: Province of birth of those born in La Libertad by neighbourhood - percentages N = 147 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Trujillo 41.9 40.8 43.6 42.2 Otuzco 32.6 10.2 14.5 18.4 S Carrion 11.6 8.2 18.2 12.9 S de Chuco 9.3 12.2 7.3 9.5 Ascope 8.2 9.1 6.1 Gran Chimu 10.2 5.5 5.4 Julcan 2.3 1.8 1.4 Pataz 2.3 2.0 1.4 Bolivar 4.1 1.4 Pacasmayo 2.0 0.7 Viru 2.0 0.7 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table II-4: District of birth of those born in Trujillo Province by neighbourhood - percentages N = 61 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total La Esperanza 16.7 57.9 58.3 45.9 Trujillo 16.7 21.1 16.7 18.0 F de Mora 27.8 5.3 16.7 16.4 El Porvenir 27.8 5.3 4.2 11.5 Huanchaco 10.5 4.2 4.9 Moche 11.1 3.3 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
20 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table II-5: Department where respondent lived five years ago - percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total La Libertad 85.0 80.0 82.2 82.1 Cajamarca 6.7 7.8 3.3 5.8 San Martin 1.7 5.6 2.2 3.3 Lambayeque 3.3 4.4 2.9 Lima 3.3 4.4 2.5 Piura 1.7 2.2 1.3 Junin 1.7 1.1 0.8 Amazonas 1.1 0.4 Cuzco 1.1 0.4 Loreto 1.1 0.4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table II-6: Department of respondent directly before moving to current location - percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total La Libertad 98.3 81.1 86.7 87.5 Cajamarca 6.7 2.2 3.3 Lambayeque 3.3 3.3 2.5 San Martin 4.4 2.2 2.5 Lima 1.1 3.3 1.7 Piura 1.7 2.2 1.3 Amazonas 1.1 0.4 Ancash 1.1 0.4 Loreto 1.1 0.4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table II-7: Province of respondent directly before moving to current location - percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Trujillo 91.5 80.8 85.9 85.7 Gran Chimu 6.8 2.6 3.3 Otuzco 5.1 1.4 3.8 3.3 Ascope 5.5 1.3 2.4 S Carrion 1.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 S de Chuco 1.7 3.8 1.9 Bolivar 1.4 0.5 Viru 1.4 0.5 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table II-8: Districts and Populated Centres of respondent directly before moving to the current location by neighbourhood
N=180 AT2B EM VII LA NJ Total Outside Trujillo Province 10.0% 6 34.4% 31 25.6% 23 25.0% 60 Alto Trujillo 31.7% 19 0 1.1% 1 8.3% 20 El Milagro 3.3% 2 10.0% 9 1.1% 1 5.0% 12 La Esperanza 3.3% 2 28.9% 26 37.8% 34 25.8% 62 Other 51.7% 31 26.7% 24 34.4% 31 35.8% 86 Total 100.0% 54 100.0% 59 100.0% 67 100.0% 180
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 91.921(a) 8 .000 99% a 3 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.00.
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 21
Table II-9: Districts and Populated Centres directly before moving to current location - percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total La Esperanza 3.7 44.1 50.7 34.4 Trujillo 14.8 25.4 28.4 23.3 F de Mora 24.1 5.1 7.5 11.7 Alto Trujillo 35.2 1.5 11.1 El Porvenir 14.8 3.4 3.0 6.7 El Milagro 3.7 15.3 1.5 6.7 Moche 1.9 1.7 3.0 2.2 Laredo 3.4 1.5 1.7 VL Herrera 1.7 3.0 1.7 Huanchaco 1.9 0.6 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table II-10: Number of migration movements – Percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total 1 23.3 37.8 35.6 33.3 2 61.7 51.1 53.3 54.6 3 or more 15.0 11.1 11.1 12.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table II-11: Time (years) since moving to the current location N=240 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Under 1 141 58.8 58.8 Under 2 54 22.5 81.3 More than 2 45 18.8 100.0 Total 240 100.0
Table II-12: Time (years) since migration movements took place Mean 95% Confidence Interval of N t Sig. (2-tailed) Difference the Difference Lower Upper years 240 14.722 .000 1.55694 1.3486 1.7653 Previous movement 161 16.031 .000 10.920 9.57 12.26 First movement if 3+ 29 9.116 .000 20.241 15.69 24.79 First movement 240 14.383 .000 9.009 7.77 10.24 Notes: The different categories refer to the migration movements that one has made in his life: “Las movement” refers to the move to the current location; “Previous movement” refers to the one move before moving to the current location; “First movement if 3+” refers to the first move one has made only if there are any previous moves (and thus 3 or more migration movements); “First movement” refers to the first movement one has ever made in his lifetime, including all cases.
Table II-13: Income groups (Soles per month) by time (years) since last migration movement took place
N=240 Under 1 Under 2 More than 2 Total 0 - 250 26.2% 37 37.0% 20 31.1% 14 29.6% 71 250 - 500 49.6% 70 42.6% 23 46.7% 21 47.5% 114 500 + 24.1% 34 20.4% 11 22.2% 10 22.9% 55 Total 100.0% 141 100.0% 54 100.0% 45 100.0% 240
22 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 2.249(a) 4 .690 < 95% a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.31.
Table II-14: Reason for the settling in the current location
AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Own place (family before) 38.3% 23 43.3% 39 47.8% 43 43.8% 105 Own place (rented before) 43.3% 26 27.8% 25 24.4% 22 30.4% 73 Own place (other) 6.7% 4 3.3% 3 4.4% 4 4.6% 11 Work 8.3% 5 8.9% 8 13.3% 12 10.4% 25 Education 8.9% 8 4.4% 4 5.0% 12 Other 3.3% 2 7.8% 7 5.6% 5 5.8% 14 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 90 100.0% 90 100.0% 240
Table II-15: age groups by neighbourhoods
N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total 0 - 44 80.0% 48 73.3% 66 91.1% 82 81.7% 196 45 + 20.0% 12 26.7% 24 8.9% 8 18.3% 44 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 90 100.0% 90 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 9.647(a) 2 .008 99% a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11.00.
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 23
C-III SETTLEMENT
Table III-1: People known in the current location before moving to this location - percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total % None 78.3 44.4 65.6 60.8 Friends 10.0 34.4 21.1 23.3 Family 11.7 21.1 13.3 15.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table III-2: Received help with constructing by neighbourhood - percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total % None 58.3 63.3 68.9 64.2 Family 40.0 18.9 24.4 26.3 Paid workers 11.1 4.4 5.8 Friends 1.7 6.7 2.2 3.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table III-3: Construction material of the walls by neighbourhood - percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total % Adobe 31.7 75.6 38.9 50.8 Mats 68.3 17.8 57.8 45.4 Bricks 5.6 2.2 2.9 Other 1.1 1.1 .8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table III-4: Construction material of the floor by neighbourhood - percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total % Earth 96.7 87.8 95.6 92.9 Concrete 3.3 12.2 3.3 6.7 Other 1.1 .4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table III-5: Construction material of the roof by neighbourhood - percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total % Mats without earth 81.7 42.2 80.0 66.3 Mats with earth 11.7 27.8 6.7 15.8 Corrugated iron / eternity 5.0 26.7 8.9 14.6 Other 1.7 2.2 3.3 2.5 Concrete 1.1 1.1 .8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table III-6: Years of arrival (years) for those currently improving (Y/N) the house No Yes Total Under 1 61.9% 83 54.7% 58 58.8% 141 Under 2 20.1% 27 25.5% 27 22.5% 54 More than 2 17.9% 24 19.8% 21 18.8% 45 Total 100.0% 134 100.0% 106 100.0% 240
24 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 1.385(a) 2 .500 < 95% a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 19.88.
Table III-7: Current improvements made the different houses (grouped by material of the walls) Adobe or Bricks Mats Total Yes. expanding 20.9% 27 7.3% 8 14.7% 35 Yes. better walls 7.0% 9 28.4% 31 16.8% 40 Yes. other 20.2% 26 4.6% 5 13.0% 31 No. lack of money 32.6% 42 28.4% 31 30.7% 73 No. plot first 1.6% 2 22.9% 25 11.3% 27 No. other 17.8% 23 8.3% 9 13.4% 32 Total 100.0% 129 100.0% 109 100.0% 238
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 62.778(a) 5 .000 99% a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.37.
Table III-8: Construction materials of the floor by years since arrival in the current location
Under 1 Under 2 More than 2 Total Concrete .7% 1 11.1% 6 20.0% 9 6.7% 16 Earth 99.3% 140 87.0% 47 80.0% 36 92.9% 223 Other 1.9% 1 .4% 1 Total 100.0% 141 100.0% 54 100.0% 45 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 26.176(a) 4 .000 99% a 5 cells (55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .19.
Table III-9: Construction materials of the walls by years since arrival in the current location
Under 1 Under 2 More than 2 Total % Adobe 34.8 49 68.5 37 80.0 36 50.8 122 Mats 63.1 89 27.8 15 11.1 5 45.4 109 Bricks 1.4 2 1.9 1 8.9 4 2.9 7 Other .7 1 1.9 1 .8 2 Total % 100.0 141 100.0 54 100.0 45 100.0 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 49.753(a) 4 .000 99% a 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.32.
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 25
C-IV INFRASTRUCTURE COMBINED
Table IV-1: Most important problems mentioned by the respondents Problem 1 Problem 2 Problem 3 Combined Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Total # Total % Water 60.4 145 15.0 36 10.8 26 207 86.2 Sanitation 3.3 8 15.0 36 5.8 14 58 24.1 Electricity 10.4 25 24.6 59 1.3 3 87 36.3 Waste 1.7 4 .8 2 .4 1 7 2.9 Telecom 5.0 12 12 5 Other 24.2 58 3.3 8 66 27.5 Total 100.0 240 58.8 141 23.3 56 437 Missing 41.3 99 76.7 184 Total 100.0 240 100.0 240 100.0 240
Table IV-2: Grouped problems as experienced by the respondents N=240 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Infrastructure Services 164 68.3 68.3 Other 44 18.3 18.3 Combination 32 13.3 13.3 Total 240 100.0 100.0
Table IV-3: Quality of the services as perceived by the respondents 95% Confidence Interval of Mean the Difference N t Sig. (2-tailed) Difference lower upper Internet 57 18.881 .000 1.702 1.52 1.88 Telephone 222 31.513 .000 1.986 1.86 2.11 Waste 166 24.517 .000 2.386 2.19 2.58 Sanitation 240 58.040 .000 4.213 4.07 4.36 Water 240 40.671 .000 3.238 3.08 3.39 Note: A five point scale is used, where 1=very good, 2=good, 3=normal, 4=poor, 5=very poor.
Table IV-4: Value for money of the services as perceived by the respondents Mean N Statistic Std. Error Std. Deviation Variance Water 192 3.53 .091 1.257 1.580 Electricity 98 3.64 .113 1.115 1.242 Waste disposal 92 3.36 .113 1.085 1.178 Telephone 222 3.36 .083 1.236 1.527 Internet 57 2.46 .146 1.103 1.217 Note: A five point scale is used, where 1=very cheap, 2=cheap, 3=normal, 4=expensive, 5=very expensive.
26 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
C-V WATER
Table V-1: Type of water supply for the selected neighbourhoods
N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Public basin 90.0% 54 21.1% 19 2.2% 2 31.3% 75 Public tap 20.0% 18 50.0% 45 26.3% 63 Water truck 1.1% 1 41.1% 37 15.8% 38 Tricycle 53.3% 48 20.0% 48 Other 10.0% 6 4.4% 4 6.7% 6 6.7% 16 Total % 100.0% 60 100.0% 90 100.0% 90 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 269.733(a) 4 .000 99% a 1 cells (6.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.00.
Table V-2: Quality of the different types of water supply as perceived by the respondents
Public basin Public tap Water truck Tricycle Other Total Very Poor 6.7% 5 17.5% 11 2.6% 1 12.5% 6 18.8% 3 10.8% 26 Poor 20.0% 15 28.6% 18 23.7% 9 22.9% 11 6.3% 1 22.5% 54 Normal 6.7% 5 9.5% 6 7.9% 3 18.8% 9 12.5% 2 10.4% 25 Good 54.7% 41 39.7% 25 42.1% 16 35.4% 17 50.0% 8 44.6% 107 Very Good 12.0% 9 4.8% 3 23.7% 9 10.4% 5 12.5% 2 11.7% 28 Total 100.0% 75 100.0% 63 100.0% 38 100.0% 48 100.0% 16 100.0% 240
N=240 Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 25.341(a) 16 .064 < 95% a 7 cells (28.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.67.
Table V-3: Household water usage in litres per day N=240 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Water use 9 360 84.19 55.817
Table V-4: Monthly household water usage (litres) for the different types of water supply 95% Confidence Interval of the Mean Difference N t Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper Truck 38 8.941 .000 111.1...671.3671.3 1.292.6 2.050.1 Basin 75 18.508 .000 222.2...274.0274.0 2.029.1 2.518.8 Tricycle 48 11.733 .000 222.2...999.8999.8 2.485.5 3.514.2 Tap 63 12.644 .000 333.3...067.7067.7 2.582.7 3.552.7 Other 16 3.879 .001 222.2...703.3703.3 1.217.7 4.188.9 Total 240 23.366 .000 222.2...560.7560.7 2.344.8 2.776.6
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 27
Table V-5: Water price per m 3 (Soles per month) for the different types of water supply 95% Confidence Interval of the Mean Difference N t Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper Tap 60 12.489 .000 2.11181 1.7735 2.4502 Basin 74 22.298 .000 8.35012 7.6038 9.0965 Tricycle 48 37.416 .000 14.99380 14.1876 15.8000 Other 9 2.696 .027 7.16693 1.0361 13.2977 All Paying 191 19.407 .000 .00800 .0072 .0088
Table V-6: Price of water (Soles per month) for the different types of water supply 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference N t Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Lower Upper Truck 38 000 Tap 63 18.841 .000 4.64524 4.1524 5.1381 Basin 75 16.078 .000 17.99080 15.7612 20.2204 Tricycle 49 12.385 .000 44.38347 37.1780 51.5889 Other (paying) 8 4.344 .003 14.58750 6.6470 22.5280 Total (paying) 191 13.795 .000 20.59398 17.6492 23.5388
Table V-7: Costs of water as a percentage of income per type water supply 95% Confidence Interval of N=192 Mean the Difference N t Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper Tap 60 13.411 .000 111.1...21832183 1.037 1.400 Basin 74 11.781 .000 444.4...82538253 4.009 5.642 Tricycle 48 6.197 .000 111111.11 ...41784178 7.711 15.124 Total 191 9.420 .000 555.5...30003000 4.190 6.410
Table V-8: Perceived value for money for the different types of water supply M=192 Public basin Public tap Tricycle Other Total Very Cheap 1.3% 1 13.3% 8 4.7% 9 Cheap 14.7% 11 43.3% 26 4.2% 2 33.3% 3 21.9% 42 Normal 20.0% 15 21.7% 13 14.6% 7 33.3% 3 19.8% 38 Expensive 30.7% 23 15.0% 9 25.0% 12 11.1% 1 23.4% 45 Very Expensive 33.3% 25 6.7% 4 56.3% 27 22.2% 2 30.2% 58 Total 100.0% 75 100.0% 60 100.0% 48 100.0% 9 100.0% 192
N=192 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 63.817(a) 12 .000 99% a 8 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .42.
Table V-9: changes in price by neighbourhood
N=189 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Decrease 4.4% 2 1.1% 2 No change 67.2% 39 65.1% 56 84.4% 38 70.4% 133 Increase 31.0% 18 14.0% 12 8.9% 4 18.0% 34 Variations 1.7% 1 20.9% 18 2.2% 1 10.6% 20 Total 100.0% 58 100.0% 86 100.0% 45 100.0% 189
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 32.397(a) 6 .000 99% a 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .48.
28 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table V-10: Availability of water (hours available) N=176 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 1.0 5 2.1 7.8 1.5 12 5.0 18.8 2.0 21 8.8 32.8 2.5 2 .8 3.1 3.0 5 2.1 7.8 4.0 3 1.3 4.7 4.5 1 .4 1.6 5.0 2 .8 3.1 6.0 5 2.1 7.8 7.0 4 1.7 6.3 8.0 2 .8 3.1 10.0 1 .4 1.6 12.0 1 .4 1.6 Total 64 26.7 100.0 Missing 176 73.3 Total 240 100.0
Table V-11: Availability of water (days available) N=240 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 1 4 1.7 1.7 2 36 15.0 16.7 3 3 1.3 17.9 4 42 17.5 35.4 5 32 13.3 48.8 6 22 9.2 57.9 7 101 42.1 100.0 Total 240 100.0
Table V-12: Availability of water (grouped days) by type of water supply Public basin Public tap Water truck Tricycle Other Total 1 - 3 days 5.3% 4 100.0% 38 6.3% 1 17.9% 43 4 - 6 days 81.3% 61 42.9% 27 50.0% 8 40.0% 96 7 days 13.3% 10 57.1% 36 100.0% 48 43.8% 7 42.1% 101 Total 100.0% 75 100.0% 63 100.0% 38 100.0% 48 100.0% 16 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 309.982(a) 8 .000 99% a 1 cells (6.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.87.
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 29
Table V-13: Actions taken upon arrival by the respondents to improve the supply of water N=240 Frequency Percent installed tubes / built reservoir 42 17.5 contacted president 41 17.1 contacted Sedalib 17 7.1 contacted other authority 11 4.6 asked other block 12 5.0 contacted vendor 37 15.4 other 6 2.5 none 74 30.8 Total 240 100.0
Table V-14: Planned actions to be taken by the respondents to improve the supply of water N=240 Frequency Percent Talk with president 24 10.0 Talk with mayor/authorities 21 8.8 Visit Sedalib 30 12.5 Buy more storage 27 11.3 Construct basin 7 2.9 Other 16 6.7 None 115 47.9 Total 240 100.0
Table V-15: Planned changes to be taken by the respondents for the selected neighbourhoods - Crosstabulation N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Visit president/ authorities/ Sedalib Count 5 36 34 75 Adjusted Residual ---4.4-4.44.44.4 2.32.32.3 1.7 Get more storage Count 8 10 9 27 Adjusted Residual .6 -.1 -.5 Construct basin Count 0 2 5 7 Adjusted Residual -1.6 -.5 1.9 Other Count 0 8 8 16 Adjusted Residual ---2.4-2.42.42.4 1.1 1.1 None Count 47 34 34 115 Adjusted Residual 5.45.45.4 ---2.4-2.42.42.4 ---2.4-2.42.42.4 Total Count 60 90 90 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 38.701(a) 8 .000 99% a 4 cells (26.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.75.
Table V-16: Planned actions to be taken by the respondents for the different types of water supply used N=240 Public basin Public tap Water truck Tricycle Other Total Visit president/authorities/Se 18.7% 46.0% 34.2% 31.3% 25.0% 31.3% dalib Get more storage 10.7% 3.2% 21.1% 14.6% 12.5% 11.3% Construct basin 13.2% 4.2% 2.9% Other 11.1% 7.9% 10.4% 6.3% 6.7% None 70.7% 39.7% 23.7% 39.6% 56.3% 47.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
30 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 56.888(a) 16 .000 99% a 11 cells (44.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .47.
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 31
C-VI SANITATION
Table VI-1: Type of sanitation used for the selected neighbourhoods AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Latrine 5.0% 3 54.4% 49 18.9% 17 28.8% 69 Cesspit 16.7% 10 6.7% 6 17.8% 16 13.3% 32 Open field 71.7% 43 36.7% 33 56.7% 51 52.9% 127 Other 6.7% 4 2.2% 2 6.7% 6 5.0% 12 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 90 100.0% 90 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 51.255(a) 6 .000 99% a 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.00.
Table VI-2: Type of sanitation used for the different types of settlements Squatter Formalised Total Latrine 21.9% 34 41.2% 35 28.8% 69 Cesspit 7.7% 12 23.5% 20 13.3% 32 Open field 62.6% 97 35.3% 30 52.9% 127 Other 7.7% 12 5.0% 12 Total 100.0% 155 100.0% 85 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 31.635(a) 3 .000 99% a 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.25.
Table VI-3: Quality of the sanitation as perceived by the users N=240 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Quality 1 5 4.21 1.124 Note: A five point scale is used, where 1=very good, 2=good, 3=normal, 4=poor, 5=very poor.
Table VI-4: Quality of the different types of sanitation used – Crosstabulation N=240 Latrine Cesspit Open field Other Latrine Very good Count 4 0 0 0 4 Adjusted Residual 333.3...2222 -.8 ---2-222....1111 -.5 Good Count 16 8 6 3 33 Adjusted Residual 222.2...7777 222.2...0000 ---4-444....3333 1.2 Normal Count 1 4 1 2 8 Adjusted Residual -1.0 333.3...1111 ---2-222....3333 222.2...6666 Poor Count 21 9 23 5 58 Adjusted Residual 1.4 .6 ---2-222....3333 1.5 Very poor Count 27 11 97 2 137 Adjusted Residual ---3-333....6666 ---2-222....8888 666.6...4444 ---2-222....9999 Total Count 69 32 127 12 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 66.909(a) 12 .000 99% a 11 cells (55.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .20.
32 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table VI-5: Main problem concerning sanitation as perceived by the respondents by sanitation type - percentages Latrine Cesspit Open field Other Total None 13.0 12.5 3.1 8.3 7.5 Dangerous 52.8 27.9 Contamination 46.4 15.6 13.4 22.5 Unhygienic 27.5 43.8 7.1 16.7 18.3 Distance 3.1 19.7 58.3 13.8 Lots of work 11.6 25.0 8.3 7.1 Other 1.4 3.9 8.3 2.9 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 176.837(a) 18 .000 99% 14 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .35.
Table VI-6: Main problem concerning sanitation by neighbourhood - percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total None 3.3 10.0 7.8 7.5 Dangerous 41.7 16.7 30.0 27.9 Contamination 18.3 28.9 18.9 22.5 Unhygienic 11.7 26.7 14.4 18.3 Distance 11.7 7.8 21.1 13.8 Lots of work 10.0 6.7 5.6 7.1 Other 3.3 3.3 2.2 2.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table VI-7: Actions taken upon arrival to improve sanitation per neighbourhood - percentages N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Constructed myself 15.0 7.8 12.2 11.3 Contacted neighbourhood representative 5.0 20.0 10.0 12.5 Contacted someone else 3.3 10.0 6.7 7.1 Other 4.4 1.1 2.1 None 76.7 57.8 70.0 67.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 17.448(a) 8 .026 95% a 4 cells (26.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.25.
Table VI-8: Planned actions to be taken by the respondents per neighbourhood - percentages AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Yes. construct myself 18.3 41.1 45.6 37.1 Yes. ask representative to take action 10.0 10.0 7.8 9.2 Yes. look for help from institution(s) 30.0 14.4 22.2 21.3 No. plot first 23.3 5.6 7.9 No. wait for NGO's 11.7 5.6 8.9 8.3 No. other or none 6.7 28.9 10.0 16.3 Total percentage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 33
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 54.131(a) 10 .000 99% a 1 cells (5.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.75.
Table VI-9: Planned actions to be taken by the respondent per sanitation type used - percentages Latrine Cesspit Open field Other Total Yes. construct myself 18.8 28.1 49.6 33.3 37.1 Yes. ask representative to take 15.9 9.4 6.3 9.2 action Yes. look for help from 27.5 25.0 17.3 16.7 21.3 institution(s) No. plot first 11.8 33.3 7.9 No. wait for NGOs 11.6 18.8 3.9 8.3 8.3 No. other 26.1 18.8 11.0 8.3 16.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table VI-10: Planned actions to be taken by the respondent per sanitation type used - percentages - Crosstabulation Latrine Cesspit Open field Other Total Yes, construct myself Count 13 9 63 4 89 Adjusted Residual ---3.7-3.73.73.7 -1.1 4.34.34.3 -.3 Yes, ask representative to take action Count 11 3 8 0 22 Adjusted Residual 2.32.32.3 .0 -1.6 -1.1 Yes, look for help from institution(s) Count 19 8 22 2 51 Adjusted Residual 1.5 .6 -1.6 -.4 No, plot first Count 0 0 15 4 19 Adjusted Residual ---2.9-2.92.92.9 -1.8 2.42.42.4 3.3 No, wait for NGOs Count 8 6 5 1 20 Adjusted Residual 1.2 2.3 ---2.6-2.62.62.6 .0 No, other Count 18 6 14 1 39 Adjusted Residual 2.62.62.6 .4 ---2.3-2.32.32.3 -.8 Total Count 69 32 127 12 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 55.575(a) 15 .000 99% a 9 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .95.
34 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
C-VII ELECTRICITY
Table VII-1: Type of electricity supply used for the selected neighbourhoods N=240 AT 2B EM VII LA NJ Total Yes. definitive 14.4% 13 40.0% 36 20.4% 49 Yes. provisional 5.0% 3 26.7% 24 8.9% 8 14.6% 35 Clandestine 13.3% 8 6.7% 6 5.8% 14 No 81.7% 49 58.9% 53 44.4% 40 59.2% 142 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 90 100.0% 90 100.0% 240
Table VII-2: Value for money as experienced by the respondents for the different types of electricity supply N=98 Definitive Provisional Clandestine Total Very cheap 4.1% 2 2.9% 1 7.1% 1 4.1% 4 Cheap 18.4% 9 2.9% 1 7.1% 1 11.2% 11 Normal 28.6% 14 25.7% 9 28.6% 4 27.6% 27 Expensive 32.7% 16 31.4% 11 21.4% 3 30.6% 30 Very expensive 16.3% 8 37.1% 13 35.7% 5 26.5% 26 Total 100.0% 49 100.0% 35 100.0% 14 100.0% 98
N=98 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 9.855(a) 8 .275 95% a 8 cells (53.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .45.
Table VII-3: Price (Soles per month) of the supply of electricity N=98 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Price 3 50 19.91 10.812
Table VII-4: Price of electricity as a percentage of the income per electricity supply 95% Confidence Interval of Mean the Difference t N Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper Definitive 11.184 49 .000 555.5...66786678 4.649 6.687 Provisional 6.335 35 .000 333.3...73627362 2.538 4.935 Clandestine 3.896 14 .002 333.3...03100310 1.350 4.712 Total 12.717 98 .000 444.4...60126012 3.883 5.319
Table VII-5: Compared means for the price (Soles/month) of the different types of electricity supply – Sample T-test 95% Confidence Interval of Mean the Difference N=98 t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference lower upper Definitive 17.793 48 .000 23.99592 21.2844 26.7075 Provisional 9.076 34 .000 17.88857 13.8829 21.8942 Clandestine 8.655 13 .000 10.64286 7.9862 13.2995
Table VII-6: Value for money as experienced by the respondents N=98 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Price 1 5 3.64 1.115 Note: A five point scale is used, where 1=very cheap, 2=cheap, 3=normal, 4=expensive, 5=very expensive.
Table VII-7:– Value for money experienced by the respondents for the different types of electricity supply - Sample T-test
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 35
95% Confidence Interval of Mean the Difference N=98 t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference 1 lower upper Definitive 21.642 48 .000 3.38776 3.0730 3.7025 Provisional 23.167 34 .000 3.97143 3.6230 4.3198 Clandestine 10.972 13 .000 3.71429 2.9829 4.4456 Note: A five point scale is used, where 1=very cheap, 2=cheap, 3=normal, 4=expensive, 5=very expensive.
Table VII-8: Months since electricity is delivered to the household N=98 Frequency Percent 0 - 6 months 56 23.3 7 - 12 months 33 13.8 13 - 24 months 6 2.5 24 + months 3 1.3 Total 98 40.8 System 142 59.2 Total 240 100.0
Table VII-9: Time since settlement in the current location and the time that electricity has been delivered to the household Electricity since
Years last settled 0 - 6 months 7 - 12 months 13 - 24 months 24 + months Total < 1 24 6 1 1 32 < 2 21 9 1 31 < 3 5 8 1 1 15 < 4 2 2 4 < 5 3 1 4 < 6 1 2 1 1 5 < 7 5 1 6 < 9 1 1
Table VII-10: Time that the household is connected by type of electricity supply N=98 Yes, definitive Yes, provisional Clandestine 0 - 6 months 20 23 13 7 - 12 months 25 7 1 13 - 24 months 3 3 24 + months 1 2
Table VII-11: Regularity of payment of the respondent N=98 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Always 74 30.8 75.5 Always, with delay 9 3.8 9.2 Most of the times 15 6.3 15.3 Sometimes 0 0.0 0.0 Never 0 00 0.0 Total 98 40.8 100.0 Missing 142 59.2 Total 240 100.0
36 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table VII-12: Regularity of payment of the respondent N=98 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Payment 1 3 1.40 .743 Note: A five point scale is used; where 1=always, 2=always, with delay, 3=most of the times, 4=sometimes and 5=never. The maximum value of 3 indicates that category 4 and 5 did not appear in the responses.
Table VII-13: Failure (times per month) of the definitive connections N=49 Frequency Percent Valid Percent 0.00 13 5.4 26.5 1.00 6 2.5 12.2 2.00 8 3.3 16.3 3.00 3 1.3 6.1 4.00 7 2.9 14.3 6.00 4 1.7 8.2 7.00 1 .4 2.0 8.00 1 .4 2.0 12.00 3 1.3 6.1 20.00 1 .4 2.0 36.00 2 .8 4.1 Total 1 49 20.4 100.0 Missing 191 79.6 Total 240 100.0 Note: The low number of total responses is due to the exclusion of those that receive the service only for a short period of time or otherwise failed to answer the corresponding question appropriately.
Table VII-14: Regularity of payment by the perceived value for money N=98 Very cheap Cheap Normal Expensive Very expensive Always 3 8 22 21 19 Always, with delay 1 1 5 2 Most of the times 1 2 3 4 5
Table VII-15: Regularity of payment for the different types of electricity supply N=98 Always Always, with delay Most of the times Yes, definitive 30 5 14 Yes, provisional 30 4 1 Clandestine 14
Table VII-16: Actions taken upon arrival by the respondents for the selected neighbourhoods N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Went to Hidrandina 3.3% 2 26.7% 24 18.9% 17 17.9% 43 Went to president 11.7% 7 35.6% 32 21.1% 19 24.2% 58 Stole electricity 10.0% 9 3.8% 9 Other 38.3% 23 18.9% 17 12.2% 11 21.3% 51 None 46.7% 28 18.9% 17 37.8% 34 32.9% 79 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 90 100.0% 90 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 56.474(a) 8 .000 99% a 3 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.25.
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 37
Table VII-17: Actions taken upon arrival by the respondents for the different types of electricity supply N=240 Yes. definitive Yes. provisional Clandestine No Total Went to Hidrandina 40.8% 20 25.7% 9 21.4% 3 7.7% 11 17.9% 43 Went to president 14.3% 7 37.1% 13 26.8% 38 24.2% 58 Stole electricity 12.2% 6 5.7% 2 7.1% 1 3.8% 9 Other 4.1% 2 20.0% 7 42.9% 6 25.4% 36 21.3% 51 None 28.6% 14 11.4% 4 28.6% 4 40.1% 57 32.9% 79 Total 100.0% 49 100.0% 35 100.0% 14 100.0% 142 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 66.110(a) 12 .000 99% a 7 cells (35.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .53.
Table VII-18: Status (Squatter settlement Y/N) * Actions upon arrival - Crosstabulation N=240 Went to Hidrandina Went to president Stole electricity Other None Total Squatter Count 21 36 7 35 56 155 Adjusted Residual ---2.4-2.42.42.4 -.5 .8 .7 1.4 Formalised Count 22 22 2 16 23 85 Adjusted Residual 2.42.42.4 .5 -.8 -.7 -1.4 Total Count 43 58 9 51 79 240
Table VII-19: Actions taken upon arrival by the time since settlement (years) Under 1 Under 2 More than 2 Total Went to Hidrandina 12.8% 18 14.8% 8 37.8% 17 17.9% 43 Went to president 24.8% 35 25.9% 14 20.0% 9 24.2% 58 Stole electricity 2.1% 3 3.7% 2 8.9% 4 3.8% 9 Other 22.7% 32 25.9% 14 11.1% 5 21.3% 51 None 37.6% 53 29.6% 16 22.2% 10 32.9% 79 Total 100.0% 141 100.0% 54 100.0% 45 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 22.409(a) 8 .004 99% a 2 cells (13.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.69.
Table VII-20: Planned actions to be taken by respondents for the selected neighbourhoods AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Yes. talk to Hidrandina / 1.7% 1 7.8% 7 7.8% 7 6.3% 15 authorities Yes. visit president / reunions 6.7% 4 14.4% 13 7.8% 7 10.0% 24 Yes. save/pay 6.7% 4 28.9% 26 10.0% 9 16.3% 39 Yes. get clandestine 3.3% 2 1.1% 1 5.6% 5 3.3% 8 connection Yes. other 2.2% 2 .8% 2 No 81.7% 49 45.6% 41 68.9% 62 63.3% 152 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 34.094(a) 10 .000 99% a 7 cells (38,9%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,50.
38 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
C-VIII TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Table VIII-1: Type of telephone connection for the selected neighbourhood N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Landline 5.6% 5 3.3% 3 3.3% 8 Cell phone 26.7% 16 44.4% 40 34.4% 31 36.3% 87 None 73.3% 44 50.0% 45 62.2% 56 60.4% 145 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 90 100.0% 90 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 9.923(a) 4 .042 95% a 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.00.
Table VIII-2: Type of telephone connection by electricity connection (Y/N) N=240 Connected Not connected Total Landline 8.4% 8 3.3% 8 Cell phone 91.6% 87 36.3% 87 None 100.0% 145 60.4% 145 Total 100.0% 95 100.0% 145 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 14.965(a) 2 .001 99% a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.27.
Table VIII-3: Electricity connection for the different types of telephone connection - Crosstabulation N=240 Landline Cell phone None Total Yes. definitive Count 4 20 25 49 Adjusted Residual 2.12.12.1 .7 -1.5 Yes. provisional Count 4 13 18 35 Adjusted Residual 2.92.92.9 .1 -1.2 Clandestine Count 0 7 7 14 Adjusted Residual -.7 1.1 -.8 No Count 0 47 95 142 Adjusted Residual ---3.5-3.53.53.5 -1.2 2.52.52.5 Total Count 8 87 145 240
Table VIII-4: Age of the respondents for the different types of telephone connection N=240 Landline Cell phone None Total 0 - 44 62.5% 5 87.4% 76 79.3% 115 81.7% 196 45 + 37.5% 3 12.6% 11 20.7% 30 18.3% 44 Total 100.0% 8 100.0% 87 100.0% 145 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 4.382(a) 2 .112 < 95% a 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.47.
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 39
Table VIII-5: Household income by telephone connection (Y/N) N=240 Yes No Total 0 - 250 23.2% 22 33.8% 49 29.6% 71 250 - 500 47.4% 45 47.6% 69 47.5% 114 500 + 29.5% 28 18.6% 27 22.9% 55 Total 100.0% 95 100.0% 145 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 5.145(a) 2 .076 < 95% a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 21.77.
Table VIII-6: Quality as perceived by the respondents per telephone connection N=222 Landline Cell phone None Total Very good 37.5% 3 42.5% 37 22.8% 29 31.1% 69 Good 37.5% 3 42.5% 37 57.5% 73 50.9% 113 Normal 25.0% 2 5.7% 5 8.7% 11 8.1% 18 Poor 6.9% 6 9.4% 12 8.1% 18 Very poor 2.3% 2 1.6% 2 1.8% 4 Total 100.0% 8 100.0% 87 100.0% 127 100.0% 222
N=222 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 13.962(a) 8 .083 < 95% a 7 cells (46.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.
Table VIII-7: Use of the telephone services (people called) for the selected neighbourhoods N=222 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Family 92.6% 50 84.7% 72 85.5% 71 86.9% 193 Friends 1.9% 1 1.2% 1 2.4% 2 1.8% 4 Work 5.6% 3 11.8% 10 10.8% 9 9.9% 22 Other 2.4% 2 1.2% 1 1.4% 3 Total 100.0% 54 100.0% 85 100.0% 83 100.0% 222
Table VIII-8: Type of settlement for those making phone calls (Y/N) Calls made N=240 Yes No Total Invasion 66.2% 147 44.4% 8 64.6% 155 Formalised 33.8% 75 55.6% 10 35.4% 85 Total 100.0% 222 100.0% 18 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 3.450(a) 1 .063 < 95% a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.38.
40 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table VIII-9: Neighbourhoods where the different types of telephone connection are used- Crosstabulation N=240 Landline Cell phone None Total AT 2B Count 0 16 44 60 Adjusted Residual -1.7 -1.8 2.42.42.4 EM VII Count 5 40 45 90 Adjusted Residual 1.5 2.02.02.0 ---2.6-2.62.62.6 LE NJ Count 3 31 56 90 Adjusted Residual .0 -.5 .4 Total Count 8 87 145 240
Table VIII-10: Electricity connection (Y/N) for the different types of telephone connection N=240 Landline Cell phone None Total Yes 100.0% 8 46.0% 40 34.5% 50 40.8% 98 No 54.0% 47 65.5% 95 59.2% 142 Total 100.0% 8 100.0% 87 100.0% 145 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 14.965(a) 2 .001 99% a 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.27.
Table VIII-11: Income groups for the different telephone service used N=240 Landline Cell phone None Total 0 - 250 25.3% 22 33.8% 49 29.6% 71 250 - 500 37.5% 3 48.3% 42 47.6% 69 47.5% 114 500 + 62.5% 5 26.4% 23 18.6% 27 22.9% 55 Total 100.0% 8 100.0% 87 100.0% 145 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 11.066(a) 4 .026 95% a 3 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.83.
Table VIII-12: Quality as of the telephone service used perceived by the respondents N=222 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Quality 1 5 1.99 .939 Note: A five point scale is used, where 1=very good, 2=good, 3=normal, 4=poor, 5=very poor.
Table VIII-13: Value for money as experienced by the respondents for the various types of telephone service used Landline Cell phone None Total Very cheap 1.1% 1 2.4% 3 1.8% 4 Cheap 25.0% 2 39.1% 34 29.1% 37 32.9% 73 Normal 37.5% 3 18.4% 16 17.3% 22 18.5% 41 Expensive 12.5% 1 27.6% 24 16.5% 21 20.7% 46 Very expensive 25.0% 2 13.8% 12 34.6% 44 26.1% 58 Total 100.0% 8 100.0% 87 100.0% 127 100.0% 222
N=222 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Pearson Chi-Square 15.852(a) 8 .045 95% a 7 cells (46.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.
Table VIII-14: Changes in price as experienced by the respondents
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 41
N=222 Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Decrease 75 33.8 33.8 No change 129 58.1 91.9 Increase 18 8.1 100.0 Total 222 100.0
Table VIII-15: Telephone of connection used and changes in price - Crosstabulation N=222 Decrease No change Increase Total Landline Count 2 5 1 8 Adjusted Residual -.5 .3 .5 Cell phone Count 36 48 3 87 Adjusted Residual 1.9 -.7 ---2.0-2.02.02.0 None Count 37 76 14 127 Adjusted Residual -1.7 .6 1.8 Total Count 75 129 18 222
Table VIII-16: Value for money as experienced by change is price. as perceived by the respondents N=222 Decrease No change Increase Total Very cheap 4.0% 3 .8% 1 1.8% 4 Cheap 49.3% 37 25.6% 33 16.7% 3 32.9% 73 Normal 9.3% 7 23.3% 30 22.2% 4 18.5% 41 Expensive 24.0% 18 17.1% 22 33.3% 6 20.7% 46 Very expensive 13.3% 10 33.3% 43 27.8% 5 26.1% 58 Total 100.0% 75 100.0% 129 100.0% 18 100.0% 222
N=222 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 27.810(a) 8 .001 99% a 6 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .32.
Table VIII-17: Changes to be taken by the respondents for the selected neighbourhoods N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total No 25.0% 15 34.4% 31 33.3% 30 31.7% 76 Get landline 50.0% 30 48.9% 44 44.4% 40 47.5% 114 Get cell phone 20.0% 12 12.2% 11 15.6% 14 15.4% 37 Get landline or cellphone 5.0% 3 3.3% 3 4.4% 4 4.2% 10 Other 1.1% 1 2.2% 2 1.3% 3 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 90 100.0% 90 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 4.558(a) 8 .804 < 95% a 6 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .75.
Table VIII-18: Type of internet access used for the selected neighbourhood N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Group Total No 55 65 63 183 Public cabins 5 22 26 53 Family 3 1 4 Total count 60 90 90 240
42 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table VIII-19: Internet quality and value for money as experienced by the respondents N=57 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Quality 1 1 4 1.70 .680 Price 2 1 5 2.46 1.103 Notes: 1. A five point scale is used, where 1=very good, 2=good, 3=normal, 4=poor, 5=very poor. 2. A five point scale is used, where 1=very cheap, 2=cheap, 3=normal, 4=expensive, 5=very expensive.
Table VIII-20: Value for money as experienced by the respondents using internet N=57 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Very cheap 11 4.6 19.3 Cheap 23 9.6 40.4 Normal 11 4.6 19.3 Expensive 10 4.2 17.5 Very expensive 2 .8 3.5 Total 57 23.8 100.0 System 183 76.3 Total 240 100.0
Table VIII-21: Access to internet for the different income groups N=240 0 - 250 250 - 500 500 + Total Yes 25.4% 18 16.7% 19 36.4% 20 23.8% 57 No 74.6% 53 83.3% 95 63.6% 35 76.3% 183 Total 100.0% 71 100.0% 114 100.0% 55 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 8.091(a) 2 .017 95% a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 13.06.
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 43
C-IX SOLID HOUSEHOLD WASTE
Table IX-1: Collection of solid household waste for the selected neighbourhoods AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Yes. by Municipality 51.7% 31 75.6% 68 67 69.2% 166 No 48.3% 29 24.4% 22 23 30.8% 74 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 90 100.0% 90 100.0% 240
Table IX-2: Time since settlement (years) for the collection of waste (Y/N) Yes. by Municipality No .0 27 37 1.0 57 27 2.0 40 7 3.0 19 2 4.0 4 1 5.0 7 6.0 5 7.0 6 9.0 1
Table IX-3: Quality of the waste collection as perceived by the respondents for the selected neighbourhood N=166 1 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Very good 22.6% 7 23.5% 16 29.9% 20 25.9% 43 Good 38.7% 12 45.6% 31 34.3% 23 39.8% 66 Normal 12.9% 4 20.6% 14 9.0% 6 14.5% 24 Poor 12.9% 4 7.4% 5 10.4% 7 9.6% 16 Very poor 12.9% 4 2.9% 2 16.4% 11 10.2% 17 Total 100.0% 31 100.0% 68 100.0% 67 100.0% 166 Note: 1. The total of 166 responses includes all the households of which the garbage is collected by the municipality, and none of those of which the garbage isn’t collected.
Table IX-4: Collection (times/week) the collection of household waste takes place per neighbourhood N=166 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total 1 93.3% 28 13.2% 9 22.4% 15 31.5% 52 2 6.7% 2 54.4% 37 73.1% 49 53.3% 88 3 26.5% 18 3.0% 2 12.1% 20 4 1.5% 1 .6% 1 7 5.9% 4 2.4% 4 Total 100.0% 30 100.0% 68 100.0% 67 100.0% 165
Table IX-5: Regularity of payment by the respondents for the selected neighbourhood N=240 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Free service 55.0% 33 27.8% 25 100.0% 90 61.7% 148 Always 25.0% 15 42.2% 38 22.1% 53 Always. with delay 2.2% 2 .8% 2 Most of the times 6.7% 4 6.7% 6 4.2% 10 Sometimes 5.0% 3 8.9% 8 4.6% 11 Never 8.3% 5 12.2% 11 6.7% 16 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 240
44 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table IX-6: Value for money as perceived by the paying respondents per neighbourhood N=92 1 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Very cheap 1.5% 1 - 1.1% 1 Cheap 14.8% 4 24.6% 16 - 21.7% 20 Normal 29.6% 8 43.1% 28 - 39.1% 36 Expensive 18.5% 5 15.4% 10 - 16.3% 15 Very expensive 37.0% 10 15.4% 10 - 21.7% 20 Total 100.0% 27 100.0% 65 - 100.0% 92 Note: 1. The total of 92 responses includes all the households that pay to the municipality for the collection of garbage, and none of those of which the garbage is not paid for.
Table IX-7: Location of the disposal of waste for those not receiving collection N=74 Frequency Percent Open field 36 48.6 Garbage dump 19 25.7 On street 5 6.8 Burn 11 14.9 Other 3 4.1 Total 1 74 100.0
Table IX-8: Satisfaction with the current situation concerning the disposal of household waste N=74 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Satisfaction 2 5 4.12 .891 Note: A five point scale is used, where 1=very satisfied, 2=satisfied, 3=normal, 4=unsatisfied, 5=very unsatisfied.
Table IX-9: Satisfaction with the current situation concerning the disposal of household waste by neighbourhood N=74 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Satisfied 6.9% 2 4.5% 1 13.0% 3 8.1% 6 Normal 20.7% 6 4.3% 1 9.5% 7 Unsatisfied 41.4% 12 45.5% 10 47.8% 11 44.6% 33 Very unsatisfied 31.0% 9 50.0% 11 34.8% 8 37.8% 28 Total 100.0% 29 100.0% 22 100.0% 23 100.0% 74 Note: 1. The total of 74 responses includes all the households of which the garbage is not collected by the municipality, and none of those of which the garbage is collected.
Table IX-10: Main problem indicated by the respondents for the selected neighbourhoods N=74 AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Contamination 82.8% 24 31.8% 7 52.2% 12 58.1% 43 flies 9.1% 2 13.0% 3 6.8% 5 diseases 6.9% 2 18.2% 4 13.0% 3 12.2% 9 dirt 6.9% 2 4.5% 1 4.1% 3 distance 9.1% 2 13.0% 3 6.8% 5 smell 3.4% 1 27.3% 6 8.7% 2 12.2% 9 Total 100.0% 29 100.0% 22 100.0% 23 100.0% 74
APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS 45
Table IX-11: Actions taken upon arrival by the respondents for the selected neighbourhoods AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Yes. asked president 12.2% 11 10.0% 9 8.3% 20 Yes. went to see institutions 17.8% 16 15.6% 14 12.5% 30 Yes. burnt it 28.3% 17 6.7% 6 4.4% 4 11.3% 27 Yes. other 5.0% 3 2.2% 2 3.3% 3 3.3% 8 None 66.7% 40 61.1% 55 66.7% 60 64.6% 155 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 39.164(a) 8 .000 99% a 3 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.00.
Table IX-12: Planned actions to be taken by the respondents for the selected neighbourhoods AT 2B EM VII LE NJ Total Visit municipality / mayor 23.3% 14 20.0% 18 31.1% 28 25.0% 60 Talk to president 1.7% 1 5.6% 5 5.6% 5 4.6% 11 Own actions 5.0% 3 5.6% 5 6.7% 6 5.8% 14 Other 8.3% 5 6.7% 6 2.2% 2 5.4% 13 No 61.7% 37 62.2% 56 54.4% 49 59.2% 142 Total 100.0% 60 100.0% 240
N=240 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Significance Pearson Chi-Square 7.428(a) 8 .491 < 95% a 7 cells (46.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.75.
46 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
APPENDIX D: POPULATION STATISTICS Table 1-1: Total population of urban and rural Peru, estimations and projections Total Urban Rural Rural % Urban %%% 1970 13,192,677 7,659,211 5,533,466 58.1 41.9 1975 15,161,146 9,380,263 5,780,883 61.9 38.1 1980 17,324,179 11,127,688 6,196,491 64.2 35.8 1985 19,515,785 12,947,022 6,568,763 66.3 33.7 1990 21,753,328 14,955,100 6,798,228 68.7 31.3 1995 23,836,867 16,933,353 6,903,514 71.0 29.0 2000 25,939,329 18,647,242 7,292,087 71.9 28.1 2005 27,946,774 20,296,436 7,650,338 72.6 27.4 2010 29,957,804 21,967,577 7,990,227 73.3 26.7 Note: These figures are based on samples and internationally agreed methods of estimations. Differences are especially larger after 1993, when the last census data was included in these estimations. This is especially influential on the ratio of urban-rural population, which was estimated to be around 76% and 24% respectively in 2007 according to the 2007 census. A further comparison is not yet possible, as these 2007 census data were not fully published and reviewed until this date. Source: INEI, 2002, Perú: Estimaciones y Proyecciones de Población Total, Urbana y Rural por Años Calendario y Edades Simples, 1970-2025 , Lima .
Table 1-2: Population growth of urban and rural Peru, estimations and projections Total Urban Rural Total % Urban % RurRuralal %al % 1970 - 1975 1,968,469 1,721,052 247,417 2.8 4.1 0.9 1975 - 1980 2,163,033 1,747,425 415,608 2.7 3.5 1.4 1980 - 1985 2,191,606 1,819,334 372,272 2.4 3.1 1.2 1985 - 1990 2,237,543 2,008,078 229,465 2.2 2.9 0.7 1990 - 1995 2,083,539 1,978,253 105,286 1.8 2.5 0.3 1995 - 2000 2,102,462 1,713,889 388,573 1.7 1.9 1.1 2000 - 2005 2,007,445 1,649,194 358,251 1.5 1.7 1.0 2005 - 2010 2,011,030 1,671,141 339,889 1.4 1.6 0.9 Note: See previous table. Source: INEI, 2002, Perú: Estimaciones y Proyecciones de Población Total, Urbana y Rural por Años Calendario y Edades Simples, 1970-2025 , Lima.
Table 2-1: Total population of Peru, census data Total Urban Rural Lima Other 31 cities Rest urban 1940 6,207,967 2,197,133 4,010,834 645,172 489,822 1,062,139 1961 9,906,746 4,698,178 5,208,568 1,845,910 1,109,272 1,742,996 1972 13,538,208 8,058,495 5,479,713 3,302,523 2,086,901 2,669,071 1981 17,005,210 11,091,923 5,913,287 4,573,227 3,222,589 3,296,107 1993 22,048,356 15,458,599 6,589,757 6,321,173 4,744,989 4,392,437 2005 26,152,265 19,421,901 6,730,364 Sources: INEI, 1995, Migraciones Internas en el Perú , Lima INEI, 2005, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima.
Table 2-2: Total population growth of Peru, census data Total UrUrUrbanUr banbanban Rural Lima Other 31 cities Rest urban 1940 - 1961 2.2 3.7 1.3 5.0 4.0 2.4
APPENDIX D: POPULATION STATISTICS 47
1961 - 1972 2.9 5.0 0.5 5.4 5.9 2.0 1972 - 1981 2.6 3.6 0.8 3.7 4.9 2.4 1981 - 1993 2.2 2.8 0.9 2.7 3.3 2.4 1993 - 2005 1.4 1.9 0.2 Sources: INEI, 1995, Migraciones Internas en el Perú , Lima INEI, 2005, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima.
Table 3: La Libertad – population by Census Year Total Increase Annual growth in % 1940 418,358 207,220 1.93 1961 625,578 199,707 2.55 1972 825,285 186,443 2.29 1981 1,011,728 275,655 2.03 1993 1,287,383 311,713 1.82 2005 1,599,096 Source: Gobierno Regional La Libertad, 2007, Region en Cifras , Trujillo.
Table 4: La Libertad – Urban and rural population change population InInIncreaseIn crease in population total urban rural urban % rural % Period urban rural urban % rural %%% 1940 395395395, 395 ,,,233233233233 122,177 273,056 30.9 69.1 1961 597597597, 597 ,,,925925925925 246,847 351,078 41.3 58.7 1940 - 1961 124,670 78,022 3.41 1.20 1972 799799799, 799 ,,,977977977977 473,465 326,512 59.2 40.8 1961 – 1972 226,618 - 24,566 6.10 -0.66 1981 982982982, 982 ,,,074074074074 628,209 353,865 64.0 36.0 1972 – 1981 154,744 27,353 3.19 0.90 1993 111, 1,,,270270270270,,,,261261261261 870,390 399,871 68.5 31.5 1981 – 1993 242,181 46,006 2.75 1.02 2005 111, 1,,,539539539539,,,,774774774774 1,141,651 398,123 74.1 25.9 1993 - 2005 271,261 -1,748 2.29 -0.04 Sources: Gobierno Regional La Libertad, 2007, Region en Cifras , Trujillo. INEI, 2005, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima.
Table 5-1: La Libertad – rural and urban population for the year 2005 according to the Regional Government Total Trujillo Ascope Bolivar Chepen Julcan Otuzco Pacasm. Pataz S Carrion S de Chuco Viru Gr. Chimu Total 1,559,096 794,652 121,179 18,226 74,726 36,803 92,487 97,593 69,123 132,476 59,743 70,386 31,702 Urban 73.0 97.0 87.0 36.5 77.0 13.5 28.0 88.1 18.4 29.3 29.2 36.0 20.0 Rural 27.0 3.0 13.0 63.5 23.0 86.5 72.0 11.9 81.6 70.7 70.8 64.0 80.0 Source: Gobierno Regional La Libertad, 2007, Region en Cifras , Trujillo.
Table 5-2: La Libertad – rural and urban population for the year 2005 according to the INEI Total Trujillo Ascope Bolivar Chepen Julcan Otuzco Pacasm. Pataz S Carrion S de Chuco Viru Gr. Chimu Total 1,539,774 765,171 116,684 17,550 71,954 35,438 89,056 93,973 66,559 127,562 57,526 67,775 30,526 Urban 74.1 97.4 87.5 33.0 81.5 13.4 22.2 92.0 24.6 23.3 34.4 69.9 19.9 Rural 25.9 2.6 12.5 67.0 18.5 86.6 77.8 8.0 75.4 76.7 65.6 30.1 80.1 Source: INEI, 2005, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima.
48 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table 6 -1: Trujillo Province – population per district Year Total Trujillo La Esper. El Porv. V Larco F de Mora Laredo Huanch. Moche Salav. Poroto Simbal 1993 597,315 247,028 105,361 80,698 42,169 35,806 28,019 19,935 22,020 8,278 4,401 3,600
1995 641,361 262,811 110,797 88,648 46,841 36,665 31,108 22,598 24,479 8,856 4,837 3,721 1996 658,841 266,930 114,205 91,852 48,967 36,910 32,489 24,044 25,583 9,075 5,026 3,760 1997 676,924 271,290 117,709 95,081 51,129 37,203 33,922 25,539 26,729 9,298 5,221 3,803 1998 695,279 275,691 121,249 98,313 53,312 37,538 35,398 27,076 27,911 9,522 5,421 3,848 1999 713,952 280,312 124,766 101,521 55,501 37,908 36,910 28,647 29,123 9,744 5,623 3,897 2000 732,592 284,949 128,204 104,677 57,678 38,307 38,446 30,241 30,355 9,961 5,828 3,946
2002 754,009 273,239 137,051 105,696 59,212 37,955 59,212 32,178 29,268 10,271 5,932 3,995 2003 767,339 275,593 140,103 107,879 60,829 38,280 60,829 33,380 29,836 10,476 6,094 4,040 2004 780,675 277,951 143,159 110,055 62,446 38,612 62,446 34,583 30,399 10,682 6,257 4,085 2005 794,050 280,316 146,217 112,252 64,068 38,931 64,068 35,788 30,973 10,888 6,420 4,129
2005 758,635 276,921 146,678 132,461 51,288 37,417 32,260 37,514 23,658 12,533 3,741 4,164 2006 777,294 281,196 150,593 137,686 52,415 37,855 ¹ 33.098 39,374 24,194 12,836 ¹ 3.838 ¹ 4.209 Notes and Sources: See table below.
Table 6-2: Trujillo Province – Population growth rates per district Year Total Trujillo La Esper. El Porv. V Larco F de Mora Laredo Huanch. Moche Salav. Poroto Simbal 1995-1996 2.72.72.7 1.6 3.1 3.6 4.5 0.7 4.4 6.4 4.5 2.5 3.9 1.0 1996-1997 2.72.72.7 1.6 3.1 3.5 4.4 0.8 4.4 6.2 4.5 2.5 3.9 1.1 1997-1998 2.72.72.7 1.6 3.0 3.4 4.3 0.9 4.4 6.0 4.4 2.4 3.8 1.2 1998-1999 2.72.72.7 1.7 2.9 3.3 4.1 1.0 4.3 5.8 4.3 2.3 3.7 1.3 1999-2000 2.62.62.6 1.7 2.8 3.1 3.9 1.1 4.2 5.6 4.2 2.2 3.6 1.3
2002-2003 1.81.81.8 0.9 2.2 2.1 2.7 0.9 2.7 3.7 1.9 2.0 2.7 1.1 2003-2004 1.71.71.7 0.9 2.2 2.0 2.7 0.9 2.7 3.6 1.9 2.0 2.7 1.1 2004-2005 1.71.71.7 0.9 2.1 2.0 2.6 0.8 2.6 3.5 1.9 1.9 2.6 1.1
2005-2006 2.52.52.5 1.5 2.7 3.9 2.2 1.2 ² 2,6 5.0 2.3 2.4 ² 2,6 ² 1,1 Notes: 1. The data for the districts Laredo, Poroto and Simbal for the year 2006 has been calculated by this author. The growth rate from the previous year (2004-2005) is applied to calculate the number. Since these concern districts of lesser absolute importance of population, the deviation due to wrong figures is limited. Furthermore, these districts are of lesser importance for this study, since both Poroto and Simbal are not part of the Trujillo Metropolitan Area. 2. The growth numbers for the districts Laredo, Poroto and Simbal are copied from the previous year. See previous footnote. 3. The data for the year 2005 Sedalib used the data from the National Census of 2005. For later years they use their own projections with 2005 as a base point. Sources: 1993: INEI, 1993, Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Población y IV de Vivienda , Lima. 1995 – 2000: INEI, 1999, Perú: Estimaciones de Población por Departamentos, Provincias y Distritos 1995-2000 (versión actualizada) , Lima. 2002 – 2005: Plandemetru, 2007, Trujillo en Cifras y Mapas, deducted from website MPT, Trujillo. http://www.munitrujillo.gob.pe/Trujilloencifrasymapas/paginas/menutotal.htm 2005 – 2006: Sedalib, 2006, Memoria Descriptiva del Sistema de Agua Potable CPM Alto Trujillo , Trujillo.
Table 6-3: Trujillo Province – Inter-census population growth rates per district Year Total Trujillo La Esperanza El Porvenir V Larco F de Mora Laredo Huanchaco Moche Salaverry Poroto Simbal 1993597,315 247,028 105,361 80,698 42,169 35,806 28,019 19,935 22,020 8,278 4,401 3,600 2005758,635 276,921 146,678 132,461 51,288 37,417 32,260 37,514 23,658 12,533 3,741 4,164 difference161,320 29,893 41,317 51,763 9,119 1,611 4,241 17,579 1,638 4,255 -660 564 Annual growth2.02.02.0 1.0 2.8 4.2 1.6 0.4 1.2 5.4 0.6 3.5 -1.3 1.2 Sources: INEI, 1993, Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Población y IV de Vivienda , Lima. INEI, 2005, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima.
APPENDIX D: POPULATION STATISTICS 49
Table 7: Number of plots per area formalized by Plandemetru District or Populated CentCentrererere Year of occupation Number of plots Formalized 111 Alto Trujillo 222 Barrio 1 1995 - 1996 663 458 Barrio 2 1995 - 1996 834 723 Barrio 3 1997 - 1998 857 598 Barrio 3A 1997 - 1998 877 877 Barrio 4 1997 - 1998 782 782 Barrio 5 1999 - 2000 719 614 Barrio 6 1999 - 2000 755 518 Barrio 7 2001 - 2002 305 169 Barrio 1A 2001 - 2006 1181 326 Barrio 2A 2001 - 2002 534 534 Barrio 5A 2003 - 2004 975 975 Barrio 6A 2003 - 2006 1000 587 Barrio 3B 2005 - 2006 700 0 Barrio 2B 2005 - 2006 400 0 Invasion 2B 2007 200 0 Invasion 4B 2007 450 0 Invasion '5B' 2007 300 0 Invasion '6B' 2007 300 0 Total 11832 7161
La Esperanza Nueva Jerusalén I 2001 - 2004 451 0 Nueva Jerusalén II 2006 - 2007 369 0 Nueva Jerusalén III 2007 80 0 Nuevo Indo-America 2000 - 2007 260 0 Las Palmeras 2000 - 2006 771 771 Invasion Las Palmeras 2007 130 0 Total 2061 771771771
Alto Salaverry Adita Zannier de Murgia 350 294 Alto Salaverry 657 162 Total 1007 456456456
El Milagro 333 Sector VII (incl Villa Hermosa) 2000 - 2002 440 0 Sector VIIA (los Huertos + los Pedregales) 2002 - 2007 355 0 Invasion La Molina 2006 - 2007 451 0 Total 333 1246 000
Total 16146 8388 Notes: 1. These data include the plots formalized by Plandemetru only. This means that all plots sold commercially are not included. Furthermore, the plots handled by local governments (municipalities) or COFOPRI are not included either. 2. For Alto Trujillo, data include all expansions since 1995. This is not the case for the other districts, where the data is taken after 2000 only. 3. The figures for El Milagro include only the numbers for the area that was surveyed. The total number of families settled since 2000 is expected to be slightly more than three times higher. This means that the total number of families that settled in El Milagro since 2000 is about 4.000. Source:
50 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Plandemetru, 2007, Provincial Municipality of Trujillo, Trujillo.
Table 8: Creation of Populated Centres (Centros Poblados) (Plandemetru, 2007) Populated Centre District Res. nr. Created 13. Alto Trujillo El Porvenir 150-02 19-09-2002 12. Barraza Laredo 130-02 31-07-2002 11. Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre Huanchaco 095-96 14-05-1996 10. Shirán Poroto 058-95 17-03-1995 9. Menocucho Laredo 17-94 24-01-1994 8. El Trópico Huanchaco 033-90 26-02-1990 7. Curva de Sun Moche 387-89 24-07-1989 6. Santo Domingo Laredo 169-86 23-04-1986 5. Villa del Mar Huanchaco 595-82 02-07-1982 4. Huanchaquito Huanchaco 3120-81 11-12-1981 2. Las Delicias Moche 2184-81 27-08-1981 3. Miramar (Alto Moche) Moche 2155-81 27-08-1981 1. El Milagro Huanchaco 1449-81 06-07-1981 Source: Plandemetru, 2007aa, Municipalidades de Centros Poblados menores de la Provincia de Trujillo , Trujillo. http://www.munitrujillo.gob.pe/ServiciosMunicipales/Sociales/paginas/ParticipacionVecinal_centrospoblados.htm
APPENDIX D: POPULATION STATISTICS 51
APPENDIX E: MIGRATION STATISTICS Table 1: Migrants as a share of the total population Population Migrants 111 % migrants 1972 13,538,208 2,485,532 18.4 1981 17,005,010 3,409,335 20.0 1993 22,048,356 4,534,545 20.6 Notes: A person is considered a migrant when he/she is not living in the department of origin at the respective year (census dates). Source: INEI, 1995, Migraciones Internas en el Perú , Lima
Table 2-1: Migration from 1976-1981 and 1988-1993 by department Inbound Outbound Absolute figures ‰ of total Absolute figures ‰ of total 1976 --- 1981 1988 --- 1993 1976 --- 1981 1988 --- 1993 1976 --- 1981 1988 --- 1993 1976 --- 1981 1988 --- 1993 Lima-Callao 362,338 602,426 37,3 40,1 197,180 250,756 20.3 16.7 Arequipa 60,400 88,027 6,2 5,9 47,970 66,847 4.9 4.4 La Libertad 40,946 80,368 4,2 5,3 54,377 65,722 5.6 4.4 San Martin 48,101 69,713 5,0 4,6 16,509 53,598 1.7 3.6 Junin 52,898 67,880 5,5 4,5 60,171 127,273 6.2 8.5 Lambayeque 36,148 64,952 3,7 4,3 43,397 66,046 4.5 4.4 Cusco 31,029 44,315 3,2 3,0 36,098 67,506 3.7 4.5 Ancash 31,503 43,424 3,2 2,9 61,054 88,410 6.3 5.9 Ucuyali 19,109 42,261 2,0 2,8 12,528 25,750 1.3 1.7 Tacna 24,225 40,802 2,4 2,7 12,808 17,516 1.3 1.2 Ica 26,948 39,785 2,5 2,6 38,150 49,437 3.9 3.3 Piura 32,690 39,553 3,4 2,6 47,420 74,885 4.9 5.0 Huanuco 27,429 37,034 2,8 2,5 25,286 53,581 2.6 3.6 Cajamarca 24,569 33,315 2,5 2,3 81,251 108,220 8.4 7.2 Puno 22,178 30,163 2,3 2,0 50,520 80,159 5.2 5.3 Loreto 16,891 28,583 1,7 1,9 22,934 37,628 2.4 2.5 Ayacucho 17,937 24,679 1,8 1,6 41,084 71,122 4.2 4.7 Tumbes 11,428 23,222 1,2 1,5 7,782 12,062 0.8 0.8 Amazonas 21,652 22,321 2,2 1,5 22,240 30,534 2.3 2.0 Moquequa 15,031 19,943 1,5 1,3 13,104 15,556 1.3 1.0 Apurimac 10,786 17,309 1,1 1,3 28,042 40,587 2.9 2.7 Pascp 15,553 17,055 1,6 1,1 19,681 37,779 2.0 2.5 Huancavelica 13,587 13,015 1,4 0,9 29,412 54,105 3.0 3.6 M. de Dios 8,018 12,347 0,8 0,8 2,396 7,413 0.3 0.5 Total 971971971,971 ,,,394394394394 111,1,,,502502502502,,,,492492492492 100,0 100,0 971971971,971 ,,,394394394394 111,1,,,502502502502,,,,492492492492 100100100.100 ...0000 101010010 000....0000 Source: INEI, 1995, Migraciones Internas en el Perú , Lima
Table 2-2: Inter-departmental migration flows for Trujillo in 1976-1981 Numbers Share of total population (‰) Inbound Outbound Balance Inbound Outbound Balance Coast 549,754 414,218 135,536 Lima-Callao 362,338 197,180 165,158 16.4 8.9 7.5 Tumbes 11,428 7,782 3,646 26.7 18.2 8.5 Piura 32,690 47,420 -14,730 6.9 10.0 -3.1 Lambayeque 36,148 43,397 -7,249 12.5 15.0 -2.5
APPENDIX E: MIGRATION STATISTICS 53
La Libertad 40,946 54,377 -13,431 9.9 13.1 -3.2 Ica 26,948 38,150 -11,202 14.2 20.2 -6.0 Moquequa 15,031 13,104 1,927 37.5 30.5 7.0 Tacna 24,225 12,808 11,417 41.2 21.2 20.0
Mountains 307307307,307 ,,,869869869869 480480480, 480 ,,,569569569569 ---172 -172172172,,,,702702702702 Cajamarca 24,569 81,251 -56,682 5.5 18.2 -12.7 Ancash 31,503 61,054 -29,551 8.9 17.2 -8.3 Huanuco 27,429 25,286 2,143 13.8 12.8 1.0 Pascp 15,553 19,681 -4,128 17.4 22.0 -4.6 Apurimac 10,786 28,042 -17,256 7.7 20.1 -12.4 Huancavelica 13,587 29,412 -15,825 9.2 19.9 -10.7 Ayacucho 17,937 41,084 -23,147 8.3 19.0 -10.7 Arequipa 60,400 47,970 12,430 20.1 15.9 4.2 Cusco 31,029 36,098 -5,069 8.6 10.0 -1.4 Puno 22,178 50,520 -28,344 5.8 13.3 -7.5 Junin 52,898 60,171 -7,273 14.7 16.7 -2.0
Amazon 113113113,113 ,,,771771771771 767676, 76 ,,,607607607607 373737, 37 ,,,164164164164 Amazonas 21,652 22,240 -588 20.7 21.3 -0.6 Loreto 16,891 22,934 -6,043 9.2 12.5 -3.3 San Martin 48,101 16,509 31,592 38.6 13.3 25.3 Madre de Dios 8,018 2,396 5,622 64.8 19.3 45.5 Ucuyali 19,109 12,528 6,581 24.1 15.8 8.3
Total 971971971,971 ,,,394394394394 971971971,971 ,,,394394394394 000 131313.13 ...5555 131313.13 ...5555 000.0...0000 Source: INEI, 1995, Migraciones Internas en el Perú , Lima
Table 2-3: Inter-departmental migration flows for Trujillo in 1998-1993 Numbers Share of total population (‰) Inbound Outbound Balance Inbound Outbound Balance Coast 911911911, 911 ,,,051051051051 551551551, 551 ,,,980980980980 359359359, 359 ,,,071071071071 Lima-Callao 602,426 250,756 351,670 20.0 8.3 11.7 Tumbes 23,222 12,062 11,160 36.7 19.1 17.6 Piura 39,553 74,885 -35,332 6.7 12.6 -5.9 Lambayeque 64,952 66,046 -1,094 16.5 16.8 -0.3 La Libertad 80,368 65,722 14,646 14.9 12.2 2.7 Ica 39,785 49,437 -9,652 14.0 19.8 -5.8 Moquequa 19,943 15,556 4,387 40.0 28.0 12.0 Tacna 40,802 17,516 23,286 45.8 19.7 26.1
Mountains 416416416, 416 ,,,216216216216 795795795, 795 ,,,589589589589 ---379 -379379379,,,,373373373373 Cajamarca 33,315 108,220 -74,905 6.2 13.9 -7.7 Ancash 43,424 88,410 -44,986 10.4 21.2 -10.8 Huanuco 37,034 53,581 -16,547 13.5 19.6 -6.1 Pascp 17,055 37,779 -20,724 17.2 38.0 -20.8 Apurimac 17,309 40,587 -23,278 10.7 25.0 -14.3 Huancavelica 13,015 54,105 -41,090 7.7 32.2 -24.5 Ayacucho 24,679 71,122 -46,443 11.4 32.9 -21.5 Arequipa 88,027 66,847 21,180 16.8 5.3 11.5 Cusco 44,315 67,506 -23,191 10.2 15.5 -5.3 Puno 30,163 80,159 -49,996 6.5 17.1 -10.6
54 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Junin 67,880 127,273 -59,393 15.0 28.1 -13.1
Amazon 175175175, 175 ,,,225225225225 154154154, 154 ,,,923923923923 202020, 20 ,,,302302302302 Amazonas 22,321 30,534 -8,213 16.0 21.9 -5.9 Loreto 28,583 37,628 -9,045 10.3 13.6 -3.3 San Martin 69,713 53,598 16,115 31.3 24.0 7.3 Madre de Dios 12,347 7,413 4,934 46.9 28.1 18.8 Ucuyali 42,261 25,750 16,511 33.9 22.2 11.0
Total 111,1,,,502502502502,,,,492492492492 111,1,,,502502502502,,,,492492492492 000 161616.16 ...0000 161616.16 ...0000 000.0...0000 Source: INEI, 1995, Migraciones Internas en el Perú , Lima
Table 2-4: Total inter-departmental migration flows for Trujillo Numbers Share of total population (‰) Inbound Outbound Balance Inbound Outbound Balance 1976 - 1981 40,946 54,377 -13,431 9.9 13.1 -3.2 1988 - 1993 80,368 65,722 14,646 14.9 12.2 2.7 Source: INEI, 1995, Migraciones Internas en el Perú , Lima
Table 3: Department of birth for the population of Peru in 1993 Department Cases %%% Lima 4,430,910 20.1 Cajamarca 1,652,073 7.5 Piura 1,568,391 7.1 Callao 1,565,794 7.1 Puno 1,329,238 6.0 La Libertad 1,320,230 6.0 Ancash 1,192,942 5.4 Junin 1,185,301 5.4 Lambayeque 915,968 4.2 Arequipa 846,180 3.8 Ayacucho 766,962 3.5 Loreto 742,705 3.4 Huanuco 729,553 3.3 Ica 595,235 2.7 Huancavelica 580,591 2.6 Apurimac 550,846 2.5 San Martin 474,024 2.1 Amazonas 337,412 1.5 Pasco 299,749 1.4 Ucuyali 240,945 1.1 Tacna 149,838 0.7 Tumbes 136,738 0.6 Moquequa 114,228 0.5 Madre de Dios 45,655 0.2 Foreign 52,702 0.2 No Response 223,385 1.0 Total 22,047,775 100.0 Source: INEI, 1993, Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Población y IV de Vivienda , Lima.
APPENDIX E: MIGRATION STATISTICS 55
Table 4: Place of birth (department) of the population of Trujillo Province in 1993 – summarized: Department Cases %%% La libertad 497,355 78.7 Cajamarca 47,408 7.5 Lima 18,702 3.0 Ancash 17,035 2.7 Piura 12,271 1.9 Lambayeque 2,711 1.4 Other Peru 24,415 3.9 Foreign 1,060 0.2 No Response 5,030 0.8 Total 631631631,631 ,,,987987987987 100100100.100 ...0000 Source: Rosner, W., 1999, Progresos migracionales y su impacto en el desarrollo urbano: El caso de Trujillo, Perú, in: Suida, H. (ed.), Salzurger Geographische Arbeiten , Volumen 35, Insituts für Geographie und Andgewandte Geoinformatik der Universität Salzburg, Salzburg.
Table 5: Department of birth of the population of Trujillo Province in 1993: Total Trujillo El Porvenir F de Mora Huanchaco La Esperanza Laredo Moche Poroto Salaverry Simbal VL Herrera La Libertad 467,802 183,740 70,718 30,799 14,259 80,055 25,470 17,910 4,223 6,443 3,352 30,833 Cajamarca 45,816 18,503 3,673 2,293 2,026 13,975 839 1,220 45 214 91 2,937 Lima 18,200 9,577 1,219 559 835 2,217 445 706 31 375 29 2,207 Ancash 15,441 7,441 1,812 764 784 2,201 298 650 31 339 1,121 Piura 12,059 7,141 625 251 542 1,651 108 297 16 187 12 1,229 Lambayeque 8,415 4,804 467 180 286 1,129 155 269 3 317 1 804 San Martin 5,172 2,715 431 221 296 743 77 152 3 16 1 517 Amazonas 2,895 1,463 135 98 167 607 28 59 2 18 24 294 Loreto 2,655 1,479 158 65 120 383 31 63 3 38 6 309 Callao 2,563 1,325 133 59 103 328 49 140 2 126 5 293 Junín 1,684 878 102 30 60 317 45 61 16 1 174 Huanuco 1,479 808 142 47 68 165 40 55 6 1 147 Arequipa 1,433 897 52 38 42 131 21 82 1 23 1 145 Tumbes 1,358 913 47 29 44 123 19 22 1 26 134 Ica 1,079 632 67 20 32 105 19 26 52 3 123 Ucayalo 764 311 91 39 40 139 20 17 4 10 2 91 Ayacucho 539 304 25 14 19 86 10 25 8 48 Puno 548 307 23 19 17 64 3 42 1 3 69 Huancavelica 432 248 25 27 12 67 10 16 1 1 25 Apurimac 333 183 22 14 16 50 5 13 1 2 27 Pasco 311 150 38 15 9 41 2 22 9 25 Tacna 249 160 4 8 8 29 1 2 1 3 33 Moquequa 169 103 8 5 6 22 2 7 3 13 Madre de Dios 707070 44 1 2 6 6 3 1 7
Foreign 1,058 736 18 3 46 42 13 28 0 8 1 163 No Response 4,789 2,165 662 207 92 685 306 135 34 37 66 400 Total 597,313 247,027 80,698 35,806 19,935 105,361 28,019 22,020 4,401 8,278 3,600 42,168 Source: INEI, 1993, Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Población y IV de Vivienda , Lima.
Table 6: Department of birth per district of Trujillo Province in 1993
56 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Total Trujillo El Porvenir F de Mora Huanchaco La Esperanza Laredo Moche Poroto Salaverry Simbal VL Herrera La Libertad 78.3 74.4 87.6 86.0 71.5 76.0 90.9 81.3 96.0 77.8 93.1 73.1 Cajamarca 7.77.77.7 7.5 4.6 6.4 10.2 13.3 3.0 5.5 1.0 2.6 2.5 7.0 Lima 3.03.03.0 3.9 1.5 1.6 4.2 2.1 1.6 3.2 0.7 4.5 0.8 5.2 Ancash 2.62.62.6 3.0 2.2 2.1 3.9 2.1 1.1 3.0 0.7 4.1 0.0 2.7 Piura 2.02.02.0 2.9 0.8 0.7 2.7 1.6 0.4 1.3 0.4 2.3 0.3 2.9 Lambayeque 1.41.41.4 1.9 0.6 0.5 1.4 1.1 0.6 1.2 0.1 3.8 0.0 1.9 San Martin 0.90.90.9 1.1 0.5 0.6 1.5 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.2 Amazonas 0.50.50.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.7 Loreto 0.40.40.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.7 Callao 0.40.40.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.7 Junín 0.30.30.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 Huanuco 0.20.20.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 Arequipa 0.20.20.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 Tumbes 0.20.20.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 Ica 0.20.20.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 Ucayalo 0.10.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 Ayacucho 0.10.10.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Puno 0.10.10.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Huancavelica 0.10.10.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Apurimac 0.10.10.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Pasco 0.10.10.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Tacna 0.00.00.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Moquequa 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Madre de Dios 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Foreign 0.20.20.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 No Response 0.80.80.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.4 1.8 0.9 Total 597,313 247,027 80,698 35,806 19,935 105,361 28,019 22,020 4,401 8,278 3,600 42,168 Source: INEI, 1993, Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Población y IV de Vivienda , Lima.
Table 7: Place of birth of the migrated population of Trujillo Province in 1993: Department Province % of La Libertad % of total % of total La Libertad 53,4 Otuzco 29.6 15,8 S de Chuco 17.4 9,3 Ascope 16.9 9,0 Trujillo 10.1 5,4 S Carrión 9.7 5,2 Julcán 4.7 2,5 Pataz 4.7 2,5 Pacasmayo 3.6 1,9 Bolívar 1.1 0,6 Chepén 2.2 1,2 Total 100100100. 100 ...0000 53,4 Cajamarca 16,7 Lima 5,7 Ancash 5,4 Piura 4,4 Lambayeque 3,0 Other 11,4 Total (3(310,10,10,10,480)480) 100,0 Source: Rosner, W., 1999, Progresos migracionales y su impacto en el desarrollo urbano: El caso de Trujillo, Perú, in: Suida, H. (ed.), Salzurger Geographische Arbeiten , Volumen 35, Insituts für Geographie und Andgewandte Geoinformatik der Universität Salzburg, Salzburg.
APPENDIX E: MIGRATION STATISTICS 57
Table 8: Department of birth of the migrant (inter-district) population for different districts in 1993 Trujillo Central VL Herrera La Esperanza El Porvenir F de Mora La Libertad 47.3 42.1 52.2 74.0 68.6 Cajamarca 15.4 14.9 26.4 9.6 14.4 Lima 8.0 11.3 4.2 3.2 3.5 Ancash 6.2 5.7 4.2 4.7 4.8 Piura 6.0 6.3 3.1 1.6 1.6 Other 17.1 19.7 9.9 6.9 7.9 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Rosner, W., 1999, Progresos migracionales y su impacto en el desarrollo urbano: El caso de Trujillo, Perú, in: Suida, H. (ed.), Salzurger Geographische Arbeiten , Volumen 35, Insituts für Geographie und Andgewandte Geoinformatik der Universität Salzburg, Salzburg.
58 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
APPENDIX F: WATER
F-1 WATER STATISTICS
Table 1: Use of water by category in 1993, for Peru, La Libertad and Trujillo Province. 1993 Peru Dep: La Libertad Prov: Trujillo category cases % cases % cases % public net 1,910,107 43.1 121,402 48.9 82,773 70.6 public net outside building 157,458 3.6 2,837 1.1 2,323 2.0 public tap 472,222 10.7 24,199 9.8 13,392 11.4 public reservoir 513,334 11.6 40,623 16.4 8,477 7.2 water tank 229,229 5.2 6,437 2.6 4,371 3.7 river, canal or well 1,032,314 23.3 46,285 18.7 3,246 2.8 other 112,853 2.5 6,286 2.5 2,690 2.3 Total 4,427,517 100.0 248,069 100.0 117,272 100.0 Source: 1993 data: INEI, 1993a, Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Población y IV de Vivienda , Lima.
Table 2: Use of water by category in 2005, for Peru, La Libertad and Trujillo Province. 2005 Peru Dep: La Libertad Prov: Trujillo category cases % cases % cases % public net 3,535,457 60.4 222,178 66.5 134,424 82.3 public net outside building 413,324 7.1 15,591 4.7 5,512 3.4 public tap 280,493 4.8 14,419 4.3 5,215 3.2 public reservoir 430,961 7.4 32,870 9.8 4,600 2.8 water tank 233,945 4.0 5,706 1.7 4,884 3.0 river, canal or well 737,342 12.6 26,892 8.1 482 0.3 other 226,627 3.9 16,234 4.9 8,310 5.1 Total 5,858,149 100.0 333,890 100.0 163,427 100.0 Source: 2005 data: INEI, 2005a, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima.
Table 3-1: Use of water by category in 1993, the districts of Trujillo Province, as numbers. 1993 Trujillo La Esperanza El Porvenir F de Mora VL Herrera Huanchaco Laredo Moche Salaverry Poroto Simbal public net 37,611 12,864 11,095 5,167 6,469 1,560 3,160 2,192 1,135 107 137 public net outside building 1,979 56 62 25 118 17 16 15 15 1 public tap 3,410 5,663 1,355 513 484 742 155 161 318 135 19 public reservoir 499 202 217 131 473 809 573 1,495 30 191 98 water tank 1,202 388 899 121 84 656 774 27 32 48 4 river, canal or well 131 147 89 30 34 14 689 34 2 458 467 other 643 467 664 190 136 67 129 83 152 18 11 Total number 45,475 19,787 14,381 6,177 7,798 3,865 5,496 4,007 1,684 957 737
Table 3-2: Use of water by category in 1993, the districts of Trujillo Province, as percentages. 1993 Trujillo La Esperanza El Porvenir F de Mora VL Herrera Huanchaco Laredo Moche Salaverry Poroto Simbal public net 82.7 65.0 77.2 83.6 83.0 40.4 57.5 54.7 67.4 11.2 18.6 public net outside building 4.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 public tap 7.5 28.6 9.4 8.3 6.2 19.2 2.8 4.0 18.9 14.1 2.6 public reservoir 1.1 1.0 1.5 2.1 6.1 20.9 10.4 37.3 1.8 20.0 13.3 water tank 2.6 2.0 6.3 2.0 1.1 17.0 14.1 0.7 1.9 5.0 0.5 river, canal or well 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 12.5 0.8 0.1 47.9 63.4 other 1.4 2.4 4.6 3.1 1.7 1.7 2.3 2.1 9.0 1.9 1.5 Total percentage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: 1993 data: INEI, 1993a, Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Población y IV de Vivienda , Lima.
Table 4-1: Use of water by category in 2005, the districts of Trujillo Province, as numbers.
APPENDIX G: WATER 59
2005 Trujillo La Esperanza El Porvenir F de Mora VL Herrera Huanchaco Laredo Moche Salaverry Poroto Simbal public net 55,034 25,418 19,812 6,155 9,783 4,882 6,149 3,570 2,432 576 613 public net outside building 3,387 199 984 249 206 66 70 104 25 219 3 public tap 878 1,042 2,275 10 228 379 162 91 139 8 3 public reservoir 594 230 571 2 299 967 202 1,658 12 14 51 water tank 316 716 1,554 141 12 1,977 138 23 6 1 river, canal or well 2 1 7 3 76 126 2 27 238 other 1,152 2,368 2,243 634 547 405 198 369 325 36 33 Total number 61,363 29,974 27,439 7,191 11,082 8,679 6,995 5,941 2,941 880 942
Table 4-2: Use of water by category in 2005, the districts of Trujillo Province, as percentages. 2005 Trujillo La Esperanza El Porvenir F de Mora VL Herrera Huanchaco Laredo Moche Salaverry Poroto Simbal public net 89.7 84.8 72.2 85.6 88.3 56.3 87.9 60.1 82.7 65.5 65.1 public net outside building 5.5 0.7 3.6 3.5 1.9 0.8 1.0 1.8 0.9 24.9 0.3 public tap 1.4 3.5 8.3 0.1 2.1 4.4 2.3 1.5 4.7 0.9 0.3 public reservoir 1.0 0.8 2.1 0.0 2.7 11.1 2.9 27.9 0.4 1.6 5.4 water tank 0.5 2.4 5.7 2.0 0.1 22.8 2.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 river, canal or well 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 2.1 0.1 3.1 25.3 other 1.9 7.9 8.2 8.8 4.9 4.7 2.8 6.2 11.1 4.1 3.5 Total percentage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: 2005 data: INEI, 2005a, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima.
Table 5: Number of water taps per district Trujillo La Esper. El Porv F de Mora VL Herr. El Milagro Huanch. Moche Viru Salav. Total Jan 2002 38 98 8 11 9 6 15 90 6 200 July 2002 26 99 5 10 11 6 9 9 0 4 179 Jan 2003 36 79 4 11 10 5 9 90 3 166 July 2003 31 91 4 11 10 5 9 9 0 3 173 Jan 2004 33 110 6 36 15 5 5 9 0 4 223 July 2004 33 110 6 32 15 5 5 9 0 4 219 Jan 2005 33 115 6 32 15 5 5 9 0 4 224 July 2005 33 110 6 32 15 5 5 9 0 4 219 Jan 2006 31 103 3 27 13 13 3 1 0 3 197 July 2006 27 126 4 6 12 17 1 2 195 Jan 2007 27 126 4 6 12 17 1 2 195 May 2007 25 112 3 7 12 17 1 2 179 Source: Sedalib, 2007a, Maestro de variables comerciales , Sedalib S.A. Gerente Comercial – catastro de clientes, Trujillo.
Table 6: Number of connections to the public net per district Trujillo La Esper. El Porv F de Mora VL Herr. El Milagro Huanch. Moche Viru Salav. Total
Jan 2002 48009 23467 14661 6978 7247 2136 1361 1561 1753 1656 108829 July 2002 48415 24483 15519 7041 7292 2185 1381 1640 1815 1666 111437 Jan 2003 48694 24841 15686 7061 7422 2290 1392 1657 1916 1671 112630 July 2003 49134 25128 15775 7070 7509 2320 1401 1677 1974 1672 113660 Jan 2004 49334 25335 16065 7096 7589 2344 1406 1685 2022 1682 114558 July 2004 49021 25558 16596 6661 8431 2656 1431 1693 2217 1812 116076 Jan 2005 49479 25733 20122 6685 8587 2845 1488 1777 2264 1822 120802 July 2005 49928 25931 20341 6698 8670 2945 1499 1790 2344 1833 121979 Jan 2006 50855 24492 18576 5206 8533 2418 1487 1750 0 1655 114972 July 2006 51314 24970 18741 5246 8647 4169 1779 1676 116542 Jan 2007 51741 25540 19602 5419 8924 4233 1906 1698 119063 May 2007 52280 25934 19726 5489 8999 4266 1929 1699 120322 Source: Sedalib, 2007a, Maestro de variables comerciales , Sedalib S.A. Gerente Comercial – catastro de clientes, Trujillo.
60 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table 7: Number of inactive public net connections per district Trujillo La Esper. El Porv F de Mora VL Herr. El Milagro Huanch. Moche Viru Salav. Total Jan 2002 7651 2934 2492 1052 1519 426 186 169 257 632 17318 July 2002 3855 2141 2397 619 872 262 174 281 279 285 11165 Jan 2003 3857 1788 1681 493 573 191 165 272 220 244 9484 July 2003 4458 2948 2034 528 697 381 186 344 220 282 12078 Jan 2004 4437 2298 1834 448 649 347 214 239 269 273 11008 July 2004 3734 1336 1692 374 575 233 147 216 223 265 8795 Jan 2005 3535 1056 1450 304 526 181 169 206 212 218 7857 July 2005 3545 951 1821 295 472 194 173 188 237 208 8084 Jan 2006 3975 1097 1492 232 521 136 199 159 0 220 8031 July 2006 3749 944 1544 241 492 370 165 219 7724 Jan 2007 3632 870 1520 231 493 359 179 231 7515 May 2007 3650 962 1617 244 504 386 182 241 7786 Source: Sedalib, 2007a, Maestro de variables comerciales , Sedalib S.A. Gerente Comercial – catastro de clientes, Trujillo.
APPENDIX G: WATER 61
F-2 PUBLIC WATER NET AND FACILITIES IN DIFFERENT AREAS
Figure F-1: Public water net and facilities in the Metropolitan are of Trujillo
Source: MPT, 2003, Atlas Ambiental de Trujillo – Perú , Municipalidad Provincial de Trujillo, Trujillo.
62 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Figure F-2.1: Water facilities in El Milagro Sector VII plus extension
Source: Gobierno Regional, 2007, with own additions
Figure F-2.2: Water facilities in La Esperanza Nueva Jerusalén
Source: Sedalib, 2007, with own additions.
APPENDIX G: WATER 63
Figure F-2.3: Water facilities in Alto Trujillo 2B
Source: Plandemetru, with own additions.
64 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
APPENDIX G: SANITATION
G-1 SEWERAGE STATISTICS
Table G-1: Use of sanitation by category in 1993, for Peru, La Libertad and Trujillo Province. 1993 Peru Dep: La Libertad Prov: Trujillo Category cases % cases % cases % Public net 1,580,028 35.7 100,553 40.5 75,339 64.2 Public net outside building 189,607 4.3 4,671 1.9 3,483 3.0 Latrine or cesspit 906,560 20.5 52,880 21.3 22,043 18.8 Ditch or canal 76,579 1.7 3,095 1.2 871 0.7 None 1,674,743 37.8 86,870 35.0 15,536 13.2 Total 4,427,517 100.0 248,069 100.0 117,272 100.0 Source: 1993 data: INEI, 1993a, Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Población y IV de Vivienda , Lima.
Table G-2: Use of sanitation by category in 2005, for Peru, La Libertad and Trujillo Province. 2005 Peru Dep: La Libertad Prov: Trujillo category Cases % cases % cases % Public net 2,840,483 48.5 169,988 50.9 121,419 74.3 Public net outside building 280,356 4.8 6,155 1.8 4,605 2.8 Septic tank 164,724 2.8 6,016 1.8 2,500 1.5 Latrine or cesspit 1,344,007 22.9 85,919 25.7 26,847 16.4 River, ditch or canal 96,388 1.6 4,488 1.3 389 0.2 None 1,132,191 19.3 61,324 18.4 7,667 4.7 Total 5,858,149 100.0 333,890 100.0 163,427 100.0 Source: 2005 data: INEI, 2005a, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima .
Table G-3.1: Use of sanitation by category in 1993, the districts of Trujillo Province, as numbers. 1993 Trujillo La Esperanza El Porvenir F de Mora VL Herrera Huanchaco Laredo Moche Salaverry Poroto Simbal Public net 38.121 11.366 8.923 4.226 6.099 1.161 2.908 902 893 68 91 Public net outside building 2.611 271 193 61 163 36 38 43 34 2 2 Latrine or cesspit 2.098 5.786 3.083 1.198 795 1.703 893 2.050 173 229 176 River, ditch or canal 201 68 76 13 50 37 58 42 2 16 19 None 2.444 2.296 2.106 679 691 928 1.599 970 582 642 449 Total number 45.475 19.787 14.381 6.177 7.798 3.865 5.496 4.007 1.684 957 737
Table G-3.2: Use of sanitation by category in 1993, the districts of Trujillo Province, as percentages. 1993 Trujillo La Esperanza El Porvenir F de Mora VL Herrera Huanchaco Laredo Moche Salaverry Poroto Simbal Public net 83,8 57,4 62,0 68,4 78,2 30,0 52,9 22,5 53,0 7,1 12,3 Public net outside building 5,7 1,4 1,3 1,0 2,1 0,9 0,7 1,1 2,0 0,2 0,3 Latrine or cesspit 4,6 29,2 21,4 19,4 10,2 44,1 16,2 51,2 10,3 23,9 23,9 River, ditch or canal 0,4 0,3 0,5 0,2 0,6 1,0 1,1 1,0 0,1 1,7 2,6 None 5,4 11,6 14,6 11,0 8,9 24,0 29,1 24,2 34,6 67,1 60,9 Total percentage 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 Source: 1993 data: INEI, 1993a, Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Población y IV de Vivienda , Lima.
Table G 4.1: Use of sanitation by category in 2005, the districts of Trujillo Province, as numbers. 2005 Trujillo La Esperanza El Porvenir F de Mora VL Herrera Huanchaco Laredo Moche Salaverry Poroto Simbal Public net 54.525 22.599 15.775 6.126 9.379 3.091 4.752 3.218 1.490 318 146 Public net outside building 3.566 141 250 251 178 16 12 84 10 96 1 Septic tank 360 309 510 12 287 772 60 162 9 2 17 Latrine or cesspit 1.522 5.635 9.011 439 827 4.166 1.536 1.807 1.103 273 528 River, ditch or canal 69 5 68 10 119096 337 None 1.321 1.285 1.825 363 401 623 545 574 329 158 243 Total number 61.363 29.974 27.439 7.191 11.082 8.679 6.995 5.941 2.941 880 942 Source: 2005 data: INEI, 2005a, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima.
APPENDIX G: WATER 65
Table G-4.2: Use of sanitation by category in 2005, the districts of Trujillo Province, as percentages. 2005 Trujillo La Esperanza El Porvenir F de Mora VL Herrera Huanchaco Laredo Moche Salaverry Poroto Simbal Public net 88,9 75,4 57,5 85,2 84,6 35,6 67,9 54,2 50,7 36,1 15,5 Public net outside building 5,8 0,5 0,9 3,5 1,6 0,2 0,2 1,4 0,3 10,9 0,1 Septic tank 0,6 1,0 1,9 0,2 2,6 8,9 0,9 2,7 0,3 0,2 1,8 Latrine or cesspit 2,5 18,8 32,8 6,1 7,5 48,0 22,0 30,4 37,5 31,0 56,1 River, ditch or canal 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,1 1,3 1,6 0,0 3,8 0,7 None 2,2 4,3 6,7 5,0 3,6 7,2 7,8 9,7 11,2 18,0 25,8 Total percentage 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 Source: 2005 data: INEI, 2005a, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima.
Table G-6: Number of connections to the public sewerage net per district Trujillo La Esper. El Porv F de Mora VL Herr. El Milagro Huanch. Moche Salav. TOTAL Jan 02 45.946 21.909 13.836 5.809 6.680 2.104 1.334 1.524 1.610 100.752 July 02 46.138 22.510 14.388 5.903 6.707 2.118 1.337 1.581 1.618 102.300 Jan 03 46.442 22.566 14.452 5.923 6.825 2.130 1.347 1.597 1.623 102.905 July 03 46.785 22.646 14.525 5.932 6.908 2.136 1.356 1.606 1.624 103.518 Jan 04 46.984 22.685 14.567 5.956 6.976 2.137 1.360 1.613 1.630 103.908 July 04 46.476 22.727 14.971 5.628 7.837 2.141 1.364 1.625 1.635 104.404 Jan 05 46.876 22.826 15.029 5.636 7.939 2.150 1.371 1.635 1.641 105.103 July 05 47.298 22.903 15.089 5.649 8.027 2.160 1.379 1.647 1.652 105.804 Jan 06 48.692 21.423 13.131 5.113 7.982 1.705 1.375 1.549 1.582 102.552 July 06 48.996 21.661 13.219 5.099 8.087 3.086 1.569 1.576 103.293 Jan 07 49.537 22.203 13.825 5.278 8.243 3.124 1.615 1.596 105.421 May 07 50.337 22.414 13.902 5.336 8.293 3.154 1.632 1.593 106.661 Source: Sedalib, 2007a, Maestro de variables comerciales , Sedalib S.A. Gerente Comercial – catastro de clientes, Trujillo.
Table G-7: Number of inactive public sewerage net connections per district Trujillo La Esper. El Porv F de Mora VL Herr. El Milagro Huanch. Moche Salav. TOTAL Jan 06 1.647 813 146 986 418 300 218 116 196 4.840 July 06 1.691 787 136 977 441 282 206 101 155 4.776 Jan 07 1.659 745 156 920 424 254 203 104 162 4.627 May 07 1.755 748 152 947 401 250 216 108 168 4.745 Source: Sedalib, 2007a, Maestro de variables comerciales , Sedalib S.A. Gerente Comercial – catastro de clientes, Trujillo.
66 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
G-2 PUBLIC SEWERAGE NET AND FACILITIES
Figure G-1: Public sewerage net and facilities of the metropolitan area of Trujillo
Source: MPT, 2003, Atlas Ambiental de Trujillo – Perú , Municipalidad Provincial de Trujillo, Trujillo.
APPENDIX G: WATER 67
APPENDIX H: ELECTRICITY
H-1 ELECTRICITY STATISTICS
Table H-1: Use of electricity in 1993 and 2005 for Peru, La Libertad and Trujillo Province. Peru Dep: La Libertad Prov: Trujillo number % number % number % 1 1993 2,430,666 54.9 135,827 54.8 95,225 81.2 2 2005 4,228,934 72.2 232,552 69.7 149,853 91.7 Notes: 1. The data for 1993 is obtained via the question “Do you have electricity in your house?”. 2. The data for 2005 is obtained via the question “what type of lighting do you use?” Sources: 1993 data: INEI, 1993a, Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Población y IV de Vivienda , Lima. 2005 data: INEI, 2005a, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima.
Table H-2.1: Use of electricity in 1993 and 2005 for the Metropolitan area of Trujillo, in absolute figures. Trujillo La Esperanza El Porvernir F de Mora VL Herrera Huanchaco Laredo Moche Poroto Salaverry Simbal 1993 42.712 14.871 11.885 5.231 7.128 2.360 3.580 3.276 481 1.333 151 2005 59.767 27.022 23.796 6.726 10.637 7.149 5.713 5.270 700 2.578 495
Table H-2.2: Use of sanitation by category in 2005, for Peru, La Libertad and Trujillo Province, in percentages. Trujillo La Esperanza El Porvernir F de Mora VL Herrera Huanchaco Laredo Moche Poroto Salaverry Simbal 1993 93,9 75,2 82,6 84,7 91,4 61,1 65,1 81,8 50,3 79,2 20,5 2005 97,4 90,2 86,7 93,5 96,0 82,4 81,7 88,7 79,5 87,7 52,5 Note: See notes previous table. Sources: 1993 data: INEI, 1993a, Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Población y IV de Vivienda , Lima. 2005 data: INEI, 2005a, Censos Nacionales 2005, X de Población y V de Vivienda , Lima.
Table H-3.2: Provisional electricity connections present in Trujillo Province - detailed. District Users Until 111 Phased District Users Until 111 Phased Alto Trujillo Huanchaco 2B Mz-L 25 Nov 07 mono Valdivia Alta 36 Jul 06 mono 3B Mz-S 25 Apr 06 mono Villa Progreso 18 May 07 3B Mz-W 25 Jul 06 mono Valdivia Baja 6 Jun 07 Trifasico 3B Mz-U 25 Feb 07 mono Valdivia Baja - Ramon Castilla 3 Sep 07 mono 5A Mz -B2 25 Jul 06 mono Virgen del Socorro 309 Dec 07 Trifasico 5A Mz-C2 26 Nov 07 mono Cerrita de la Virgen 26 Feb 08 mono 5A Mz-O 25 Jun 05 Trifasico Cerrita de la Virgen 26 Mar 08 mono 5A Mz-Q,R 24 Aug 07 mono San Fr de Asis 22 Jan 07 Trifasico 6A Mz-N 21 Jul 06 mono Bello Horizonte 11 Sep 07 mono Total 221221221 Huanchaquito Alto 28 Feb 08 mono Total 485485485 El Milagro I, II 75 Aug 07 Trifasico Laredo 5A Mz-K,M 25 Jan 07 Trifasico Mercado Laredo 37 Jul 06 mono VI-D Mz-C,D,E 42 Sep 07 Trifasico San Pachuso - Santo Domingo 80 Jun 07 Trifasico VI Mz-D1 38 Jan 07 Trifasico La Merced - Campina 71 Nov 07 Trifasico VII-A Los Pedregales 34 May 08 Trifasico La Merced - Campina 71 Dec 07 Trifasico VII - La Florida 30 Jul 08 Trifasico Santa Victoria 40 Jan 08 mono VII Los Libertadores 35 Nov 07 Trifasico Total 299299299 IX-a 3 Mar 08 mono X parte baja 22 Apr 08 Moche X-I 12 Jul 07 mono Los Algarrobos IX 32 Jul 07 Trifasico XI 18 Jun 07 Trifasico Total 323232 Santa Rosa 15 Dec 07 Trifasico
APPENDIX H: ELECTRICITY 69
Total 349349349 Trujillo El Trebol 60 Jun 06 Trifasico La Esperanza Victor Andres 12 Nov 07 Trifasico mono El Progreso 12 Nov 07 Puquio 100 Dec 07 mono Nueva Jerusalen 30 Jan 08 mono Mercado La Libertad 45 Dec 08 Trifasico Total 424242 Las Palmeras 13 Feb 08 mono San Blas 10 Feb 08 Trifasico El Porvernir Alto San Isidro 4 Apr 08 Victor Raul etapa I 6 Feb 06 mono Natasha Alto 78 May 08 Trifasico Victor Raul etapa I 67 Oct 07 mono Fransisco de Zela 14,15 63 Aug 06 Trifasico Alan Garcia 11 Apr 08 Fransisco de Zela 14,15 7 Aug 06 Nuevo Porvenir 63 Jun 08 Trifasico Natasha Alto II 13 Nov 06 mono Nuevo Porvenir 63 Aug 06 Trifasico El Cortijo 60 Jul 07 mono Total 210210210 Total 465465465
VL Herrera Martin Arias 16 Aug 07 mono Total 161616 Note: 1. The data shows till when the projects are secured. After this date, the project will either continue or can be replaced by a ‘defintive connection’. As far as the author knows, all of these projects continued to be served by ‘provisional connections’ in June 2007, as is confirmed by Hidrandina. Source: Hidracina, updated June 2007, Control Provisionales La Libertad , Trujillo.
70 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
H-2 PUBLIC ELECTRICITY NET IN DIFFERENT AREAS
Figure H-1: Public electricity net in the Metropolitan Area of Trujillo
Source: MPT, 2003, Atlas Ambiental de Trujillo – Perú , Municipalidad Provincial de Trujillo, Trujillo.
APPENDIX H: ELECTRICITY 71
Figure H-2.1: Electricity facilities in El Milagro Sector VII plus extension
Source: Gobierno Regional, 2007, with own additions.
Figure H-2.2: Electricity facilities in La Esperanza Nueva Jerusalén
Source: Sedalib, 2007, with own additions.
72 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Figure H-2.3: Electricity facilities in Alto Trujillo 2B
Source: Plandemetru, 2007, with own additions.
APPENDIX H: ELECTRICITY 73
APPENDIX I: TELECOMMUNICATIONS STATISTICS Table I-1.1: Number of landline connections for Peru, La Libertad and Lima in 1994-2007. Total Peru La Libertad Lima 1994 759,191 1995 1,088,176 1996 1,332,356 1997 1,537,341 1998 1,553,874 68,609 1,057,828 1999 1,609,884 75,454 1,075,701 2000 1,617,582 78,364 1,074,758 2001 1,570,956 76,495 1,051,458 2002 1,656,624 81,919 1,095,438 2003 1,839,165 91,164 1,207,770 2004 2,049,822 105,665 1,335,345 2005 2,250,921 120,926 1,442,460 2006 2,400,512 131,099 1,525,178 ¹ 2007 2,495,953 138,857 1,588,819 Notes: 1. The data as used for 2007 are for June 2007, whereas all other data is of December of the respective year. Source: OSIPTEL, 2007, Indicadores Estadísticos – 2.2 Líneas en servicio por departamento , accessed from website, Lima.
Table I-1.2: Annual changes in the number of landlines for Peru, La Libertad and Lima in 1994-2007. Total Peru La Libertad Lima 1994-1995 43.3 1995-1996 22.4 1996-1997 15.4 1997-1998 1.1 1998-1999 3.6 10.0 1.7 1999-2000 0.5 3.9 -0.1 2000-2001 -2.9 -2.4 -2.2 2001-2002 5.5 7.1 4.2 2002-2003 11.0 11.3 10.3 2003-2004 11.5 15.9 10.6 2004-2005 9.8 14.4 8.0 2005-2006 6.6 8.4 5.7 2006-2007 4.0 5.9 4.2 Source: Based on data from table 1-1.
APPENDIX I: TELECOMMUNICATIONS STATISTICS 75
Table I-1.3: Coverage of landlines for Peru, La Libertad and Lima in 1994-2007. Total Peru La Libertad Lima 1994 3.21 1995 4.53 1996 5.45 1997 6.18 1998 6.14 4.80 13.17 1999 6.26 5.20 13.16 2000 6.19 5.32 12.92 2001 5.92 5.12 12.42 2002 6.15 5.40 12.73 2003 6.72 5.92 13.80 2004 7.33 6.76 15.00 2005 8.25 7.57 16.02 2006 8.73 8.17 16.84 ¹ 2007 9.04 8.63 17.48 Notes: 1. The data as used for 2007 are for June 2007, whereas all other data is of December of the respective year. Source: OSIPTEL, 2007, Indicadores Estadísticos – 2.4 Densidad de líneas en servicio por departamento , accessed from website, Lima.
Table I-2.1: Number of mobile phone connections for Peru, La Libertad and Lima in 1994-2007. Total Peru La Libertad Lima 1994 52,000 1995 75,397 1996 201,895 1997 435,706 1998 736,294 1999 1,045,710 2000 1,339,667 2001 1,793,284 2002 2,306,943 2003 2,930,343 146,558 2,039,430 2004 4,092,558 189,036 2,795,351 2005 5,583,356 254,580 3,597,193 2006 8,772,479 436,301 5,203,601 ¹ 2007 12,067,062 637,799 6,736,792 Notes: 1. The data as used for 2007 are for June 2007, whereas all other data is of December of the respective year. Source: OSIPTEL, 2007, Indicadores Estadísticos – 3.1 Líneas en servicio por departamento , accessed from website, Lima.
Table I-2.2: Annual changes in the number of mobile phones for Peru, La Libertad and Lima in 1994-2007. Total Peru La Libertad Lima 1994-1995 45.0 1995-1996 167.8 1996-1997 115.8 1997-1998 69.0 1998-1999 42.0 1999-2000 28.1 2000-2001 33.9 2001-2002 28.6 2002-2003 27.0 2003-2004 39.7 29.0 37.1 2004-2005 36.4 34.7 28.7 2005-2006 57.1 71.4 44.7 2006-2007 37.6 46.2 29.5 Source: Based on data from table 2-1.
76 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table I-2.3: : Coverage of mobile phones for Peru, La Libertad and Lima in 1994-2007. Total Peru La Libertad Lima 1994 0.22 1995 0.31 1996 0.83 1997 1.75 1998 2.91 1999 4.06 2000 5.12 2001 6.76 2002 8.56 2003 10.71 9.52 23.30 2004 14.74 12.19 31.68 2005 20.51 15.89 40.05 2006 31.92 27.18 57.45 ¹ 2007 43.73 39.63 74.13 Notes: 1. The data as used for 2007 are for June 2007, whereas all other data is of December of the respective year. Source: OSIPTEL, 2007, Indicadores Estadísticos – 3.2 Densidad por departamento , accessed from website, Lima.
Table I-3.1: Number of public phone connections for Peru, La Libertad and Lima in 1998-2007. Total Peru La Libertad Lima 1998 49,399 2,307 25,913 1999 66,718 3,318 31,898 2000 84,079 4,429 40,265 2001 95,923 5,136 49,734 2002 113,834 6,156 56,690 2003 129,366 6,956 67,694 2004 139,923 7,717 76,841 2005 147,746 8,015 82,340 2006 158,314 8,237 88,823 ¹ 2007 165,674 7,649 95,093 Notes: 1. The data as used for 2007 are for June 2007, whereas all other data is of December of the respective year. Source: OSIPTEL, 2007, Indicadores Estadísticos – 5.1 Líneas en servicio por departamento , accessed from website, Lima.
Table I-3.2: Annual changes in the number of public phones for Peru, La Libertad and Lima in 1998-2007. Total Peru La Libertad Lima 1998-1999 35.1 43.8 23.1 1999-2000 26.0 33.5 26.2 2000-2001 14.1 16.0 23.5 2001-2002 18.7 19.9 14.0 2002-2003 13.6 13.0 19.4 2003-2004 8.2 10.9 13.5 2004-2005 5.6 3.9 7.2 2005-2006 7.2 2.8 7.9 2006-2007 4.6 -7.1 7.1 Source: Based on data from table 3-1.
APPENDIX I: TELECOMMUNICATIONS STATISTICS 77
Table I-3.3: Coverage of public phones for Peru, La Libertad and Lima in 1998-2007. Total Peru La Libertad Lima 1998 2.0 1.6 3.2 1999 2.6 2.3 3.9 2000 3.2 3.0 4.8 2001 3.6 3.4 5.9 2002 4.2 4.1 6.6 2003 4.7 4.5 7.7 2004 5.1 5.0 8.7 2005 5.4 5.0 9.1 2006 5.8 5.1 9.8 ¹ 2007 6.0 4.8 10.5 Notes: 1. The data as used for 2007 are for June 2007, whereas all other data is of December of the respective year. Source: OSIPTEL, 2007, Indicadores Estadísticos – 5.2 Densidad de líneas en servicio por departamento , accessed from website, Lima.
Table I-4: Number of internet connections by technology Total ADSL WAP DialDial----upupupup Cable Other 1999 121,205 0 120,134 0 1,071 2000 137,672 32 133,560 788 3,292 2001 181,290 1,700 173,583 6,007 ¹ 20,870 2002 384,634 20,375 129,742 212,719 15,093 6,705 2003 556,130 63,641 188,421 269,223 27,002 7,843 2004 672,674 185,516 264,004 177,117 23,134 22,903 2005 833,209 327,982 306,434 165,474 15,849 17,470 2006 1,028,755 459,740 406,748 142,409 12,277 7,581 Notes: 1. In 2001, WAP is included in the category other. Source: OSIPTEL, 2007, Indicadores Estadísticos – 6.7 Evolución anual del número de subscriptores según modalidad de aceso , accessed from website, Lima.
Table I-5.1: Household access to landline in Peru, Lima, other urban, and rural areas. Peru Lima Rest Urban Rural 2001 20.4 44.8 20.3 0.3 2002 21.0 44.7 21.6 0.4 2003 21.1 44.7 22.4 0.1 2004 23.9 53.7 25.0 0.2 2005 27.0 61.3 26.5 0.3 2006 26.5 56.3 28.1 0.2
Table I-5.2: Household access to mobile phone in Peru, Lima, other urban, and rural areas. Peru Lima Rest Urban Rural 2001 7.6 18.0 6.0 0.7 2002 8.3 17.9 7.9 0.5 2003 10.9 24.2 10.1 0.6 2004 17.8 40.1 17.1 1.6 2005 21.3 44.7 23.1 1.3 2006 31.1 55.9 37.2 4.3
Table I-5.3: Household access to both landline and mobile phone in Peru, Lima, other urban, and rural areas. Peru LimLimLimaLim aaa Rest Urban Rural 2001 3.6 10.2 1.9 0.0 2002 3.9 10.4 2.4 0.0 2003 5.9 15.6 3.8 0.0 2004 10.0 27.7 6.7 0.1 2005 12.6 32.3 9.8 0.0 2006 15.7 35.8 14.7 0.0
78 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Table I-5.4: Household access to either landline or mobile phone in Peru, Lima, other urban, and rural areas. Peru Lima Rest Urban Rural 2001 24.4 52.6 24.4 1.0 2002 25.4 52.2 27.1 1.0 2003 26.1 53.3 28.7 0.7 2004 31.7 66.1 35.4 1.7 2005 35.7 74.0 39.8 1.6 2006 41.9 76.4 50.6 4.5 Source: Gallardo, J., K. López and C. Gonzales, 2007, Perú: Evolución del acceso, la cobertura y la penetración en los servicios de telefonía , OSIPTEL, Lima.
Table I-6: Total number of connections by provider. Telefónica Móviles Comunicaciones Móviles Nextel Claro / TIM Total Perú
1994 30,000 22,000 - - 52,000 1995 43,397 32,000 - - 75,397 1996 130,895 71,000 - - 201,895 1997 319,706 116,000 - - 435,706 1998 504,995 230,796 503 - 736,294 1999 712,117 314,107 19,486 - 1,045,710 2000 898,173 373,091 68,403 - 1,339,667 2001 1,087,152 430,282 110,248 165,602 1,793,284 2002 1,239,056 550,162 129,780 387,945 2,306,943 2003 1,506,637 650,617 146,971 626,118 2,930,343 2004 2,124,776 680,493 184,895 1,102,394 4,092,558 2005 3,383,835 - 249,475 1,950,046 5,583,356 2006 5,058,497 n,a, 345,354 3,368,628 8,772,479 2007 ¹ 7,317,171 n,a, 392,929 4,356,962 12,067,062 Notes: 1. The data as used for 2007 are for June 2007, whereas all other data is of December of the respective year. Source: OSIPTEL, 2007, Indicadores Estadísticos – 3.3 Líneas en servicio por empresa , accessed from website, Lima. http://www.osiptel.gob.pe/Index.ASP?T=T&IDBase=2635&P=%2FOsiptelDocs%2FGPR%2FEL%5FSECTOR%2FINFORMACION+ESTADIS TICA%2FIndicadores%5FservicioMovil%2Ehtm
APPENDIX I: TELECOMMUNICATIONS STATISTICS 79
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRES
J-1 QUESTIONNAIRE - ENGLISH VERSION Questionnaire – Settlement and Infrastructure Services This questionnaire is carried out as part of the research project for my MSc Thesis Technology and Policy, at the Eindhoven University of Technology and the Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego. The goal of this questionnaire is to find relations between the inhabitants’ characteristics and their actions to get infrastructure services delivered or improved. It will be carried out in various human settlements of Trujillo. The findings will be published in the thesis, and thus be available for any institution or individual.
Thank you for your cooperation.
0 - General Information
0.1 – Interview
0.1.1 - Date
0.1.2 - Number of interview
0.1.3 - Name of interviewer
0.1.4 - Name of respondent
0.2 – Location
0.2.1 - District
0.2.2 - Neighborhood
0.2.3 - Block
0.2.4 - Address
1 - Respondent Characteristics
1.1 – General
1.1.1 - Sex male female
1.1.2 - Age
1.2 – Household
1.2.1 - Total household size
80 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
1.2.2 - Who are the household husband / wife Children Others: members?
1.2.3 – How many people are less than 15 years old?
Monthly income of you and your < 125 125 - 250 250-500 500 - 750 750 - 1000 1000- > husband/wife [S/.] 1500 1500
Did the size of your household increased decreased fluctuations no change change since you live in the current location? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
Did the household income change significantly since you increased decreased fluctuations no change live in the current location? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
2 – Migration & Settlement
2.1 – Former locations
2.1.1 – Since when do you live here?
2.1.2 - Where did you live Amazonas Ancash Apurímac Arequipa Ayacucho before you moved here? [department] Cajamarca Callao Cusco Huancavelica Huánuco
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 81
Ica Junín La Libertad Lambayeque Lima [ 2.3.3]
Loreto Madre de Diós Moqueque Pasco Piura
Puno San Martin Tacna Tumbes Ucayali
[IF La Libertad] Ascope Bolivar Chepen Gran Chimu Julcan Otuzco 2.1.3 - Which province? Pacasmayo Pataz Sanchez Carrion Santiago de Trujillo Viru Chuco [ 2.1.4]
[IF Trujillo (province)] Huanchaco El Porvernir Florencia de Mora La Laredo Moche Esperanza 2.1.4 - Which district? Poroto Salaverry Simbal Trujillo Victor Larco Herrera [ 2.1.5]
[IF Trujillo (province)] 2.1.5 Which neighborhood?
2.1.6 - Why did you leave the former location? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
2.1.7 - Did you have other changes of residence before Yes No that? [ IF Yes, r epeat question 2.1.1 until answer is ‘NO’ ]
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
......
82 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
.....
......
.....
......
.....
2.2 – Settlement
2.2.1 - Before migrating, did you visit Regularly Sporadically Once No Trujillo?
2.2.2 - Before migrating, did you Yes, namely: No know anyone living here?
2.2.3 - Did you know other people Yes, namely: No settling around here?
2.2.4 - Before migrating, did you Arranged Started Other: No make any arrangements concerning the plot arrangements the plot?
2.2.5 - Before migrating, did you Bought the Started Other, namely: No make any arrangements concerning house building the house?
2.2.6 - Before migrating, did you find Accepted Had an offer Was in search of one No a job?
2.2.7 - Did you receive any financial From family From an From others: No support for settling down? institution:
2.2.8 - Did you get help in building From family From friends Paid workers No your house?
2.2.9 - Why did you choose this specific location? Recommended Own interpretation Other: Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 83
2.2.10 - What are the main disadvantages of the current location? Specification:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
2.2.11 - Did you experience any legal difficulties upon With the With With others: No arrival? municipality: neighbours:
Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
2.3 – Current housing situation
2.3.1 - What is the current Renting Owner (all paid) Owner (still Squatter (invasion) ownership status of your (or paying) [ 2.3.3] husbands/wife’s) dwelling?
[IF Owner] Yes, since: No Don’t know 2.3.2 - Does the owner of the house have a property title?
[Observe] Bricks/Cement Bricks/Cement Stone Adobe Other: blocks with blocks without with 2.3.3 - What are the main building cement cement lime or materials of the walls? cement
[Observe] Cement Earth Other, namely: 2.3.4 - What is the main building material of the floor?
[Observe] Reinforced Reed/Mats with Mats without Corrugated Other concrete mud covering mud iron 2.3.5 - What is the main building material of the roof?
84 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
2.3.6 - Are you still improving the house? Yes No Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3 – Basic Infrastructure Services
3.1 – Electricity
3.1.1 Are you currently connected to Yes No the electricity grid? [ 3.1.4]
[IF NO] Not Too Failed to Other available expensive to pay bills 3.1.2 - Why are you currently not connected to the grid? get connected Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
[ 3.1.14]
[IF YES] 3.1.3 - How many hours a day do you have electricity?
3.1.4 - How often do you experience a power failure [times/year]?
3.1.5 - Is the electricity delivered by and directly paid to Yes No Hidrandina? [ 3.1.10] [specify] Means of delivery and connection:
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 85
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.1.6 - For how long do you obtain electricity this way?
3.1.7 - What are the main reasons for obtaining Cheaper Hidrandina Other: electricity this way? doesn’t deliver Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.1.8 - Do you pay anything for the delivery of Yes No electricity? [ 3.1.14] Means and specification of payment:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.1.9 - How much do you pay for the delivery of electricity? [Soles/month]
3.1.10 - How do you consider this Very Expensive Fair Cheap Very cheap price to be? expensive
3.1.11 - Do you pay your bills? Always, in Always, with Most of the Sometimes Never time delays time
86 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
[ 3.1.13]
3.1.12 - When failing to pay in time, what has happened to you? How often?
3.1.13 - Do you ever have any other Repairs Installation costs Other: No costs for electricity?
3.1.14 - Upon arrival, what actions did you undertake to Contacted Contacted Other None get access to electricity? Hidrandina neighbourhoo d representative Specification, reasons and results:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.1.15 - Did you experience any difficulties getting Still Long delay Other No electricity delivered? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.1.16 - Other than for billing, are you ever in contact I contact They Both ways No with Hidrandina? them contact me Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 87
.....
3.1.17 - Have you recently undertaken any actions to Yes No change the current situation concerning the delivery of electricity? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2 – Water
3.2.1 - How do you obtain your daily Net Public tap Public Vendors Other: water? (connected to net) basin [ 3.2.2] [ 3.2.46] [ choose closest [ 3.2.16] [ 3.2.32] substitute]
[IF Net] 3.2.2 - How many hours a day do you have water available from the net?
3.2.3 - How often do you experience a lack of water delivery? [times/month]
3.2.4 - How do you consider the Very good Decent Normal Bad Very poor quality of the delivery?
3.2.5 - How much water does your household use daily? [Gallons]
3.2.6 - Is the water delivered by and directly paid to Yes No Sedalib? [ 3.2.11]
3.2.7 - How is the water obtained?
......
.....
......
88 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
.....
......
.....
3.2.8 - For how long do you obtain your water this way?
3.2.9 - What are the main reasons for obtaining water this Cheaper Was Other: way? disconnected Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.10 - Do you pay anyone for the delivery of water? Yes, namely: No [ 3.2.15] Means and specification of payment:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.11 - How much do you pay for the delivery of water? [Soles/month]
3.2.12 - How do you consider this Very Expensive Fair Cheap Very cheap price to be? expensive
3.2.13 - Do you pay your bills? Always, in Always, with Most of the Sometimes Never time delays time [ 3.2.15]
3.2.14 - When failing to pay in time, what has happened to you? How often?
3.2.15 - Do you ever have any Repairs High billing Other: No unexpected costs?
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 89
[IF Public tap] Not available Too expensive to Failed to pay bills Other: get connected 3.2.16 - Why are you not connected to the public net?
3.2.17 - How many hours a day is water available?
3.2.18 - How often do you experience a lack of water delivery?
3.2.19 - How do you consider the Very good Decent Normal Bad Very poor quality of the delivery?
3.2.20 - How much water does your household use daily [Gallons]
3.2.21 - By who is the water Sedalib Other delivered?
3.2.22 - Who do you pay for the Sedalib via representative Other None delivery of water? [ 3.2.27]
3.2.23 - How is the water obtained? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.24 - For how long do you obtain your water this way?
3.2.25 - What are the main reasons for obtaining water Sedalib doesn’t Cheaper Other: this way? deliver Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.26 - Do you pay anyone for the delivery of water? Yes, namely: No [ 3.2.59]
90 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Means and specification of payment:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.27 - How much do you pay for the water? [Soles/Gallon, or fixed price]
3.2.28 - How do you consider this Very Expensive Fair Cheap Very cheap price to be? expensive
3.2.29 - Did you experience Increase Decrease No fluctuations in the costs?
3.2.30 - Do you pay your bills? Always, in Always, with Most of the Sometimes Never time delays time [ 3.2.59]
3.2.31 - When failing to pay in time, [ 3.2.59] what has happened to you? How often?
[IF Public basin] Not available Too Failed to pay Other: expensive to bills 3.2.32 - Why are you not connected get to the public net? connected
3.2.33 - How many days a month is there water available?
3.2.34 - How often do you experience a lack of water delivery?
3.2.35 - How do you consider the Very good Decent Normal Bad Very poor quality of the delivery?
3.2.36 - How much water does your household use daily [Gallons]
3.2.37 - By who is the water Sedalib Municipality Other: delivered?
3.2.38 - Who do you pay for the Sedalib via Municipality via Other None delivery of water? representative representative [ 3.2.41] [ 3.2.41]
3.2.39 - How is the water obtained?
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 91
Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.40 - For how long do you obtain your water this way?
3.2.41 - How much do you pay for the water? [Soles/Gallon, or fixed price]
3.2.42 - How do you consider this Very Expensive Fair Cheap Very cheap price to be? expensive
3.2.43 - Did you experience Increase Decrease No fluctuations in the costs?
3.2.44 - Do you pay your bills? Always, in Always, with Most of the Sometimes Never time delays time [ 3.2.59]
3.2.45 - When failing to pay in time, [ 3.2.59] what has happened to you? How often?
[IF Private vendor] Not available Too expensive to Failed to pay bills Other: get connected 3.2.46 - Why are you not connected to the public net?
3.2.47 – What kind of private vendor Truck with water Tricycle Human carrier Other: delivers your daily water? tank [ 3.2.49] [ 3.2.49]
[IF truck with water tank] Sedalib Municipality Other: 3.2.48 - By who is the water delivered?
3.2.49 - Do you know where your Yes, from Yes, illegally Yes, other: No vendor gets his water? Sedalib
3.2.50 - How many days a month is the water delivered?
3.2.51 - How often do you experience a lack of water delivery?
3.2.52 - How do you consider the Very good Decent Normal Bad Very poor quality of the delivery?
92 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
3.2.53 - How much water does your household use daily [Gallons]
3.2.54 - How much do you pay for the water? [Soles/unit, specify unit in type and gallons]
3.2.55 - How do you consider this Very Expensive Fair Cheap Very cheap price to be? expensive
3.2.56 - Did you experience Increase Decrease No fluctuations in the price?
3.2.57 – How often do you pay for Always, in Always, with Most of the Sometimes Never the delivery of water? time delays time [ 3.2.59]
3.2.58 - When failing to pay in time, what has happened to you? How often?
3.2.59 - Upon arrival, what actions did you undertake to Contacted Contacted Other None get water delivered? Sedalib neighbourhoo d representative Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.60 - Did or do you experience any difficulties getting Still Long delays Other No water delivered by Sedalib? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 93
3.2.61 - Other than for billing, are you ever in contact I contact They Both ways No Sedalib concerning the topic of water? them contact me Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.62 - Are you ever in contact with other companies I contact They Both ways No that deliver water? them contact me Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.63 - Upon arrival, what costs did you have Installation Formalities Other None concerning the delivery of water? costs Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.64 - What do you do when there is no water Use Save water Contact Other available from your main source? alternative and wait someone, source, namely namely Specification and reasons:
......
94 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.65 - Do you plan to change the current situation Yes No concerning the delivery of water? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.3 – Sanitation
3.3.1 - What sanitation disposal Public net Septic tank Latrine None service do you have? [ 3.3.3] [ 3.3.3] [ 3.3.3]
3.3.2 - Where do you go? Neighbours Public Toilet Open field Other: [ 3.3.11]
3.3.3 - How often do you experience problems with this service? [Specify problem]
3.3.4 - What alternative source do you do use when the sanitation service cannot be used?
3.3.5 - How do you consider the Very good Decent Normal Bad Very poor quality of your sanitation service?
3.3.6 - How much do you pay for this Nothing service? [Soles/month] [ 3.3.10]
3.3.7 - How do you consider this Very Expensive Fair Cheap Very cheap price to be? expensive
3.3.8 - Do you pay your bills? Always, in Always, with Most of the Sometimes Never time delays time
3.3.9 - When failing to pay, what has happened to you?
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 95
How often?
3.3.10 - What costs did you have concerning the Installation Formalities Other No sanitation service? costs
Specification and reasons [include time frame] :
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.3.11 - Upon arrival, what actions did you undertake to Contacted Contacted Other None get your current sanitation service? Sedalib neighbourhoo d representative Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.3.12 - Did or do you experience any difficulties getting Still Long delays Other No connected to the public net? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.3.13 - How satisfied are you with Very Satisfied Normal Unsatisfied Very
96 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
the type of the sanitation you use? satisfied unsatisfied
3.3.14 - What are the most urgent problems concerning the sanitation service? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.3.15 - Do you plan to change the current situation Yes No concerning your sanitation services? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.4 – Garbage Disposal
3.4.1 - Is your garbage collected? By the municipality By others: No [ 3.4.3] [ 3.4.3]
[IF Not] Own On the street Open field Garbage Other: property dump 3.4.2 - Where do you leave your [ 3.4.11] [ 3.4.11] garbage? [ 3.4.11] [ 3.4.11]
3.4.3 - How often is the garbage collected?
3.4.4 - How often do you experience a lack collection?
3.4.5 - How do you consider the Very good Decent Normal Bad Very poor quality of the collection service?
3.4.6 - How much do you pay for the collection of garbage? [Soles]
3.4.7 - How do you consider this Very Expensive Fair Cheap Very cheap price to be? expensive
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 97
3.4.8 - Did you experience changes Increase Decrease No in the costs for your garbage collection?
3.4.9 - Do you always pay your Always, in Always, with Most of the Sometimes Never bills? time delays time
3.4.10 - When failing to pay, what has happened to you? How often?
3.4.11 - Upon arrival, what actions did you undertake to Contacted Contacted Other None improve your situation concerning garbage disposal? municipality neighbourhoo d representative Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.4.12 - How satisfied are you with Very Satisfied Normal Unsatisfied Very the type of the garbage disposal you satisfied unsatisfied use?
3.4.13 - What are the most urgent problems concerning the garbage disposal? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.4.14 - Do you plan to change the current situation Yes No concerning your garbage disposal? Specification and reasons:
......
98 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.5 – Telecommunications
3.5.1 - Do you have a phone? Landline Cell phone No [ 3.5.4] [ 3.5.4]
[If not] No net available Too expensive Legal issues Other: 3.5.2 - Why not?
3.5.3 - Do you make phone calls? Yes, at a public Yes, at family’s Yes, at relatives’ No phone place place [ 3.5.10]
3.5.4 - Who do you call? Work Family Relatives Other:
3.5.5 - How do you consider the Very good Decent Normal Bad Very poor quality of the phone service you use?
3.5.6 - How do you consider this Very Expensive Fair Cheap Very cheap price to be? expensive
3.5.7 - Did you experience changes Increase Decrease No in your costs for phone calls?
[ONLY IF landline or cell phone] Always, in Always, with Most of the Sometimes Never [IF no phone 3.5.10] time delays time [ 3.5.10] 3.5.8 - Do you pay your bills?
3.5.9 - When failing to pay, what has happened to you? How often?
3.5.10 - Do you have access to the In house At family’s At relatives’ Public place No internet? place place
3.5.11 - What do you use the Work Family Relatives Other: internet for?
3.5.12 - How do you consider the Very good Decent Normal Bad Very poor quality of the phone service you use?
3.5.13 - How do you consider this Very Expensive Fair Cheap Very cheap price to be? expensive
3.5.14 - Upon arrival, what actions did you undertake to Contacted Contacted Other: None neighbourhoo
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 99
get a phone? company d [ 3.5.15] representative Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.5.15 - Did or do you experience any difficulties getting Still Long delays Other No a telephone connection? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.5.16 - Are you ever in contact with (other) companies I contact They Both ways No that offer phone services? them contact me Specification and reasons:
......
.....
......
.....
......
.....
3.5.17 - Do you plan to change the current situation Yes No concerning your (lack of) telephone connection? Specification and reasons:
......
.....
100 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
......
.....
......
.....
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 101
102 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
J-2 QUESTIONNAIRE - SPANISH VERSION Cuestionario – Establecimiento y Servicios de Infraestructura Este cuestionario es efectuado como parte de el proyecto de investigación para mi MSc tesis Política y Tecnología, en la Universidad Eindhoven de tecnología y la Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego. El objetivo de este cuestionario es encontrar relaciones entre las características de los habitantes, y sus acciones para conseguir el envío o mejora de servicios de infraestructura. Este será realizado en varios asentamientos humanos de Trujillo. Los hallazgos serán publicados en la tesis y por lo tanto estarán disponibles para cualquier institución o individuo. Gracias por su cooperación. 0 - Información General
0.1 – Entrevista
0.1.1 - Fecha
0.1.2 – Numero de entrevista
0.1.3 – Nombre del entrevistador
0.1.4 - Nombre del respondiente
0.2 – Residencia
0.2.1 – Distrito
0.2.2 - Barrio
0.2.3 – Manzana
0.2.4 – Lote
1 – Características del Respondiente
1.1 – General
1.1.1 - Sexo masculino femenino
1.1.2 - Edad
1.2 – Familiar
1.2.1 – Tamaño total de la familia
1.2.2 - ¿Quienes son los miembros Esposo/esposa hijos Otros: de la familia?
1.2.3 – ¿Cuántas personas son menores de 15 años de edad?
1.2.4 - ¿Cambió el tamaño de su aumentó disminuyó variaciones Ningún familia desde que vive en la cambio
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 103
residencia actual? Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
1.2.5 - Ingreso mensual suyo y de su < 125 - 250-500 500 - 750 750 - 1000 1000- > esposo / esposa [S/.] 125 250 1500 1500
1.2.6 - ¿Cambió el ingreso familiar significativamente aumentó disminuyó variaciones Ningún desde que vive en la residencia actual? cambio Especificaciones y razones:
......
......
......
2 – Migración y establecimiento
2.1 – Residencias anteriores
2.1.1 – ¿Desde cuándo vive usted aquí?
2.1.2 - ¿Dónde vivió antes Amazonas Ancash Apurímac Arequipa Ayacucho de mudarse aquí? [departamento] Cajamarca Callao Cusco Huancavelic Huánuco a
Ica Junín La Libertad Lambayeque Lima [ 2.3.3]
Loreto Madre de Diós Moqueque Pasco Piura
Puno San Martin Tacna Tumbes Ucayali
[si es La Libertad] Ascope Bolivar Chepen Gran Chimu Julcan Otuzco 2.1.3 - ¿Que provincia? Pacasmayo Pataz Sanchez Santiago de Trujillo Viru Carrion Chuco [ 2.1.4]
[si es Trujillo (provincia)] Huanchaco El Florencia de La Laredo Moche Porv Mora Esperanza 2.1.4 - ¿Qué distrito? ernir
Poroto Simb Salaverry Trujillo Victor Larco al Herrera [ 2.1.5]
104 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
2.1.5 – ¿Por qué dejó la residencia anterior? Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
2.1.6 - ¿ Tuvo otros cambios de residencia antes de si No eso? [ Si es que sí, repita pregunta 2.1.1 hasta que la respuesta se ‘NO’ ]
......
.....
......
.....
2.2 – Establecimiento
2.2.1 Antes de migrar, visitó este Regularmente Esporádicamente Una vez No sitio (barrio)?
2.2.2 -Antes de migrar, conoció a Sí, nómbrelo: No alguien que vivía aquí?
2.2.3 – Conoció a otras personas Sí, nómbrelo: No establecidos aquí?
2.2.4 - Antes de migrar, ¿hizo algún Terreno Se inició los Otros: No arreglo con respecto al terreno? arreglado arreglos
2.2.5 - Antes de migrar, ¿hizo algún Compro la Comenzó a Otro, nombrelo: No arreglo con respecto a la casa? casa construir
2.2.6 - Antes de migrar, ¿ encontró Fue aceptado Tuvo una oferta Estuvo buscando uno No trabajo?
2.2.7 –¿ recibió algún apoyo De la familia De una DE otros: No financiero para establecerse? institución:
2.2.8 - ¿Consiguió Ayuda para De la familia De amigos: Trabajadores pagados No construir la casa?
2.2.9 – Por qué escogió esta residencia específica? Recomendada Propia Otra:: interpretación
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 105
Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
2.2.10 – Experimentó algunas dificultades legales a su Con la Con los Con otros: No llegada? municipalidad vecinos: :
Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
2.3 – Situación domiciliaria actual
2.3.1 - ¿Cuál es la situación actual de Alquilada Propietario(todo Propietario( aun Ocupación propiedad de su residencia (o de su pagado) pagando) (invasión) [ 2.3.3] esposo / esposa)?
[Si es propietario] Sí, desde: Certificado de vivienda o No similar 2.3.2 - ¿ Tiene el dueño de la casa título de propiedad?
[Observe] Ladrillos/Cement Adobe Estera Otro: o bloques con 2.3.3 - ¿Cuáles son los principales cemento materiales de construcción de las paredes?
[Observe] Cemento Tierra Otro, nómbrelo 2.3.4 -¿Cuáles es el principal material de construcción de el piso?
[Observe] Concreto Totora / estera Esteras sin Plancha Otros reforzado con cubierta de barro de hierro 2.3.5 --¿Cuáles es el principal material barro corrugado de construcción del tejado?
2.3.6 - ¿está usted aún mejorando la casa? Sí No Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
106 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
......
.....
2.3.7 - ¿Cuáles son las principales desventajas de la residencia actual? Especificacion:
......
.....
......
.....
3 –Servicios Básicos de Infraestructura
3.1 – Electricidad
3.1.1 ¿Está usted actualmente Sí Sí, red provisoria No conectado a la red eléctrica? [ 3.1.4] [ 3.1.4]
[si NO] No Demasiado No pagó otros disponible caro recibos 3.1.2 -¿por qué no está usted actualmente conectado a conseguir la red eléctrica? conexión Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
[ 3.1.14]
[si SI] 3.1.3 - ¿Cuántas horas al día tiene electricidad?
3.1.4 – Cuán a menudo experimenta apagones [veces/año]?
3.1.6 – desde hace cuánto tiempo obtiene electricidad de este modo?
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 107
3.1.5 - ¿Se envía la electricidad por un pago directo a Sí No Hidrandina? [ 3.1.9] [especifique] Medios de envío y conexión:
......
.....
......
.....
3.1.7 – Cuáles son las razones principales para obtener Más barato Hidrandina no la Otros electricidad de esta forma provee Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.1.8 - ¿Paga usted algo para el envío de Sí No elctricidad? [ 3.1.14] Medios y especificaciones de pago
......
.....
......
.....
3.1.9 - ¿Cuánto paga por el envío de electricidad? [Soles/mes]
3.1.10 ¿Que te parece ese precio? Muy caro caro Justo Barato Muy barato
3.1.11 - ¿Paga sus recibos? Siempre, a Siempre, con La mayoría A veces Nunca tiempo retraso de las veces [ 3.1.13]
3.1.12 - ¿ Cuándo no paga a tiempo, qué le ha sucedido? Cuán a menudo?
3.1.13 – Ha tenido algunos otros Reparaciones Costos de Otros No costos por electricidad? instalación
108 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
3.1.14 - ¿A su llegada, que acciones emprendió para Contacto a Contactar al Otro Ningunuo tener acceso a la electricidad? Hidrandina representant e vecinal Especificaciones, razones y resultados:
......
.....
......
.....
3.1.15 – Experimentó alguna dificultad consiguiendo el Aún Largo Otro No envió de electricidad. retraso Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.1.16 – aparte de los recibos, esta alguna ves en Yo los Ellos me Ambas No contacto con Hidrandina? contacto contactan formas Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.1.17 – Ha emprendido recientemente alguna acción si No para cambiar la situación actual con respecto al envió de electricidad? Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.2 – Agua
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 109
3.2.1 - ¿Cómo obtiene el agua Red Pileta público Pozo Vendedores Otros: a diario? (conectado a la red) público [ 3.2.2] [ 3.2.48] [ escoja el [ 3.2.16] [ 3.2.33] subtítulo más aproximado]
[Si es Red] 3.2.2 - ¿Cuántas horas al día tiene agua de la red disponible?
3.2.3 - ¿Cuán a menudo experimenta falta de agua? [veces/mes]
3.2.4 - ¿Qué el parece la calidad del Muy bueno Decente Normal Malo Muy pobre envío?
3.2.5 - ¿Cuánta agua gasta su familia? [Galones]
3.2.6 – Es el agua repartida por un pago directo a sí No Sedalib? [ 3.2.11]
3.2.7 - ¿Come se obtiene el agua?
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.8 - ¿Hace cuánto obtiene el agua de este modo?
3.2.9 -¿Cuáles son las razones principales para obtener Mas barato Estuve Otra: el agua de esta modo? desconectado Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.10 - ¿Le paga a alguien por el reparto de agua? Sí, nómbrelo No [ 3.2.15] Medios y especificación de pago:
......
110 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
.....
......
.....
3.2.11 - ¿Cuánto paga por el reparto del agua? [Soles/mes]
3.2.12 – ¿Qué el parece el precio? Muy caro caro justo barato Muy barato
3.2.13 - ¿Paga usted sus recibos? Siempre, a Siempre, con La mayoría A veces Nunca tiempo retrasos de las veces [ 3.2.15]
3.2.14 - ¿ Cuándo no paga a tiempo, qué le ha sucedido? Cuán a menudo?
3.2.15 – Alguna vez tiene costos Reparaciones Recibos altos Otros: No inesperados? [ 3.2.62] [ 3.2.62] [ 3.2.62] [ 3.2.62]
[Si es llave público] No disponible Es muy caro No pagó recibos Otros: conectarse 3.2.16 - ¿Por que no está conectado a la red públca?
3.2.17 – Cuántas horas al dia esta disponible el agua?
3.2.18 - ¿Cuán a menudo experimenta falta de agua?
3.2.19 – qué el parece la calidad del Muy bueno Decente Normal Malo Muy pobre reparto?
3.2.20 - ¿Cuánta agua usa su vivienda diariamente [Galones]
3.2.21 - ¿Como guarda el agua?
3.2.22 - ¿por quién es repartida el Sedalib Other agua?
3.2.23 - ¿A quién le paga por el Sedalib vía representativa Otro Ninguno reparto del agua? [ 3.2.28]
3.2.24 - ¿Cómo se obtiene el agua?
Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 111
3.2.25 – Hace cuánto obtiene el agua de ese modo?
3.2.26 - ¿Cuáles son las razones principales para Sedalib no la Mas barato Otra: obtener el agua de ese modo? envía Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.27 - ¿Le paga a alguien por reparto de agua Sí, nómbrelo No [ 3.2.62] Medios y especificaciones de pago
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.28 - ¿cuánto paga por galón? [Soles/Galón, precio fijo]
3.2.29 - ¿Qué le parece el precio? Muy caro caro justo barato Muy barato
3.2.30 - ¿experimenta variaciones en aumento disminución No los costos?
3.2.31 - ¿paga sus recibos? Siempre, a Siempre, con La mayoría A veces Nunca tiempo retraso de las veces [ 3.2.62]
3.2.32 - ¿ Cuándo no paga a tiempo, [ 3.2.62] qué le ha sucedido? Cuán a menudo?
[Si es pozo público] No disponible Muy caro No pagó recibos Otra: conectarse 3.2.33 - ¿Por qué no esta conectado a la red publica?
3.2.34 - ¿Cuántos días al mes esta disponible el agua?
3.2.35 - ¿Cuán a menudo experimenta falta de agua?
3.2.36 - ¿ Qué le parece la calidad Muy bueno Decente Normal Malo Muy pobre del envío?
112 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
3.2.37 - ¿Cuanta agua utiliza su vivienda a diario? [Galones]
3.2.38 - ¿Como guarda el agua? Bidon de plastico Baldes Cilindro Metal Otro: plasticos [incluye cantidad y tamaño]
3.2.39 - ¿ Por quién en repartida el Sedalib Municipalidad Otro: agua?
3.2.40 - ¿A quién le paga por el Sedalib vía Municipalidad vía Otro: Ninguno reparto del agua? representativa representativa [ 3.2.43] [ 3.2.43]
3.2.41 - ¿Como se obtiene el agua?
Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.42 – ¿Hace cuanto tiempo obtiene el agua de este modo?
3.2.43 - ¿cuánto paga por galón? [Soles/Galón, precio fijo]
3.2.44 - ¿Que le parece el precio? Muy caro caro justo barato Muy barato
3.2.45 – ¿Experimenta variaciones Aumento Disminución No en el precio?
3.2.46 - ¿Paga sus recibos? Siempre, a Siempre, con La mayoría A veces Nunca tiempo retrasos de las veces [ 3.2.62]
3.2.47 - ¿ Cuándo no paga a tiempo, [ 3.2.62] qué le ha sucedido? Cuán a menudo?
[Si es vendedor particular] No disponible Muy caro No pagó recibos Otra: conectarse 3.2.48 – ¿por qué no esta conectado a la red pública?
3.2.49 – ¿Que clase de vendedor Tanque Cisterna Triciclo Cargador humano Otra: particular le reparte el agua a diario? [ 3.2.51] [ 3.2.51]
[Sí es camión con tanque de agua] Sedalib Municipalidad Other: 3.2.50 - ¿Por quién es repartida el agua?
3.2.51 - ¿Sabe de dónde consigue el Sí, de Sedalib Sí, ilegalmente Sí, otro: No
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 113
agua su vendedor?
3.2.52 - ¿Cuántos días al mes se reparte el agua?
3.2.53 - ¿Cuán a menudo experimenta falta de agua?
3.2.54 - ¿Que el parece l calidad del Muy bueno Decente Normal Malo Muy pobre envío?
3.2.55 - ¿Cuanta agua utiliza su vivienda a diario? [Galones]
3.2.56 - ¿Como guarda el agua?
3.2.57 - ¿Cuánto paga por el agua [Soles/unidad, especifique la unidad en tipo y galones]
3.2.58 - ¿Que le parece el precio? Muy caro caro justo barato Muy barato
3.2.59 - ¿experimenta variaciones Aumento Disminución Variaciones No en el precio?
3.2.60 – ¿Cuán a menudo paga por Siempre, a Siempre, con La mayoría A veces Nunca el reparto del agua? tiempo retraso de las veces [ 3.2.62]
3.2.61 -¿ Cuándo no paga a tiempo, qué le ha sucedido? Cuán a menudo?
3.2.62 – A su llegada, qué acciones emprendió par Contactó a Contactó al Otro Ninguno conseguir el reparto de agua? Sedalib representant e vecinal Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.63 – Experimentó o experimenta alguna dificultad al Aun Largo otro No obtener el reparto de agua Sedalib? retaso Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
114 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
3.2.64 - Contacta alguna vez a Sedalib con respecto al Yo los Ellos me Ambas No tema del agua (a parte de los recibos)? contacto contactan formas Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.65 - ¿Está alguna vez en contacto con otras Yo los Ellos me Ambas No compañías que reparten aguar? contacto contactan formas Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.66 – A su llegada, qué costos tenía con respecto al Costos de Formalidade Other Ninguno reparto del agua? instalación s Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.2.67 - ¿qué hace cuando no hay agua disponible de Usar una Ahorrar agua Contactar a Otro su fuente principal? fuente y esperar alguien, alternativa, nómbrelo nómbrela
Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 115
3.2.68 - ¿Planea cambiar la situación actual con respecto Sí No al reparto de agua? Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.3 – Servicio sanitario
3.3.1 - ¿Qué servicio de disposición Alcantarillado Tanque Letrina / Ninguno sanitaria tiene? público séptico Pozo ciego
[ 3.3.3] [ 3.3.10] [ 3.3.10]
3.3.2 - ¿ A dónde va? Vecinos Baño público Campo abierto Otro: [ 3.3.11]
3.3.3 – Cuán a menudo experimenta problemas con este servicio? [Especifique el problema]
3.3.4 - ¿Qué fuente alternativa usa cuando el servicio sanitario no puede ser usado?
3.3.5 - ¿Qué le parece la calidad de Muy buena Decente Normal mala Muy pobre su servicio sanitario?
3.3.6 - ¿Cuánto paga por este Nada servicio? [Soles/mes] [ 3.3.10]
3.3.7 - ¿Qué le parece el precio? Muy caro Caro Justo Barato Muy barato
3.3.8 - ¿Paga sus recibos? Siempre, a Siempre, con La mayoría A veces Nunca tiempo retrasos de las veces
3.3.9 - -¿ Cuándo no paga a tiempo, qué le ha sucedido? Cuán a menudo?
3.3.10 - ¿Qué costos tenía con respecto al servicio costos de Formalidade Other No sanitario? instalación s
Especificaciones y razones: [incluya margen de tiempo] :
......
.....
......
.....
116 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
3.3.11 – A su llegada, qué acciones emprendió para Contactar a Contactar al Other Ninguno conseguir su actual servicio sanitario? Sedalib representant e vecinal Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.3.12 – experimentó o experimenta alguna dificultad Aún Largos Otros No para conectarse al alcantarillado público? retrasos Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.3.13 – ¿Cuán satisfecho está usted Muy Satisfecho Normal insatisfecho muy con el tipo de servicio sanitario que satisfecho insatisfecho usa?
3.3.14 - ¿Cuáles son los problemas más urgentes concernientes al servicio sanitario? Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.3.15 - ¿Planea cambiar la situación actual con respecto sí No a su servicio sanitario? Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 117
3.4 – Eliminación de desechos
3.4.1 – es recogida su basura? Por la municipalidad Por otros: No [ 3.4.3] [ 3.4.3]
[SI No] Mi propiedad En la calle Campo Tiradero de Otros: abierto basura 3.4.2 ¿Dónde deja su basura? [ 3.4.11] [ 3.4.11] [ 3.4.11] [ 3.4.11]
3.4.3 - ¿Cuán a menudo es recogida la basura?
3.4.4 - ¿Cuan a menudo experimenta falta de recolección?
3.4.5 - ¿Qué le parece la calidad del Muy buena Decente Normal mala Muy pobre servicio de recolección?
3.4.6 - ¿Cuánto paga por la recolección de basura? [Soles]
3.4.7 - ¿Qué le parece el precio? Muy caro caro justo barato Muy barato
3.4.8 - ¿experimenta cambios en los aumento disminución No costos de la recolección de basura?
3.4.9 - ¿Paga siempre sus recibos? Siempre, a Siempre, con La mayoría A veces Nunca tiempo retrasos de las veces
3.4.10 -¿ Cuándo no paga a tiempo, qué le ha sucedido? Cuán a menudo?
3.4.11 – A su llegada, qué acciones emprendió para Contactar a Contactar al Otro Ninguno mejorar su situación con respecto a la eliminación de la representant desechos? Municipalida e vecinal d Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
[SI NO recogido] Muy satisfecho Normal Insatisfecho Muy satisfecho insatisfecho 3.4.12 – Cuán satisfecho está con respecto al tipo de eliminación de desechos?
3.4.13 - ¿ Cuáles son los problemas más urgentes concernientes a la eliminación de desechos?
118 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.4.14 –Planea cambiar l situación actual con respecto a si No la eliminación de desechos? Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.5 – Telecomunicaciones
3.5.1 - ¿Tiene teléfono? Linea fija celular No [ 3.5.4] [ 3.5.4]
[si no] No hay red Muy caro Asuntos legales Otro: disponible 3.5.2 - ¿por qué no?
3.5.3 - ¿Hace llamadas telefónicas? Si, de teléfono Si, de un familiar Si, de mis No público parientes [ 3.5.10]
3.5.4 – ¿A quien llama? trabajo Familia parientes Otros:
3.5.5 - ¿qué le parece la calidad de Muy buena Decente Normal mala Muy pobre servicio telefónico que usa?
3.5.6 ¿Qué le parece el precio? Muy caro caro justo barato Muy barato
3.5.7 – ¿experimenta cambios en aumento Disminución No sus costos por llamadas telefónicas?
[sólo si es línea fija o teléfono celular] Siempre, a Siempre, con La mayoría A veces Nunca [si no tiene teléfono 3.5.10] tiempo / retrasos de las veces Tarjeta 3.5.8 - ¿Paga sus recibos? [ 3.5.10]
3.5.9 - ¿ Cuándo no paga a tiempo, qué le ha sucedido? Cuán a menudo?
3.5.10 - ¿Tiene acceso a internet? En casa En mi familia En mis Lugar No parientes público [ 3.5.12]
APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE 119
3.5.11 - ¿Para qué usa el internet? trabajo familia parientes Otro:
3.5.12 - ¿Qué le parece la calidad de Muy buena Decente Normal mala Muy pobre servicio de internet que usa?
3.5.13 - ¿Qué le parece el precio? Muy caro caro justo barato Muy barato
3.5.14 - ¿ a su llegada, qué acciones emprendió para Contacté a la Other: Ninguno conseguir un teléfono? compañía [ 3.5.16] Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.5.15 - ¿Experimentó o experimenta alguna dificultad Aún Largos Otros No para conseguir una conexión telefónica? retrasos Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.5.16 - ¿está alguna vez en contacto con (otras) Yo los Ellos me Ambas No compañías que ofrecen servicios telefónicos? contacto contactan formas Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
3.5.17 - ¿Planea cambiar su situación actual con Sí No respecto a su ( falta de ) conexión telefónica? Especificaciones y razones:
......
.....
......
.....
120 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
M. SC. THESES IN TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES : 2005 05.01 Mara Wijnker: Design of a methodology to determine ex-ante the sustainability of rural electricity systems. Based on a case study in Oruro, Bolivia.
05.02 Michèle Koper: Decentral, Renewable Energy System in Rural Bolivia. Evaluation of case studies and a framework for effective project design.
05.03 Irene Vloerbergh: Implementation & Diffusion of a Foreign Innovative Technology in the Residential Construction Industry. Case study on the diffusion of the HBB-system (Heysterum Bouw & Beheer) in the large scale low-income housing sector on Java, Indonesia.
05.04 Jeroen Matthijs: Access to spatial geographic information on mountainous areas. Building Spatial Data Infrastructure in Tanzania.
05.06 Diane van Herpen: Onbenut potentieel aan vastgoed in Paramaribo – Suriname. Exploratief onderzoek naar onbenut potentieel aan vastgoed in Paramaribo in bezit van in Nederland wonende eigenaren en ideeontwikkeling voor de inzet daarvan ten behoeve van woningbouw en stadsherstel.
05.07 Saskia Benda: Capacity Building in the Tanzanian Construction Industry. Identifying conditions for foreign-domestic collaborations to lead to technology transfer.
05.08 Herjan Siegers: Designing an Appropriate Drinking Water Facility: Iris, an island in the Nile, Sudan.
05.09 Joris de Groot: Technological trajectories and diffusion of photovoltaic technology. South Africa.
M. SC. THESES IN TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES : 2006
06.01 Rik Luiten: Power Supply Performance: Tanzanian Manufacturing Sector Aim.
06.02 Janske van Eijck: Transition towards Jatropha Biofuels in Tanzania? An Analysis with Strategic Niche Management.
06.03 Arend Driest: The role of entrepreneurs in the innovation process in Ghana's timber exporting sector.
06.04 Martine Teeselink: The Vietnamese Software Industry: Export Success or Domestic Strength?
06.05 Jeanet Eggengoor: Exploring the feasibility of minimizing the waste product. Fly ash from the Indonesian Textile Industry by co-processing in the Indonesian Cement Industry.
M. SC. THESES IN TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES : 2007
07.01 Hans van Dijkhuizen: Overcoming bottlenecks with implementation of new technologies. African aviation system.
07.02 Ina de Visser: Design and implementation of biomass energy systems in rural India.
07.03 Robert ten Hagen: Firm Performance in a changing policy environment. The case of TAMECO knife factory. Tanzania.
07.04 Maarten Louwerse: Prospects for ICT service sector growth in the Indian state of Kerala.
07.05 Edwin Vriens/Jan van Diesen: The implementation of an innovation for sustainable economic development in rural areas. The case of solar fruit & vegetable drying in rural Tanzania.
07.06 Raphaël Dasselaar: Diffusion of innovation in disaster areas. The post tsunami reconstruction effort in Aceh, Indonesia.
07.07 Miguel Alvares: Design of Assessment Method for Sustainable Micro-Hydro Projects in Suriname.
07.08 Annemiek Daamen: The development of Cooperation: Enhancing the role of technology in Dutch development cooperation policy.
07.09 Frank Bus: Designed for Users: A user based decision support model for the innovative design of public spaces.
If you would like to receive a copy of one of the above indicated M.Sc. theses, please contact:
Department of Technology and Development Studies Eindhoven University of Technology Secretariat Technology and Development Studies (TDS): Pav. Q 1.01 Tel.: 040 247 2242/247 2246 PO Box 513 5600 MB Eindhoven
122 MIGRATION AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES