Kavrepalanchok District - Factsheet
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nepal Earthquake Response Kavrepalanchok District - Factsheet SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT, 30 May-4 June 2015 [Population: 381,937* Households: 80,720*] *Based on 2011 Nepal census Summary Housing Damage Major earthquakes epicenters On 25 April 2015, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Nepal with its epicenter in Assessed district 97% of households reported housing damage 98% of households reported that that they feel Lamjung District, approximately 81 km northwest of the country capital, Kathmandu. Priority districts as a result of the earthquakes unsafe in the shelter they are currently Another earthquake of magnitude 7.3 followed on 12 May 2015 in Dolakha District. CHINA living in REACH, through its partnership with the Global Shelter Cluster, was deployed to Nepal to facilitate the development of a comprehensive shelter and settlements Reported damage by housing typology recovery strategy for the Nepal Shelter Cluster, and establish a baseline for analysis of the recovery process. The data presented in this factsheet is the result Kavrepalanchok Walls mud-bonded brick/stone Walls mud-bonded brick/stone of a stratified, random survey of 129 households, including those with damaged Roof corrugated galvanised iron (CGI) and non-damaged shelters. Findings can be generalised at district level with a 95% Roof slate / tile Housing type prevalence 26% Housing type prevalence 64% level of confidence and a 10% margin of error. INDIA 39% Completely destroyed 41% Completely destroyed Demographics 45% Heavy damage / partial collapse 41% Heavy damage / partial collapse 15% Minor-moderate damage 16% Minor-moderate damage Female-headed households 5.9 Average household size 18% 0% No damage 2% No damage Age Distribution 4% Households with only one member over the +40+45+15 +41+41+16+2 51% Male / 49% Female Walls cement-bonded brick/stone Walls reinforced concrete cement (RCC) 9+59+13+10++10 8+61+13+10+8 age of 18 60+ Roof CGI Roof RCC 2% Households who are renting Housing type prevalence 2% Housing type prevalence 2% 18 - 59 12 - 17 6% Households with physically disabled 0% Completely destroyed 0% Completely destroyed 5 - 11 Heavy damage / partial collapse Heavy damage / partial collapse 3% Households hosting separated, orphaned 50% 50% 0 - 4 or unaccompanied child(ren) 0% Minor-moderate damage 50% Minor-moderate damage 50% No damage 0% No damage Displacement +50+50 +50+50 93% of households reported that they are not living Reported reasons for displacement Temporary Shelter in the same shelter as before the earthquakes (Respondents could report multiple reasons) Reported emergency shelter needs 46+98+11 Of households that sustained housing damage: 1 min Median travel time from current shelter to original Fear of aftershocks 46% house 90% reported that they have constructed or are House is damaged 98% First Second Third or destroyed constructing temporary shelters 10% of households are 10 minutes or more from Durable construction 69% 75% 53% their original house Unsure if house is 11% materials safe 88% of all households surveyed reported that they Technical assistance 23% 17% 16% have received material shelter assistance Households that are 10 minutes or more from their original Labour 5% 5% 23% house are predominantly living with family in the same Shelter materials 2% 2% 5% community. Intentions of displaced households 0% reported that they have received cash assistance Recovery of belongings 2% 0% 2% Where displaced households are staying 7 days 30 days Mats / Blankets 0% 0% 0% 90+3+4+1+0+ Land of damaged house 90% Top types of material shelter assistance received (Respondents could report multiple types) Open ground 3% 99+32+10+ With family in same community 4% +96+4 +74+22+4 Tarps 99% With family in different community 1% 0% Return to original house 0% Blankets 32% 96% Stay in temporary shelter 74% Evacuation Centre 0% CGI 10% 4% Move to another shelter 22% 0% Don’t know 4% mp man For more information on this factsheet please contact: Informing Page 1/2 Shelter Cluster: [email protected] more effective REACH Initiative: [email protected] REACH humanitarian action Nepal Earthquake Response Kavrepalanchok District - Factsheet SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT, 30 May-4 June 2015 [Population: 381,937* Households: 80,720*] *Based on 2011 Nepal census Housing Recovery Reported Household Needs Of households reporting housing damage: Top 4 reported repair / rebuild needs Priority NFI needs Priority household needs (Respondents could report multiple needs) (Respondents’ reported top three needs) (Respondents’ reported top three needs) 18% of households reported that they have started 82+74+54+53 First Second Third First Second Third repairing or rebuilding their original house Financial 82% Sleeping mat 45% 22% 8% Shelter / Housing 80% 12% 6% Hygiene items 21% 19% 18% Drinking water 9% 26% 12% of these 23 households reported that they have 70% CGI 74% Kitchen items 15% 20% 20% Employment / Jobs 6% 12% 11% received support to repair or rebuild Jerrycans 9% 11% 8% Building tools 5% 16% 12% Milled timber 54% Torches 8% 11% 5% Food 0% 3% 3% 23% of households that sustained housing damage Clothing 1% 7% 30% Labour 53% Health 0% 9% 18% reported that they need support to remove debris Gas fuel 1% 1% 8% Electricity supply 0% 6% 6% Gas fuel 1% 6% 3% Education 0% 1% 2% Gas cooker 0% 2% 0% Female-headed household recovery Hygiene items 0% 2% 8% Access to needed repair / rebuild materials Tarpaulin 0% 0% 0% (Due to the small sample size, it should be noted that the information below is not statistically significant) Financial CGI WASH Livelihoods 1% Lots 32% Lots 25% Some 51% Some 20% of households reported that their pre-earthquake Top 5 reported livelihoods prior to earthquakes 4% of female-headed households reported that they 72% None 15% None (Respondents could report multiple livelihoods) are repairing or rebuilding their original house 2% Don’t know 2% Don’t know source of drinking water was damaged +1+25+72+2 +32+51+15+2 82+46+14+9+9 41% of households reported that their sanitation system 0% of these 1 households reported that they have Subsistence gardening 82% Milled timber Labour was completely destroyed or heavily damaged received support to repair or rebuild 19% Lots 14% Lots Keep livestock 46% 51% Some 55% Some of female-headed households that sustained 22% 30% None 32% None Source of drinking water Informal wages 14% housing damage reported that they need support 0% Don’t know 0% Don’t know to remove debris +19+51+30 +14+54+32 Before 25 April After 12 May Business 9% 19% Private pipe 19% No income 9% Communication Hazard Protection 30% Municipal tap 28% 11% Spout 14% Top 3 ways of receiving public information Of all assessed households: 0% Bottled water 0% (Respondents could report multiple ways) 40% Other 39% 69% of households reported a decrease in income 28+44+71 +19+30+1140 +19+28+14+39 immediately after the earthquakes 69% of households feel only partially protected or Television 28% completely unprotected against current weather 25% of households reported a decline in water quality 1% of households reporting a decrease in income condititons Radio 44% 33% of households reported a decrease in water quantity said that their income has since been fully restored 87% of households do not feel protected against Word-of-mouth 71% 41% of households reporting a decrease in income upcoming monsoon season Type of toilet facility said that their income has since been partially restored 67% of households do not feel protected against Before 25 April After 12 May 42% of households reported knowing of someone in the upcoming winter conditions Livestock ownership community who was consulted before aid delivery 80% Flush (septic) 60% 25% of households have experienced damage from 0% Flush (sewer) 0% 46% of households kept livestock prior to the earthquakes past natural hazard(s) Public Services 9% Pit Latrine 7% 11% No toilet 25% Reported inability to access services +80+9+11 0% Other 8% +60+7+25+8 On average, 59% of these households’ livestock died or were lost as a result of the earthquakes Of all assessed households the following percentage reported they could not access each service: 6% Households sharing toilet facilities 14% with other households 9% Health services 9% Municipal services 31% Education 1.8 Average # of households per toilet 2.3 mp man For more information on this factsheet please contact: Informing Page 2/2 Shelter Cluster: [email protected] more effective REACH Initiative: [email protected] REACH humanitarian action.