Housing_UNRWA_HR

49
UNRWA - Near East Project Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees Henri Rueff Alain Viaro Thematic Report - May 2007 Project coordinated by: J. Al Husseini, R. Bocco, M. Brunner and F. Lapeyre

Transcript of Housing_UNRWA_HR

UNRWA - Near East Project

Assessment ofHousing Conditionsof Palestine Refugees

Henri Rueff Alain Viaro

Thematic Report - May 2007

Project coordinated by: J. Al Husseini, R. Bocco, M. Brunner and F. Lapeyre

Creative layout by Jack A. RabahCover photo Copyright UNRWA Photo Library

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

Assessment of Housing Conditions ofPalestine Refugees

Henri RueffAlain Viaro

November 2007

n � n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................................................71. Main findings .....................................................................................................................................................82. Policy relevance ..................................................................................................................................................93. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 104. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................. 14�. Objectives ......................................................................................................................................................... 1�6. Crowding in housing ...................................................................................................................................... 168. Appliances owned .......................................................................................................................................... 249. Structural defects, house types, tenure and construction material .................................................... 3010. Neighbourhood public spaces, green spaces and recreation ............................................................ 3�11. Access, mobility, paved streets and transportation networks ............................................................ 3812. Respiratory problems caused by the housing environment .............................................................. 4213. Gastro intestinal problems caused by the housing environment ..................................................... 4414. Proposals for further investigation ............................................................................................................ 461�. References ..................................................................................................................................................... 47List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................... 48List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... 49

n 6 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

Abbreviations

COHRE Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions

FAFO Fagbevegelsens Senter for Forskning (Institute for Applied International Studies

IDF Israel Defense Force

OPT Occupied Palestinian Territories

SAR Syrian Arab Republic

SHC Special hardship case

UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East

WHO World Health Organization

n 7 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Guy Siri and Muna Budeiri at UNRWA for their insights and comments on this report, which greatly helped sharpening its content. We are indebted to Jalal Al Husseini and Jaber Suleiman for having shared their expertise and knowledge on Palestine refugees, explained UNRWA’s position on various issues, and provided us with ideas and answers to our numerous questions. Matthias Brunner was of invaluable help in assisting us for our data organization and analyses, and made much of his time available to discuss results. The core team of the project was remarkable in providing drafters with the best possible working conditions. Our gratitude goes to Riccardo Bocco, Luigi Di Martino and Elisabeth Nyffenegger for their assistance. We are thankful to the people working at Datadoxa, especially to Celine Calve, Christian Buhler, Benjamin Firmenich and Markus Peter, who went over our various analytical syntaxes and reviewed our tables and figures. We would like to thank Praveen Bhalla for her editing work on our chapter. Finally, we were warmly welcomed by refugees and camp managers who let us see the living condition they endure. We hope that the housing conditions portrayed in this work will assist in better understanding needs for better housing to Palestine refugees.

n 8 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

1. Main findings1

There is a sharp variation in housing conditions of refugees living in camps and outside camps in all locations: they are generally inferior in camps than outside camps. Overcrowding affects a large proportion of refugees in all locations. Those living in camps are proportionally much more likely to face overcrowding. Interestingly, households’ income has a limited effect on levels of overcrowding. Households larger than seven members and living in camps in Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic are much more exposed to overcrowding than households elsewhere.The population density of registered refugees (pers./km2) is critical and comparable, if not higher, than that of the densest administrative units in the world. The average density of camps in the Syrian Arab Republic appears to be twice as high as in other locations, due to two camps having extreme levels of density, which pulls the average upwards. Lebanon has the highest proportion of camps with a density superior to 100,000 pers./km2, which makes it the most critical field in terms of camp density. This finding is consistent with the visible vertical extension of houses. The status of refugees and restrictions enforced by host authorities seem to be the main reasons for the population density in camps.Electricity reaches most houses, regardless of residence location. Televisions and refrigerators are the two most commonly owned appliances found in households in all the locations. Air conditioners, private cars, sewing machines and water filters are the least common. The unequal ownership of appliances in camps and outside camps confirms the uneven distribution of income between the two categories of refugees. Except for the commonly found appliances (TV, refrigerators), refugees living outside the camps possess more appliances than refugees living in the camps. The majority of refugees report the lack of recreational space and public spaces in their neighbourhoods.Houses in camps have more structural defects than those outside camps.A paved path leading to the front door of houses is found more often outside the camps than in camps. The situation in camps in Lebanon is the worst, with a large majority of refugees lacking paved access to their residence. Students endure lengthy commutes to their schools, regardless of residence location.Refugees in camps in Lebanon reported higher levels of dissatisfaction at the lack of public transportation close to their residence.The choice of energy, quality of ventilation and occurrence of humidity in dwellings have the strongest effects on respiratory problems, though in varying degrees at different locations. There seems to be a lower incidence of respiratory problems in the Syrian Arab Republic, possibly due to the use of diesel fuel as the main form of energy for heating. In other locations, on the other hand, the use of fuelwood tends to increase the incidence of respiratory problems.

1 In this report ‘site’ refers to camp/non-camp and location or field refers to country or territory.

n

n

n

n

n

nn

n

n

n

n 9 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

2. Policy relevance

Assistance should give priority to refugees living inside the camps. It should target critical problems such as overcrowding, density, sewerage connections, toilets, kinds of energy used, means of transportation, and structural strength of houses. Solutions for density and overcrowding should be sought, such as negotiating for the extension of camps and finding ways for large families to extend their houses, to split up among different houses, or be relocated in larger houses where possible. The camp of Ein el Tal has demonstrated how effective solutions can be found.

Additional surveys could better identify the factors influencing levels of crowding (temporarily whilst youngsters are studying and staying with their parents, or in poor economic situations). Additional research could provide a more accurate assessment of the needs of the camps (discussed below under further investigation needed).

n 10 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

3. Introduction

Housing conditions affect the physical and psychological health of dwellers, more so the underprivileged communities with an unsettled status and unstable livelihoods. Housing for Palestine refugees has been a key issue since the beginning of the UNRWA mandate in 1949. Habitation in camps evolved from tents and one-room shelters provided �0 years ago to the vertical and horizontal sprawl of houses built according to needs and assets of dwellers. The often overcrowded camps have only a limited amount of land so that extending them is not always possible. Thus, when not regulated by host governments, floors have been added to houses to accommodate growing families.

Population growth in camps has spurred the demand for services and housing. However, UNRWA’s budget has not increased in proportion to the growing refugee population. This has affected the provision of services and increased the difficulties in meeting needs (FAFO, 2003a). Additionally, the status of Palestine refugees in their host countries has remained provisional for more than �0 years. This requires that refugees be provided, at the very least, with acceptable accommodation, sanitation, community services and access to jobs. Housing rehabilitation programmes, which are committed to assuring housing rights, have targeted hardship cases in particular, to assist them in satisfying their basic housing needs.

The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) defines seven pillars of housing rights: (i) security of tenure, which gives housing a legal basis that protects dwellers from eviction; (ii) availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure, which are necessary attributes of decent housing conditions; (iii) affordability, which ensures that resources allocated to housing are not at the expense of other vital needs; (iv) habitability of housing, which ensures sufficient individual space, adequate heating and cooling, sanitation and protection against natural elements; (v) accessibility, which ensures adequate shelter for physically or financially disadvantaged groups; (vi) location, which ensures that dwellings are in the vicinity of economic, administration and health centres for accessing jobs, supplies and services; and (vii) culturally appropriate housing, which ensures the protection of cultural identity and that houses are suitable for worshipping rites.

The Principles of Healthy Housing established by the World Health Organization (WHO) seek to ensure an adequate and healthy environment in housing, considering that it is “the environmental factor most frequently associated with disease conditions in epidemiological analyses; i.e. inadequate and deficient housing and living conditions are invariably associated with higher mortality and morbidity rates” (in Leckie, 2000).

Additional housing rights are to be considered in the case of refugees. While people in exile may be granted all the above housing rights, these may nevertheless fail to provide a sense of home. Refugees often endure a double deprivation due to the uncertain return to where is home following the evicting authorities reluctance to their repatriation coupled to the unwillingness of the host country to grant full rights (Sayyigh, 200�). Sayyigh (200�) also describes home for refugees as “[…] a symbol of loss, as ultimate goal of struggle, and also as base of daily life needs”. While house refers to the physical structure sheltering dwellers, home refers to a town, a village or a neighborhood with which a person identifies. Palestine refugees have kept and transmitted objects across generations as evidence of their house and land ownership in pre-1948 Palestine.2 In many cases, refugees have strived to reconstruct as closely as possible the atmosphere of the village of origin by reuniting relatives and neighbours. Despite the temporary character of housing in camps, achieving satisfactory habitation standards for refugees is essential for their sustained existence (FAFO, 1997).

Assisting with the provision of the highest possible standards of housing may thus be perceived as a way to create a new sense of home, as opposed to the symbolic meaning of the original home associated with the right of return. In response to this contradiction, one of the Pinheiro Principles (COHRE, 200�) for refugee housing states that the right of housing and land restitution should be granted (second principle) while at the same time providing refugees with adequate housing in host countries (eighth principle).

2 The key (miftah) is the main symbol ‘tying’ Palestine refugees to what is considered home

n 11 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Moreover, long-term rehabilitation projects to address the deterioration of housing conditions should not compromise the Palestine refugees’ right of return, to which they aspire, according to United Nations Resolution 194 (Takkenberg and Mukhles, 200�). And this right should not prevent refugees from being granted decent housing in their host countries. Neither should it hinder camp managers and host authorities from developing long-term urban master plans for refugee camps.

Analyzing refugees’ housing conditions cannot be limited to the study of the close vicinity and environment of the dwellings. Their living conditions depend on mobility, access to markets and jobs, and availability of efficient community services. Mobility and access to jobs are in turn dependent on the status of the refugees in the host country, their social integration, levels of discrimination, location of their residence – whether at the periphery or close to town centres – availability of roads and transportation, political stability and security.

Palestine refugees’ conditions vary considerably according to the environment of the host country. Freedom of mobility and integration contribute to the betterment of their living conditions. For example, refugees in Lebanon face a housing crisis due to the lack of re-housing alternatives in response to population growth. In the West Bank and Gaza, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has increasingly pressured refugees through closures, demolition of houses and incursions into camps and houses. In Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic, on the other hand, refugees face fewer problems. In Jordan particularly, the possibility for acquiring citizenship to refugees has reduced inequalities. Overall, however, refugee housing conditions can be characterized as minimal in all the locations.

Camps are generally defined as land allocated to UNRWA by the host government for the construction of house units intended to shelter Palestine refugees. Camps are also associated with the provision to refugees by UNRWA of health, education and community services, regardless of the location of their residence. However, excessive distance from camps may hinder refugees living elsewhere from accessing these services. Members of households are recipients of UNRWA services if at least one member is a male Palestine refugee.

The host authorities supposedly regulate constructions, though hardly any regulation is enforced. UNRWA lacks such a mandate. In Jordan, the State has assumed charge of the sewerage networks and the provision of water. UNRWA has installed sewerage systems and water networks in the worst-off camps when host governments have failed to do so (FAFO, 2003a).

UNRWA has responded to the deteriorating living conditions in camps by setting a series of standards and guidelines. Standards for housing have been established in terms of plot size, area for courtyards and height of walls to ensure privacy, number of rooms per person, surface occupancy, provision for the expansion of residences and number of sanitary facilities.

Host authorities have different levels of control over camp constructions. For example, Lebanon imposes a tighter control on the amount of construction material entering camps, sometimes even completely blocking their entry. It has also restricted the extension of camps. Consequently, camps in Lebanon are likely to have a high population density (pers./km2), given the growing families who are not permitted to relocate. At the household level, houses are likely to become overcrowded, since the lack of construction materials prevents the construction of additional floors to houses.3

At the other end of the spectrum, the Palestinian Authority has had a much more moderate policy with regard to constructions in refugee camps. Nevertheless, physical controls have been harsher than in other locations for some refugees4 due to the IDF’s military occupation targeting refugee camps along with other urbanized and rural areas. These controls have further impeded the mobility of refugees and damaged houses in different ways.

3 Suleiman (2006) extensively describes the circumstances that brought Palestine refugees in Lebanon to endure the worst condition within the Agency’s areas of operation. 4 Some camps, such as Al Arroub between Hebron and Bethlehem, were fenced off by the IDF with single gates to control traffic entering and leaving the camps. The IDF constructed watchtowers guarded by armed soldiers to permanently monitor the movements of refugees and main streets were widened for military control. The IDF has adopted force to ensure the safe movement of its troops within camps. One strategy consists of having troops progressing inside the camps by collapsing walls between houses, rather than patrolling in streets, which would expose them. Military strikes have severely damaged refugees’ houses, let alone human lives, especially in areas recurrently shelled by the IDF, under escalating tensions. Palestine refugees’ housing conditions in the West Bank and Gaza are affected more by military activities than by host authorities’ restrictions.

n 12 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

The recent re-housing programme in Neirab was planned on the basis of UNRWA’s standards and served as a pilot project for replication elsewhere (Takkenberg and Mukhles, 200�). In addition to these measures, the Agency has standardized its “bills of quantities” to harmonize construction costs at all locations.

Improvements of the physical, environmental and social infrastructure have increasingly involved refugees themselves and their community in what is called a “community development approach”. UNRWA adopts self-help programmes, co-sharing and microfinance programmes to enhance the participation of refugees in the development of their camps and neighbourhoods. However, the community development trend and the transfer of roles from the Agency to the refugees do not imply that UNRWA has withdrawn or renounced its responsibilities and provision of services.

Several geographic differences influence housing conditions. First, the sharp climatic gradient from the mountainous areas and plains in northern Lebanon to hyper-arid conditions in southern Jordan and the West Bank, results in different needs in terms of housing design and construction material. Construction material properties are another important consideration affecting housing comfort, in terms of passive cooling and heating. Second, the legal status of refugees in host countries affects mobility, job opportunities and thus living conditions. Finally, housing conditions may differ between refugees living in camps, gatherings or outside areas under UNRWA’s operational mandate. Figure 1 shows that, except in Lebanon, most refugees live outside camps. Given this uneven distribution between refugees living inside and outside camps, housing conditions may not necessarily reflect the policy of UNRWA. The socio-economic indicators for refugees show variations according to the location of their residence (UNRWA, 2003). The analyses of this report thus focus mainly on the camp/non-camp level and on the field level.

Figure 1: Proportion of refugees residing in camps and non-camps by location (q51r)a (%).

79

67

49

58

67

21

33

51

42

33

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Jordan

SAR

Lebanon

Gaza

West Bank

Non camp Camp

Source: UNRWA-NEP. N: Jordan: 1988; Syrian Arab Republic (SAR): 1993; Lebanon: 1999; Gaza: 1994; West Bank: 1982.a Database variables used for all analyses have a code used in the statistical analysis package and the electronic version of the report. The variables codes are added to the titles of tables and figures in which they are used.

Housing issues relating to Palestine refugees can be grouped into four categories: safety and health, comfort, public spaces and mobility. Safety and health-related issues cover indoor and outdoor environmental conditions. The use of some materials for the construction of unplanned or improvised houses enhances structural defects, which puts dwellers at risk. The kinds of construction materials used also influence passive cooling and heating of houses that affect indoor temperatures and, indirectly, health. The release of toxic fumes from the combustion of some fuels used for heating and cooking can cause respiratory problems, as do the lack of ventilation and the presence of humidity. The lack of a sewerage connection, drinking water and garbage collection can cause gastrointestinal problems.

Comfort-related issues include house crowding and camp density, both of which also affect privacy. The number and kinds of appliances available may, to some extent, indicate levels of comfort and, indirectly, a household’s income. Recreational areas and green spaces compensate for the limited

n 13 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

amount of public spaces due to the narrowness of streets. Gathering places for community-based organizations and playgrounds are also a growing need.

Issues related to mobility or accessibility are important because they directly affect livelihoods (access to jobs and markets), education and access to administrative offices. Pavement of streets and roads, transportation networks, and refugees’ status in host countries are factors that impede or ease mobility.

This report is organized as follows. The methodology used throughout this analysis is explained in section 2. Section 3 presents an analysis of housing variables grouped by theme. Section 4 offers suggestions for further investigation on housing issues for Palestine refugees.

n 14 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

4. Methodology

In the UNRWA-NEP survey, 12 out of 67 questions contained 119 housing-related variables. The questionnaire was answered by a sample of 10,000 respondents representing the 4,12�,000 registered refugees population across the five locations of UNRWA’s mandate. It is the first survey with such a large sample size that covers all five locations of UNRWA’s area of operation.

The analyses were performed using several analytical methods depending on the type of relation observed between variables. Frequencies were used to analyse isolated variables. Cross tabulations were used to analyse the relation between two variables, while significance based on chi-square allowed gauging the strength of the relationship. Logistic regressions were used to test the effect of several independent variables (under their mutual control) on a specific dependent variable previously transformed into a binary format. Exp (B) coefficients were used to return the effect of independent variables taken separately, and Nagelkerke R-squares were used to test the strength of the logistic models.

Indices were used to observe scores by aggregating the values of several variables. The analyses went beyond the housing-related variables, to also include those related to education, health and household economics, where relevant in relation to housing. References to the variables used have been added to all tables and graphs based on the UNRWA-NEP survey.

Some material was gathered from the existing literature on Palestine refugees published by UNRWA and other sources listed in the references. Field visits and interviews with UNRWA officials provided numerous additional insights.

This report does not provide analyses beyond the scope covered by the UNRWA-NEP survey, except for that on the density of camps, which was based on data provided by UNRWA directly. It is thus worth noting that this report does not analyse issues such as street narrowness or accessibility for elderly and disabled people in camps, to mention a few, for which variables from the survey did not make available good enough proxies.

The absence of coverage in the survey of some key habitat issues (street narrowness, accessibility, availability of land for extending camps) is intentional, due to the concern of keeping the questionnaire at an acceptable length for respondents. Even without those issues, it covers a wide array of aspects related to Palestine refugees’ general living conditions.� In addition, some key habitat issues could not be treated because they would have required different techniques of data collection and analysis than those used for the survey. For example, analysis of the narrowness of streets in camps, which can be useful to help determine critical access for emergency services (e.g. fire brigade, ambulances), would have required examining aerial photographs by means of geographic information systems. For the purpose of this report, the questionnaire was limited to some selected issues only.

The methodology used in this report favours a two-scaled approach to analyse housing issues. A first scale of analysis compares the camp/non-camp differences in housing conditions within locations. The second scale of analysis compares the housing conditions between different locations. The figures in tables and graphs reflect this two-scaled approach. A previous report (UNRWA, 2003) suggests that this scale of analysis is systematic and well balanced. Consequently, local specificities were not considered. Nevertheless, the electronic version of the report allows the reader to access the database of the survey to use different scale approaches if needed.

� Issues covered by the survey are: education, health, socio-economics, coping strategies, housing and community life.

n 1� n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

�. Objectives

Considering the above issues, this report aims at:

Producing a comprehensive analysis of housing across the five areas of UNRWA’s operation, while comparing camp/non-camp differences within the different locations.Producing an executive summary on habitats, outlining key issues and main trends, quantifying UNRWA’s services and identifying unmet needs.Providing a knowledge base for UNRWA’s urban development programmes oriented towards community empowerment.Providing input for the elaboration of housing quality standards based on indicators identified in the survey database and on the analysis provided in this report. Relevant international standards, where available, also helped with the elaboration of such standards. Highlighting fields for further investigation.

n

n

n

n

n

n 16 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

6. Crowding in housing

Assuring adequate space for dwellers is an important housing right contributing to a healthy living environment (i.e. preventing the spread of diseases) and privacy (Leckie, 2000). Yet crowding of housing is a major difficulty faced by Palestine refugees (FAFO, 2004). Crowding is measured both by the occupancy per room and by the floor area per capita. Levels of house occupancy are considered normal when no more than three household members share a room, including bedrooms and living rooms (FAFO, 2003a).

International standards for acceptable levels of crowding do not exist. Such standards cannot be elaborated due to local realities, governmental norms applied locally and cultural differences. Crowding is generally related to the national income per capita and to the population density of a city. As previously observed (UNCHS, 1996), the higher the national income the more living space per person (table 1). Cities with very high population density may experience high crowding rates of housing in spite of their national wealth (e.g. inhabitants of the city of Hong Kong, China, occupy, on average, no more than seven square meters per person). Crowding correlates fairly well to the level of population density, at least as observed in UNRWA’s refugees camps (Figure 2). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has set a standard/norm for the area occupancy per person in shelters of at least 3.� square meters.

Table 1: World classification of average housing occupancy (per area and room), by national income level.

Countries per national income Crowding per area occupancy(m2 / pers.)

Crowding per room occupancy (pers. / room)

Low-income countries 6.1 2.47Low-middle-income countries 8.8 2.24Middle-income countries 1�.1 1.69Middle-high-income countries 22 1.03High-income countries 3� 0.66

Source: World Bank 1993, in United Nations Centre for Human Settlements – Habitat (UNCHS), 1996.

In general, UNRWA sets its assistance criteria for shelter rehabilitation and re-housing at two persons per room per house unit. For large households (7 persons or more) the density may occasionally be more than two persons per room (living rooms and bedrooms) but should not exceed three persons. According to UNRWA’s housing norms, normal floor area occupancy should not be less than 7 square meters per person excluding bathroom (6m2), kitchen (10m2), a circulation space of 2� percent over the net area, and a staircase space allowance estimated at 4m2.

n 17 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Figure 2: Relationship between average population density of registered refugees in camps and occupancy in camp households (q55_cror, q55_croa and q55_crow).

y = 2709.7x - 69714R 2 = 0.3981

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Average household crow ding reported in cam ps (%)

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200� and UNRWA’s data on registered refugees.N: Jordan: 1,923; SAR: 1,96�; Lebanon: 1,881 Gaza: 1,967 ; West Bank: 1,908.

Table 2: Number of persons and number of rooms in house (bedrooms and living rooms).

Number of persons Shelter type1 – 2 persons 1 room 3 – 4 persons 2 rooms� – 7 persons 3 rooms8 – 10 persons* 4 rooms11 – 13 persons* � rooms14 +* 6 roomsSource: UNRWA, 2006 and 2004.* Norms for 8 persons or more were extrapolated.

According to figure 3, all refugees in all locations and sites experience considerable overcrowding, both in terms of area per person and number of persons per room. The situation is particularly bad in camps in Jordan (70 percent), the Syrian Arab Republic (73 percent) and Lebanon (71 percent). Unexpectedly, camps in the West Bank and Gaza, although also highly overcrowded, are nevertheless better off (Gaza 46 percent and West Bank 49 percent). There are fewer discrepancies between the incidence of overcrowding in camps and non-camps in the West Bank and Gaza, while overcrowding is observed far more inside camps than outside them in the three other locations. The largest gap in terms of overcrowding between those living in camps and those living outside them can be found in Lebanon. There is less overcrowding of refugees living outside camps in Lebanon than in any other location. Refugees in the Syrian Arab Republic living in camps are the most exposed to overcrowding. Except for overcrowding observed in camps in the Syrian Arab Republic, these findings are in line with the Badil report (2006).

Aver

age

popu

latio

n de

nsity

in c

amps

(per

s./km

2 )

n 18 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

Neirab

Hama

Homs

Dera'a

Dera'a Emergency

Khan EshiehKhan Dannoun

Fawwar

Arrub

Tulkarm

Nur Shams

Askar Jenin

Balata

Camp no1

JalazoneEin El Sultan

KalandiaAmari

Dheisheh

Jabalia

Beach

Rafah

Khan Yunis

Deir el Balah

Nuseirat

Burej

Maghazi

Jaramana

Dbayeh

Shatila

Beddawi

Mar Elias

Burj Barajneh

Mia Mia

Nahr el-Bared

El BussRashidieh

Ein El Hilweh

Irbid

Husun

Jerash

Zarqa

Baqa'a

ANCTabieh

Marka

Ein el Tal

Latakia

Yarmouk

Dheisheh

Aida

Deir Ammar

Litani ri

ver

Jord

an

rive

r

Tiberia lake

De

ad

Se

a

Yarmouk river

Zarqa river

Burj Shemali

Wavel

Jabal el HusseinSuf

Aqabat JaberBeit Jibreen

28,39742,57478,205101,250126,300846,739

Six-quantile breaks of registered refugees population km-2

Many non registered refugees reside in camps andare not included in these estimates. The actualtotal population density in camps is thus much higher than that of registered refugees only.However, to date, systematic estimations of the totalpopulation in camps are unavailable.

UNRWA's operation area

Occupied Golan area

Boundaries and names shown onthis map do not imply officialendorsement or acceptanceby any state or organisation.

Source:Rekacewicz, P. 2000. 'Des millions de rÈfugiÈs palestiniens auProche Orient', in Le Monde DiplomatiqueUNRWAESRIDigital Chart of the World

Map, layout and methodologyHenri Rueff 2006

Unofficial camps

N

0 20 40 kmRafah

Khan Yunis

Gaza

Tel Aviv

Haifa

JeninTulkarm

Qalqilyah

Nablus

RamallahJericho

JerusalemBethlehem

Hebron

IsraelEgypt

Jordan

Syrian Arab Republic

Lebanon

Iraq

TurkeyAleppo

Latakia

Hama

Homs

Damascus

Beyrouth

Quneitra

Dera'aSweida

Tripoli

Baalbek

Saida

Tyre

Nabatieh

Irbid

Jerash

Madaba

ZarqaSalt

Amman

Karak

Golan

West Bank (PNA)

Gaza Strip(PNA)

Med

iterra

nean

Sea

Fawwar 7630 27908

Irbid 24,351 99,799Husun 20,988 27,116Suf 15,882 31,764Jerash 15,488 20,651Zarqa 18,004 100,022Marka 38,425 41,903Baqa'a 68,386 48,847Jabal al Hussein 29,998 73,166ANC 50,703 103,900Talbieh 871 6,700Neirab 17,703 119,615Ein el Tal 4,329 27,056Latakia 6,354 28,882Hama 7,578 126,300Homs 13,230 88,200Yarmouk 112,550 53,341Jaramana 3,721 124,033Sbeineh 17,261 639,296Qabr Essit 19,475 846,739Khan Eshieh 16,108 23,345Khan Dannoun 8,500 70,833Dera'a 4,952 126,974Dera'a (Em.) 4,354 111,641Nahr el Bared 30,439 153,632Beddawi 15,641 78,205Wavel 7,551 173,846Dbayeh 4,002 47,885Shatila 8,212 207,547Mar Elias 612 113,333Burj Barajneh 15,484 148,599Ein El Hilweh 45,004 149,496Mia Mia 4,473 82,772El Buss 9,287 116,088Burj Shemali 18,625 138,373Rashidieh 25,745 103,643Jabalia 106,691 78,449Beach 78,768 91,378Nuseirat 57,120 51,459Bureij 28,770 40,521Maghazi 22,266 42,574Deir El-Balah 19,534 122,088Khan Younis 63,219 52,683Rafah 95,187 95,187Jenin 15,496 41,504Nur Shams 8,659 38,314Tulkarem 17,455 96,972Far'a 7,244 28,408Camp No.1 6,508 143,443Askar 14,629 122,933Balata 21,903 86,934Deir Ammar 2,275 15,690Jalazone 10,390 40,906Ama'ri 8,805 9,783Ein El Sultan 1,723 1,980Kalandia 10,024 28,397Aqabet Jaber 5,510 3,264Shu'fat 10,069 4,9601Aida 4,534 68,697Beit Jibreen 2,025 101,250Dheisheh 12,045 38,936Arrub 9859 40861

CampsRegisteredrefugees

populationin camps

Registeredrefugeesdensity in

camps(pers. km-2)

Administrative unit Inhabitants km-2

Huangpu District, Shanghai 126,542

St. Anthony Parish, Macao 98,776

Tondo District, Manila 64,796

St. Lazarus Parish, Macao 52,370

Distrito II, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat 51,658

Kwun Tong District, Hong Kong 51,104

St. Lawrence Parish, Macao 50,904

Our Lady Fatima Parish, Macao 47,000

Wong Tai Sin District, Hong Kong 46,197

Yau Tsim Mong District, Hong Kong 43,168

Ten most densely populated administrativeunits in the world (local censuses 2000-2006)

In red and bold are camps with a population density above100,000 pers. km-2

Population Density of Registered Refugees inUNRWA's Camps(as at 31st of March 2005)

n 19 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Figure 3: Percentage of households with overcrowding observed in terms of room occupancy and area occupancy, or either, by residential site and location (q55_cror, q55_croa and q55_crow) (%).

38

58

46

59

26

46

31

35

36

35

33

56

46

58

24

61

20

30

29

39

49

70

61

73

35

71

37

46

44

49

0 20 40 60 80

non c amp

c amp

non c amp

c amp

non c amp

c amp

non c amp

c amp

non c amp

c amp

Jord

anSA

RLe

ban

on

Gaz

aW

est

Ban

k

overcrowding by room occupancy (q55_cror) overcrowding by area occupancy (q55_croa) overcrowding by room or area occupancy (q55_crow)

Source: UNRWA-NEP. N: Jordan: 1,923, SAR: 1,96�, Lebanon: 1,881, Gaza: 1,967, West Bank: 1908.

As suggested in an FAFO report (1998), in some cases, overcrowding may be only temporarily experienced while youngsters still share the family’s dwelling before living on their own. Thus, results should be interpreted with caution.

The variable, overcrowding, was created taking the value of 1 if crowding was observed in either occupancy per room or per area and the value of 0 if no crowding was observed in either case (table 3). Five independent variables (camp/non-camp, income, dwelling type, citizenship, household size) were considered against crowding in a logistic regression. Among the five independent variables in table 3, household size had the strongest positive effect on crowding. Indeed, the proportion of households experiencing overcrowding increases with the household size while it decreases for households not experiencing crowding in all fields. Residence location (camp/non-camp) has the second strongest effect, which clearly indicates that there are higher levels of crowding among refugees in camps, often living on lower incomes.

n 20 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

Table 3: Logistic regression between overcrowding as a dependent variable (0=normal; 1=crowded) and listed independent variables by location (q55b01, q55b02, nhouse, q56a, q51r, q33_totq, q54, q65a).

Independent variables Exp (B) Nagelkerke

R-square a N Missing

Jordan

Camp/non-camp 2.026

.331*** 1 723 277

Income 0.627Dwelling type 0.937Citizenship 0.862Household size 4.027Constant 0.141

SAR

Camp/non-camp 1.189

.2��*** 1 910 90

Income 0.69�Dwelling type 1.133Citizenship 4.303Household size 3.886Constant 0.166

Lebanon

Camp/non-camp 3.274

.3�0*** 1 6�� 34�

Income 0.706Dwelling type 1.27�Citizenship 0.609Household size 3.�81Constant 0.049

Gaza

Camp/non-camp 1.363

.237*** 1 924 76

Income 0.798Dwelling type 1.40�Citizenship 0.�7�Household size 2.�93Constant 0.036

West Bank

Camp/non-camp 1.143

.2�9*** 1 7�4 246

Income 0.761Dwelling type 0.993Citizenship 0.683Household size 3.�14Constant 0.084

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�. a Significance (p value) based on chi-square ( *** <= 1 ‰ ; ** <= 1 % ; * <= � % ; ns > � %).

Income has a steady negative effect on overcrowding, as expected, in that the higher the income the less overcrowding is experienced. Although the variables dwelling type and citizenship have an effect on crowding in houses, it is very small. The number of floors could not be used as a variable, since respondents were asked for the number of floors only when living in buildings.

Table 4: Cross tabulation between overcrowding in houses (either by area or occupancy) and household size by location (q55_ crow and nhouse) (%).

Household size1-2

pers.3-6

pers.7-9

pers.>=10 pers. Total Na Missing

Jordan normal 13 �8 23 6 100 896*** 76crowded 2 31 41 26 100 1 028***

SAR normal 13 67 17 3 100 690*** 33crowded 3 4� 3� 17 100 1 277***

Lebanon normal 18 62 18 2 100 889*** 118crowded 3 48 38 10 100 993***

Gaza normal 10 38 33 19 100 1 16�*** 28crowded 2 17 34 47 100 807***

West Bank normal 14 �3 27 6 100 1 039*** 86crowded 2 29 4� 24 100 87�***Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�t Significance (p value) based on chi-square ( *** <= 1 ‰ ; ** <= 1 % ; * <= � % ; ns > � %).

n 21 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

7. Population density of registered refugees in camps, and distribution of residence location

Urban patterns and integration of camps into larger cities influence the population density of camps. Other factors contributing to differences in density by location are land legislation and the status of refugees in the host country. Restrictions imposed on mobility and re-housing opportunities outside camps coupled with less land provided for the expansion of camps are additional factors.

Figure 4: Average population density of registered refugees in camps by location ±SD, as of 31 March 2005.

55 , 387

183 , 558

126 , 118

71 , 79251 , 883

-100 , 000

0

100 , 000

200 , 000

300 , 000

400 , 000

500 , 000

Jordan S A R Lebanon G az a W es tbank

Source: www.unrwa.orgN: Jordan: 10, SAR: 13, Lebanon: 12, Gaza: 8, West Bank: 19.

When compared to the 10 most densely populated administrative units in the world (table 6), the population density of registered refugees in camps clearly shows critical levels of population density, regardless of location.

Figure 4 shows that camps in the Syrian Arab Republic are the worst-off, with an average population density of registered refugees more than twice as high as in Gaza, the West Bank or Jordan. This is due to two outsider values with very high densities bringing the average upwards. Except for these two camps Sbeineh and Qabr Essit (table �), the average density in Syria for camps is comparable to other fields. It is in the camps of Lebanon that refugees endure higher density over 100,000 registered inhabitants in most camps, while the standard deviation remains comparable to that of Jordan, Gaza and the West Bank. The West Bank and Jordan have the lowest average density. These figures do not include the total inhabitants (i.e. non-registered refugees or non-refugees), which may, in some cases, more than double the population density in the camps. Systematic estimates of total inhabitants of camps in the five locations of operation are to date unavailable. Table � indicates that highly densely populated camps often are relatively small camps. Indeed, while Camp no.1 and Beit Jibreen show a population density of over 100,000 inhabitants per square kilometre, their population of registered refugees does not exceed 7,000 inhabitants.

n 22 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

Table 5: Registered refugees: population densities in camps by location, as of 31 March 2005.

Camps Registered refugees Density (pers. / km2) Camps Registered

refugeesDensity

(pers. / km2)Jo

rdan

Irbid 24 3�1 99 799

Gaz

a

Jabalia 106 691 78 449Husun 20 988 27 116 Beach 78 768 91 378Suf 1� 882 31 764 Nuseirat �7 120 �1 4�9Jerash 1� 488 20 6�1 Bureij 28 770 40 �21Zarqa 18 004 100 022 Maghazi 22 266 42 �74Marka 38 42� 41 903 Deir El-Balah 19 534 122 088Baqa’a 68 386 48 847 Khan Younis 63 219 �2 683Jabal al Hussein 29 998 73 166 Rafah 9� 187 9� 187

ANC 50 703 103 900

Wes

t Ban

k

Jenin 1� 496 41 �04Talbieh 871 6 700 Nur Shams 8 6�9 38 314

SAR

Neirab 17 703 119 615 Tulkarem 174�� 96 972Ein El Tal 4 329 27 056 Far’a 7 244 28 408Latakia 6 354 28 882 Camp No.1 6 508 143 443Hama 7 578 126 300 Askar 14 629 122 933Homs 13 230 88 200 Balata 21 903 86 934Yarmouk 112 550 53 341 Deir Ammar 2 27� 1� 690Jaramana 3 721 124 033 Jalazone 10 390 40 906Sbeineh 17 261 639 296 Ama’ri 8 80� 9 783Qabr Essit 19 475 846 739 Ein El Sultan 1 723 1 980Khan Eshieh 16 108 23 34� Kalandia 10 024 28 397Khan Dannoun 8 �00 70 833 Aqabet Jaber � �10 3 264Dera’a 4 952 126 974 Shu’fat 10 069 49 601Dera’a (Em.) 4 354 111 641 Aida 4 �34 68 697

Leba

non

Nahr el-Bared 30 439 153 632 Beit Jibreen 2 025 101 250Beddawi 1� 641 78 20� Dheisheh 12 04� 38 936Wavel 7 551 173 846 Arroub 9 8�9 40 861Dbayeh 4 002 Fawwar 7 630 27 908Shatila 8 212 207 547Mar Elias 612 113 333Burj Barajneh 15 484 148 599Ein El Hilweh 45 004 149 496Mia Mia 4 473 82 772El Buss 9 287 116 088Burj Shemali 18 625 138 373Rashidieh 25 745 103 643

Table 6: The 10 most densely populated administrative units in the world.

Administrative unit Pers/km2

Huangpu District, Shanghai 126 �42St. Anthony Parish, Macao 98 776Tondo District, Manila 64 796St. Lazarus Parish, Macao �2 370Distrito II, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat �1 6�8Kwun Tong District, Hong Kong �1 104St. Lawrence Parish, Macao �0 904Our Lady Fatima Parish, Macao 47 000Wong Tai Sin District, Hong Kong 46 197Yau Tsim Mong District, Hong Kong 43 168Source: Local censuses, 2000-2006

Source: www.unrwa.org, 200� :Note: In red and bold are camps with a density over 100,000 inhabitants per square kilometer.t In blue and italics are unofficial camps in the Syrian Arab Republic. Total camps’ inhabitants (including non-registered refugees and non-refugees) can more than double the density. However, to date no accurate estimate of the total population is available.

Source: www.unrwa.org, 200� :Note: In red and bold are camps with a density over 100,000 inhabitants per square kilometer.t In blue and italics are unofficial camps in the Syrian Arab Republic. Total camps’ inhabitants (including non-registered refugees and non-refugees) can more than double the density. However, to date no accurate estimate of the total population is available.

n 23 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

The residential sites of refugees (camps / non-camps) are unevenly distributed in most locations. The percentages of refugees living outside official UNRWA camps are: 79 percent in Jordan, 67 percent in the Syrian Arab Republic and �8 percent in Gaza (Figure. 1). More refugees in Lebanon live in camps, in comparison to other locations. This is partly due to the Lebanese authorities restricting access to land ownership by Palestine refugees (Halabi, 2004) (Suleiman, 2006). Halabi (2004) has also pointed out the limited prospects outside camps for refugees in Lebanon due to discrimination in employment. As a result, the informal sector within camps has become their main source of income, while unemployment can be as high as 9� percent.

Table 7: Distribution of income groups by site and location (q51r, q33_totq) (%).

Low

est

Rath

er lo

w

Mid

dle

grou

p

Rath

er h

igh

Hig

hest

Tota

l

Na

Mis

sing

Jordan Non-camp 16 9 31 21 23 100 1 492*** 120Camp 30 14 28 19 9 100 388***

SAR Non-camp 1� 20 21 21 24 100 1 308*** 44Camp 20 2� 19 19 16 100 648***

Lebanon Non-camp 1� 14 18 26 27 100 878*** 166Camp 22 21 24 19 14 100 9�6***

Gaza Non-camp ns 1 117 �4Camp ns 829

West Bank Non-camp 18 19 19 18 26 100 1 224*** 182Camp 20 23 19 21 17 100 �94***Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�.a Significance (p value) based on chi-square *** <= 1 ‰ ; ** <= 1 % ; * <= � % ; ns > � %.

Table 7 shows a strong correlation between total household income and residential site: the proportion of refugees’ residing outside camps gradually increases as household income increases (quintiles of household income) and vice-versa. It confirms the intuitive assumptions that refugees seek higher living standards outside camps when they can afford it (Destremeau, 199�), and that refugees living outside camps have jobs which pay better.

Among refugees living outside camps, there is also an underprivileged group living in “gatherings” in Lebanon. Their housing conditions are known to be extremely poor and deteriorating. They do not of course represent the wealthier group considered in the former analysis. They are however a smaller group of refugees.

n 24 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

8. Appliances owned

The number of appliances owned is an indicator of the living conditions of households in terms of material comfort. Thus appliances may serve as a proxy for household income and living standards, as the findings outlined below suggest. Since appliances are not essential, their presence in households does not necessarily indicate that basic needs are being satisfied.

Electricity and light, necessary to operate most of the appliances, are available on average in 99 percent (±1 percent) of households without distinction between camps and non-camps or locations. An index was created to aggregate the number of appliances held by households (FAFO, 2001). Respondents answered to a list of 18 appliances. Households scoring 10 possess all possible appliances, while those scoring 1 have 0 to 1 appliance.

Figure 5: Distribution of appliances in households, by residential site and location (q62_scor) (%).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pro

po

rtio

no

fho

use

ho

lds

ho

ldin

gap

plia

nce

s

C am p

N on cam p

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

appliances index (score)

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�Note: 0 = 0 to 1 appliances; 1 = 2 to 3 appliances ... 10 = 1� appliancesN: Jordan: non-camp = 1,�69, camps = 419; SAR: non-camps = 1,334, camps = 6�9; Lebanon: non-camps = 97�, camps = 1,024; Gaza: non-camps = 1,1�1, camps = 840; West Bank: non-camps = 1,326, camps = 643

n 2� n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Figure � shows that refugees in camps usually own fewer appliances than those living outside camps. More refugees in camps scored from 0 to 3 than refugees living outside camps, and the trend was reversed for scores over 4. While table 7 confirms that the higher the income the greater is the likelihood that households will be located outside camps, differences in income levels between camps and non-camps appear to be wider in Lebanon and in the Syrian Arab Republic than in the West Bank and Gaza.

For the sake of clarity, the 18 appliance items surveyed were divided into three groups: those related to kitchen activities and laundry; those usually placed in the living room, including sewing machines and water heaters; and those related to computing, communications and mobility, including a private car.

Figure 6: Proportion of households having the listed appliances (q62 a to f) by residential site and location (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100Jordan non camp

Jordan camp

SAR non camp

SAR camp

Lebanon non camp

Lebanon camp

Gaza non camp

Gaza camp

West Bank non camp

West Bank camp

Refrigerator FreezerGas /Electric oven /cooker Water filterDishwasher Washing machine

Source: UNRWA-NEP survey 200�. N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,�69, camps = 419 ; SAR: non-camps = 1,334, camps = 6�9; Lebanon: non- camps = 97�, camps =

1,024; Gaza: non-camps = 1,1�1, camps = 840; West Bank: non-camps = 1,327, camps = 643.

Figure 6 shows that a large majority of households have refrigerators (94 percent on average) and washing machines (92 percent on average), regardless of residence site or location. Fewer refugees in camps (69 percent) own ovens and cookers operating on gas or electricity than outside the camps (78 percent). An analysis across fields reveals that refugees in Lebanon use more gas/electric ovens/stoves (8� percent) than those in Jordan (61 percent) or the Syrian Arab Republic (64 percent). This suggests that, at least in the two latter countries, another source of energy is used for cooking.

Freezers are available in only 10 percent of households, and households outside the camps in the Syrian Arab Republic and Jordan have twice as many freezers as households within the camps. The distribution of freezers between camps and non-camps in other locations is more even. Dishwashers and water filters can be found in very few households.

n 26 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

Figure 7: Proportion of households having the listed appliances (q62 g to m), by residential site and location (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100Jordan non camp

Jordan camp

SAR non camp

SAR camp

Lebanon non camp

Lebanon camp

Gaza non camp

Gaza camp

West Bank non camp

West Bank camp

Sewing machine Water heater Air conditioner

Radio , tape recorder Video TV

Satellite antenna

Source: UNRWA-NEP survey 200�. N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,�69, camps = 419; SAR: non-camps =1,334, camps = 6�9; Lebanon: non-camps = 97�, camps = 1,024; Gaza: non-camps =1,1�2, camps = 842 ; West Bank: non-camps = 1,327, camps = 643.

Figure 7 shows a large and even distribution of televisions among households, averaging 9� percent. Gaza refugees are worse off with � percent fewer television owners than in other locations. There are a lower proportion of satellite dishes (62 percent) and tape recorders/radios (64 percent) than televisions; although evenly distributed across all locations there is a significant unevenness between camps and non-camps. Ownership of water heaters is much lower in the West Bank (21 percent), Gaza (2� percent) and Jordan (14 percent) than in the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon. There are lower proportions of videos (18 percent) and air conditioners (7 percent) among households living outside camps than in camps, and in the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon. Few sewing machines are to be found in any households.

Figure 8: Proportion of households owning the listed appliances (q62n to r), by residential site and location (%).

0

20

40

60

80Jordan non camp

Jordan camp

SAR non camp

SAR camp

Lebanon non camp

Lebanon camp

Gaza non camp

Gaza camp

West Bank non camp

West Bank camp

Mobile phone Landline telephone Computer

Internet connection Private car

Source: UNRWA-NEP survey, 200�. N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,�69, camps = 419; SAR: non-camps = 1,334, camps = 6�9; Lebanon: non-camps = 97�, camps = 1,024; Gaza: non-camps = 1,1�2, camps = 842; West Bank: non-camps = 1,327, camps = 643.

n 27 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Households owning private cars live mostly outside camps in Jordan (2� percent) and Lebanon (39 percent). Fewer refugees in the Syrian Arab Republic have private cars than those in the other locations (8 percent of refugees living outside camps compared with 2 percent living in camps). Figure 8 further shows that only a small proportion of households (an average of � percent) have an Internet connection, although more non-camp refugees have connections than those in camps. Computer ownership shows the same distribution trend as Internet connections, although there are more computers. Refugees in camps are slightly worse off compared to refugees outside the camps in terms of landline phones, and more refugees in the Syrian Arab Republic have landline phones than those in any other location. Refugees in Gaza and Jordan have more mobile phones than those in the other locations, while fewer households living in camps have a mobile phone, regardless of the location. Figure 8 indicates that there are larger discrepancies between the low- and high-income quintiles in terms of ownership of appliances in the Syrian Arab Republic and smaller discrepancies in Lebanon. In general, households in camps in Jordan and Lebanon have fewer appliances than other refugees.

n 28 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

Table 8: Distribution of appliances (q62a to r, q33_totq) by income level (q33_totq), by location and in households who reported owning the appliances (%)

Total household monthly income in quintiles

LowestRather

lowMiddle group

Rather high Highest

N checked

N valid missing

Jord

an

Refrigerator 17 10 31 21 21 1798***

1881 119

Freezer 9 6 23 2� 37 232***Gas/electric oven/cooker 14 9 30 22 2� 1287***Water filter devices 6 1 18 2� �2 194***Dishwasher ns 13Washing machines 17 9 31 21 21 1790***Sewing machine 13 6 2� 24 32 313***Water heater 6 3 24 26 41 331***Air conditioner 7 � 18 26 44 82***Radio, tape recorder 1� 8 28 22 27 1077***Video � 4 19 26 46 298***TV 18 10 31 21 20 1826***Satellite antenna 10 7 28 26 29 1014***Mobile telephone 10 8 31 24 28 1149***Landline telephone 13 6 28 23 29 996***Computer � 3 19 29 44 464***Internet connection 2 2 13 21 63 120***Private car � 3 21 26 46 397***

SAR

Refrigerator 1� 22 21 21 22 1899***

19�8 42

Freezer � 9 11 24 �1 2�4***Gas/electric oven/cooker 10 18 21 24 27 1312***Water filter devices 2 7 17 17 �6 41***Dishwasher ns 14Washing machines 14 21 21 21 22 1831***Sewing machine 10 14 19 2� 32 386***Water heater 11 19 21 22 26 1291***Air conditioner 4 9 12 23 �2 227***Radio, tape recorder 10 20 22 23 2� 137�***Video 7 12 18 2� 37 ��9***TV 1� 22 21 21 22 1904***Satellite antenna 8 18 21 24 29 1216***Mobile telephone 6 11 19 2� 40 642***Landline telephone 10 17 20 24 28 1238***Computer 3 8 12 24 �3 3�8***Internet connection 1 3 6 21 70 119***Private car 3 4 7 22 64 114***

Leba

non

Refrigerator 17 17 21 23 21 17�2***

183� 16�

Freezer ns 213Gas/electric oven/cooker 16 17 22 24 23 1�70***Water filter devices 6 10 16 24 44 31***Dishwasher ns 12Washing machines 17 17 22 23 21 1691***Sewing machine 16 13 19 27 26 2�7*Water heater 14 17 22 24 24 102�***Air conditioner 8 7 17 28 39 3�4***Radio, tape recorder 12 14 22 2� 27 109�***Video 10 10 18 2� 37 460***TV 18 17 21 23 21 1782***Satellite antenna 1� 17 21 24 23 1289***Mobile telephone 7 9 19 28 38 �98***Landline telephone 10 17 20 24 28 600***Computer � 9 14 27 4� 310***Internet connection 6 10 13 17 �4 48***Private car 8 8 1� 32 37 481***

n 29 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Gaz

aRefrigerator 16 21 21 22 21 1778***

1949 �1

Freezer 6 23 22 16 32 111***Gas/electric oven/cooker 18 20 20 21 21 1709***Water filter devices 8 9 11 2� 48 18�***Dishwasher ns 3Washing machines 1� 19 21 23 22 1701***Sewing machine 11 16 21 23 29 203***Water heater 11 12 17 2� 3� 469***Air conditioner 3 7 10 17 63 30***Radio, tape recorder 14 20 19 23 24 1377***Video 8 6 12 21 �4 121***TV 16 21 20 22 21 176�***Satellite antenna 13 18 20 24 26 1287***Mobile telephone 13 18 19 24 26 1340***Landline telephone 12 1� 19 23 31 921***Computer 7 11 12 26 43 421***Internet connection 3 � 7 28 �8 138***Private car 4 10 14 18 �4 136***

Wes

t Ban

k

Refrigerator 18 20 19 19 24 1729***

1816 184

Freezer 8 13 13 20 46 �9***Gas/electric oven/cooker 17 20 19 20 24 1�44***Water filter devices 2 12 22 � �8 41***Dishwasher 13Washing machines 16 20 20 20 2� 1614***Sewing machine 9 22 18 20 32 166**Water heater 11 21 18 20 29 363***Air conditioner � 2 10 22 62 60***Radio, tape recorder 1� 19 19 20 27 1232***Video 10 13 18 21 38 316***TV 18 21 19 19 24 1736***Satellite antenna 12 18 19 21 30 1128***Mobile telephone 10 18 20 22 31 878***Landline telephone 13 17 20 21 29 969***Computer 7 11 16 22 44 367***Internet connection 4 4 19 18 �� 121***Private car � 10 1� 23 47 226***

Source: UNRWA-NEP survey 200�.10% or less difference between the lowest and the highest quintiles is marked in green. 20% or less difference between the lowest and the highest quintiles is marked in orange. More than 20% difference between the lowest and the highest quintiles is marked in red. a Significance based on chi-square: *** <= 1‰ ; ** <= 1% ; * <= �% ; ns > �%.

Figure 9: Differences between the lowest and highest household income quintiles in terms of appliances in households by location (q62a to r, q33_totq) (%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jordan S A R Lebanon G aza W est B ank

M ore than 20% difference 10%– 20% Less than 10% difference

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�. Significance as reported in previous table. Significant differences (P<=�%) observed for all appliances except for dishwashers.

n 30 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

9. Structural defects, house types, tenure and construction material

Initially, shelters were built to satisfy immediate housing needs, while a durable structure was certainly not a priority. Later, UNRWA engaged in rehabilitation programmes. Currently, managers of UNRWA camps do not supervise extensions of houses, and limit their interventions to recommendations only. Refugees may not always receive adequate guidance for construction, or they may be reluctant to give up vertical extension of their houses, despite safety risks.6 UNRWA ensures maintenance and reconstruction of shelters for special hardship cases inside camps. Those living outside camps are given financial assistance for repairs (FAFO, 2003b).

Structural defects in refugees’ houses occur due to frequently improvised constructions and recurrent vertical extensions to accommodate growing households. They may also result from the choice of material and the type of dwelling, and are exacerbated in war-torn areas exposed to demolition and shelling.

Figure 10: Proportion of reported structural defects in living rooms and bedrooms of dwellings, by residential site and location (q57b) (%).

33

21

37

21

32

55

34

58

30

34

37

25

48

25

33

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Jordan

SAR

Lebanon

Gaza

West Bank

Non camp Camp Field

Source: UNRWA-NEP 200�. N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,�69, camps = 419; SAR: non-camps = 1,334, camps = 6�9, Lebanon: non-camps = 97�, camps =

1,024; Gaza: non-camps = 1,1�0, camps = 83�; West Bank: non-camps = 1,326, camps = 648 :

Figure 10 shows that the highest proportions of refugees reporting defects in the living rooms and bedrooms of their houses are in Lebanon (48 percent) and Jordan (37 percent). It also shows large difference in terms of defects reported between those living in camps and non-camps (�8 percent and 37 percent in Lebanon, and �� percent and 33 percent in Jordan respectively). Fewer refugees in the Syrian Arab Republic and Gaza reported structural defects than those in the other locations.

6 The extent of self-help in shelters, the design of shelters and of materials used and their standards is discussed in detail in UNRWA, Shelter Rehabilitation: A Comparative Study, 2006.

n 31 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Figure 11: Distribution of refugees by tenure by residential site and location (q51r by q58) (%).

0

82

3

84

1

87

1

95

1

87

64

0

71

0

50

0

91

0

80

0

32

16

11

5

36

9

6

4

17

4

4

2

14

11

12

4

2

1

2

9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Jord

anSA

RLe

bano

nG

aza

Wes

tBa

nk

Right of residence inside the camp (granted by UNRWA )

Owned (outside camp )

Rented (inside or outside camp )

Other

Source: UNRWA-NEP 200�. N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,�31, camps = 413; SAR: non-camps = 1321, camps = 6�1 ; Lebanon: non-camps = 929, camps = 1,008; Gaza: non-camps = 1,143, camps = 831; West Bank: non-camps = 1,319, camps = 638.

A higher proportion of refugees living outside camps in the Syrian Arab Republic, the West Bank and Gaza own their dwellings compared with refugees in the other countries (figure 11). More refugees living outside camps in Lebanon tend to rent their dwellings than those in the other locations (36 percent rented, �0 percent owned). Roughly one third of refugees in Jordan reported renting their residence in camps (16 percent) and outside camps (32 percent).

Restrictions on obtaining citizenship and property may explain higher rentals in Lebanon. Ownership of residence is nevertheless controversial. The land allocated to camps is not owned by UNRWA and thus not owned by the refugees served by UNRWA in camps. However, an informal housing market within camps may exist. Refugees may move elsewhere while keeping their residential rights within the camp and “rent” or “sell” their dwellings. In Lebanon, the authorities regulate access of construction materials into camps to control the sprawl of houses and the development of an informal real estate market that is beyond their reach. Governments have also limited the allocation of land in order to control the extension of camps. Consequently, a critical crowding situation has arisen from the absence of construction projects to meet the needs of the growing population.

Figure 12 shows that, except for refugees living outside camps in Lebanon and Jordan, individual houses are the main type of residence for refugees in all the locations. There is a lower proportion of extended family houses in Lebanon outside camps (11 percent). Such houses are often more common in camps while apartments are more common outside camps. Tents are no longer used to shelter refugees.

n 32 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

Figure 12: Distribution of housing types by residential site and location (q51r by q54)(%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Jordan Non Camp

Jordan Camp

Syria Non Camp

Syria Camp

Lebanon Non Camp

Lebanon Camp

Gaza Non Camp

Gaza Camp

West Bank Non Camp

West Bank Camp

Appartment in private /public building Extended family building

individual house Tent

Other

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�. N: Jordan: 1,913; SAR: 1,977; Lebanon: 1,8�2; Gaza: 1,993; West Bank: 1,976.

A logistic regression with defects as the dependent variable was used. A value of 0 was given when respondents reported no structural defects, while a value of 1 was given when structural defects were reported. The effects of six independent variables were tested against defects. Income level (divided into five categories in the survey) is expected to influence the quality of constructions. It has already been demonstrated (figure 10) that the location of residence has an effect on building quality. In the regression, location was tested against defects under the control of other variables. The variables, roofing material, outside walls material, type of residence and tenure, were tested in the regression for their expected effects.

The logistic regression (table 9) shows that the site of the residence (i.e. camp/non-camp) is the explanatory variable with the highest effect on defects in Jordan and Lebanon. In other locations, the effect of the residential site variable is attenuated by the stronger effect of other independent variables. For example, the effect of the roofing material variable is the same as that of residential site in the Syrian Arab Republic and Gaza. Roofing material has the strongest effect in the West Bank. Outside wall material seems to have a limited effect (with a value close to 1). Surprisingly, income level has less of a negative effect than expected, considering that those with greater financial resources should be able to afford better housing quality. Likewise, the tenure variable, with a value close to 1, seems to have a limited effect on defects. Renting, owning or residential rights granted by UNRWA does not influence the occurrence of structural defects, and thus the efforts incurred in residence maintenance according to tenure. The observed weakness of this variable can also be explained by the distribution of attributes between residential sites. In fact, a large proportion of refugees own their houses outside camps, while a large proportion of refugees have residential rights granted within camps (figure 12).

Theoretically, ownership within camps, and residential right granted by UNRWA outside camps is not possible. In general, the Nagelkerke R-square shows that the model of the regression is weak in all fields, meaning that there are other factors that can explain the occurrence of structural defects in dwellings. Further investigation should enable a more accurate assessment of what causes structural defects in refugees’ dwellings.

n 33 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Table 9: Logistic regression between defects as the dependent variable (0=no defects reported; 1=defects reported) and listed independent variables (q51r, q33_totq, q53ao, q53bo, q54, q58).

Independent variables Exp (B) Nagelkerke R-square a N missing

Jordan

Camp/non-camp 2.706

.129*** �9� 1 40�

Income quintiles 0.790Roofing material 1.1�0Outside walls material 0.946Type of residence 1.03�Tenure 1.166Constant 0.618

SAR

Camp/non-camp 2.690

.090*** 24� 1 7��

Income quintiles 0.784Roofing material 1.430Outside walls material 1.018Type of residence 2.076Tenure 0.942Constant 0.062

Lebanon

Camp/non-camp 2.4�8

.086*** �43 14�7

Income quintiles 0.920Roofing material 1.430Outside walls material 0.968Type of residence 1.270Tenure 1.372Constant 0.203

Gaza

Camp/no- camp 1.899

.066*** 404 1 �96

Income quintiles 0.871Roofing material 1.281Outside walls material 1.036Type of residence 1.169Tenure 0.948Constant 0.206

West Bank

Camp/non-camp 0.920

.046*** 869 1 311

Income quintiles 0.760Roofing material 1.101Outside walls material 0.997Type of residence 1.189Tenure 0.966Constant 0.768

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�. a Significance based on chi-square: ***< = 1‰ ; ** <= 1%; * <= �% ; ns > �%

Figure 13: Proportion of main construction material used in respondents’ houses for outside walls by residential site and location Q51r, q53bo (%).

45

36

49

60

89

80

8

4

75

68

0

0

7

2

0

1

1

2

2

1

29

37

39

32

7

3

18

14

2

2

24

26

5

5

4

17

70

78

19

29

2

1

0

0

0

0

3

1

1

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Jord

anSA

RLe

bano

nG

aza

Wes

tBa

nk

Concrete Clay Cement Brick Wood Other

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�.Note: The construction material “cut stones”, available in the questionnaire was transformed into missing values for this analysis, since such material is used as an embellishment and is not part of the building structure. N: Jordan: non-camps = �27, camps = 1�4; SAR: non-camps = 161, camps = 97; Lebanon: non-camps = 192, camps = 449; Gaza: non-camps = 237, camps = 186; West Bank: non-camps = 601, camps = 340.

n 34 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

Construction materials used for outside walls vary by location, but not much by residential site (i.e. camps/non-camp) (figure 13). Concrete and cement seems to be widely used in Lebanon and the West Bank, while bricks are the main construction material elsewhere. Clay is not used or is marginally used. Wood is not used anywhere due to its cost, scarcity and its lack of thermal inertia as to keep houses in the Middle east cool in the summer and warm in the winter.

n 3� n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

10. Neighbourhood public spaces, green spaces and recreation

High population density puts increasing pressure on the availability of public spaces and green areas, and affects the width of streets. In camps more specifically, houses and private spaces have encroached on public ones, resulting in narrower streets due to the lack of land for expansion of the camps, often to the extent that in some streets two persons can barely pass each other. This situation also increases the need for recreational areas, since narrow streets are neither suitable playgrounds for children, nor do they allow people to meet and gather. The provision of green spaces also adds to the betterment of landscapes in overbuilt neighbourhoods.

Figure 14: Level of satisfaction with privacy (distance between houses) in the neighbourhood, by residential site and location (q51r, q63h) (%).

7

3

3

0

7

1

3

1

6

1

46

8

37

22

50

12

37

14

64

15

22

26

30

32

24

24

29

29

18

33

16

40

15

25

11

36

15

33

7

37

9

24

15

20

8

27

16

23

5

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Jord

anSA

RLe

bano

nG

aza

Wes

tBa

nk

Very satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Very unsatisfactory Does not even exist

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�. N: Jordan: non-camps = 1�10, camps = 400; SAR: non-camps = 1,31�, camps = 646; Lebanon: non-camps = 1,293, camps = 628; Gaza: non-camps = 1,106, camps = 824; West Bank: non-camps = 1,020, camps = 891.

Levels of satisfaction in terms of distance between houses differ greatly between refugees living in camps and outside camps (figure 14). A large majority of refugees in camps expressed unsatisfactory levels of privacy in terms of distances between houses. Only 11 percent of refugees living in camps in Jordan were satisfied, while those in camps in other locations were just slightly more satisfied (Syria 22 percent, Lebanon 13 percent, Gaza 1� percent West Bank 16 percent). In contrast, refugees living outside the camps expressed greater satisfaction, though even they claimed there were privacy problems (Jordan �2 percent, Syrian Arab Republic 40 percent, Lebanon �7 percent, Gaza 41 percent, the West Bank 70 percent). The contrast in levels of satisfaction between refugees in camps and outside camps further demonstrates the critical level of population density within camps.

n 36 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

Figure 15: level of satisfaction with recreational facilities in neighbourhoods by residential site and location (q63g) (%).

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

3

1

13

5

16

4

12

8

7

7

23

16

10

14

15

16

15

9

12

12

18

20

6

8

7

10

3

5

6

7

5

11

70

72

61

69

68

78

74

74

51

53

0 20 40 60 80 100

Non c amp

Camp

Non c amp

Camp

Non c amp

Camp

Non c amp

Camp

Non c amp

Camp

Jord

anSA

RLe

ban

on

Gaz

aW

est

Ban

k

V ery s atis f ac tory Satis f ac tory Uns atis f ac tory

V ery uns atis f ac tory Does not ev en ex is t

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�.N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,492, camps = 396; SAR: non-camps = 1,261, camps = 62�; Lebanon: non-camps = 876, camps = 931; Gaza: non-camps = 1,10�, camps = 820; West Bank: non-camps = 1,244, camps = 613.

Survey results shown in figure 1� suggest that recreational facilities or social activity centres are lacking for a large majority of refugees regardless of residence location and site. Refugees in the West Bank reported higher levels of satisfaction than those in other locations. Though better off, more than �0 percent of refugees in the West Bank still reported that such facilities were non-existent in their neighbourhoods.

Likewise, figure 16 shows that a large majority of refugees (up to 88 percent of those living in camps in Lebanon) do not have green spaces in their neighbourhoods, regardless of site and residential location. However, refugees living outside the camps appear to be slightly better off.

In general, the lack of extra space outside houses adds to the critical level of overcrowding described previously. Palestine refugees expressed dissatisfaction in terms of lack of privacy between houses, which is made worse by the absence of public spaces in terms of recreational areas, social centres and green spaces.

n 37 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Figure 16: Level of satisfaction with green areas in neighbourhoods, by residential site and location (q63f) (%).

2

1

3

1

3

0

2

1

3

0

13

4

17

5

23

4

17

6

28

10

10

14

12

15

14

5

10

8

16

14

4

6

5

10

3

4

5

3

5

6

71

75

63

69

57

88

67

83

48

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Non Camp

Camp

Non Camp

Camp

Non Camp

Camp

Non Camp

Camp

Non Camp

Camp

Jord

anSA

RLe

ban

on

Gaz

aW

est

Ban

k

V ery s atis f ac tory Satis f ac tory Uns atis f ac tory

V ery uns atis f ac tory Does not ev en ex is t

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�. N : Jordan: non-camps = 1,�08, camps = 40�; SAR: non-camps = 1,283, camps = 631; Lebanon: non-camps = 923, camps = 987; Gaza: non-camps = 1,097, camps = 796; West Bank: non-camps = 1274, camps = 622.

n 38 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

11. Access, mobility, paved streets and transportation networks

Housing rights require that the location of a residence be close enough to services such as economic centres, administrative facilities and supplies. Mobility influences access to education and opportunities for work, and is thus essential to sustain livelihoods.

Refugees’ status in host countries may ease or hinder mobility. Their mobility is generally disrupted in war-torn areas and occupied territories. In the latter, there are increased risks in travelling and the destination is often unreachable. In the West Bank and Gaza, for example, efficient transportation networks and infrastructure exist, but the fencing and recurrent encircling of camps by the IDF can put a stop to refugees’ mobility for undetermined lengths of time. Closures, curfews, check points, imposed itineraries and roads or bypassed routes lengthen journeys and increase uncertainty about reaching a destination.

Since 2001, Palestinians in the West Bank have not been allowed to commute between cities unless they have permission from the Israeli authorities. Jobs or education are not considered valid reasons for acquiring authorization. Under such conditions, some local populations and refugees are unable to reach hospitals, universities and administrative services. Keeping a daily job, following an educational programme, maintaining contacts with relatives, or any other activity under limited or uncertain mobility is obviously difficult, if not impossible.

Several questions in the survey sought to obtain an indication of problems related to levels of mobility. Transportation problems appeared to be marginal in the decision to drop out of educational programmes. Indeed, less than 1 percent of respondents stated that the lack of transportation motivated their decision to withdraw from their educational programme, while up to 20 percent evoked the need to help at home as the main motive (consult variable q08). Furthermore, transportation problems are not perceived as the main hindrance to seeking jobs. Indeed, less than 1 percent of respondents reported difficulties in reaching their place of work as the main hindrance (consult variable q49f ). Unemployed respondents, who nevertheless were not seeking a job, evoked family objections and social restrictions instead of difficulties in reaching employment areas as a main reason.

Also, few cited transportation problems as being the reason for their children’s lack of involvement in extra-curricular activities (consult variable q17e). A lack of interest in those activities or the lack of activities tended to be the main explanation (consult variable q17c).

Nevertheless, students do not in general endure excessive commuting times (figure 17). Twenty percent of children living outside camps in Gaza take more than half an hour to reach their schools. Except for the latter, close to 10 percent or less children take more than half an hour to commute to schools. Children living in camps in all fields are slightly more to have shorter commuting times to their schools.

n 39 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Figure 17: Commuting time to school by residential site and location (q51r, q12e01 to 12) (%).

2

1

3

1

3

0

2

1

3

0

13

4

17

5

23

4

17

6

28

10

10

14

12

15

14

5

10

8

16

14

4

6

5

10

3

4

5

3

5

6

71

75

63

69

57

88

67

83

48

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Non Camp

Camp

Non Camp

Camp

Non Camp

Camp

Non Camp

Camp

Non Camp

Camp

Jord

anSA

RLe

bano

nG

aza

Wes

tBa

nk

Very satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Very unsatisfactory Does not even exist

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�. N: Jordan: non-camps = 2,883, camps =803; SAR: non-camps = 1,700, camps = 1,011 ; Lebanon: non camps = 1,319, camps = 1,6�2 ; Gaza: non-camps = 3,018, camps = 2,311; West Bank: non-camps = 2,�63, camps = 1,330. Number of people here are respondents’ children.

Refugees living in camps accorded comparatively less importance to transportation improvement measures than those living in the same location but outside the camps (figure 18). In general, one would expect refugees in camps to be fairly well served by UNRWA’s education mandate. Indeed, figure 16 shows that 68 percent of refugees (the highest rate) living in Gaza outside the camps considered improvement in transportation to schools to be a very important measure that should be added to UNRWA’s educational service. Likewise, the results show that fewer refugees in camps considered transportation improvement as an important measure than those living outside camps.

Figure 18: Degree of importance given to improvement of transportation to UNRWA schools, by residential site and location (q51r, q15i) (%).

52

38

33

17

56

34

68

55

37

24

35

32

29

21

30

28

24

26

51

38

11

20

29

46

12

27

7

15

11

27

2

10

9

16

2

11

1

5

1

11

0 20 40 60 80 100

non camp

camp

non camp

camp

non camp

camp

non camp

camp

non camp

camp

Jord

anSA

RLe

bano

nG

aza

Wes

tBa

nk

Very important Important Not important Not important at all

Source: UNRWA-NEP 200�.N : Jordan: non-camps = 1,309, camps 399; SAR: non-camps = 1,277, camps = 636, Lebanon: non-camps = 789, camps = 903 ; Gaza: non-camps = 644, camps = �99; West Bank: non-camps = �96, camps = 492.

n 40 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

Figure 19 indicates that refugees outside camps, except for Gaza, benefit from better paved roads than those living in camps. On average, 43 percent of households in camps do not have a fully paved road/street to access their houses (except for Gaza where the trend is reversed). This figure falls to 28 percent for refugees living outside camps. Refugees within camps in Lebanon and Jordan as well as those outside camps in Gaza are worse off.

Refugees living in camps in Lebanon expressed the highest level of dissatisfaction (36 percent) with public transportation (figure 20). A large proportion of these refugees (16 percent) reported that public transportation does not even exist. Refugees in Lebanon and Jordan living in the camps expressed lower levels of satisfaction compared to refugees in other locations, while, unexpectedly, refugees in the West Bank were the most satisfied (83 percent expressed satisfaction). Except for refugees living in the camps in West Bank, at least 20 percent of refugees in all fields were dissatisfied with the public transportation in their neighbourhoods.

Figure 19: Distribution of roads/street types leading to residence, by residential site and location (q51r, q52) (%).

79

59

77

61

72

26

55

74

76

64

13

33

14

27

18

31

7

6

10

24

4

3

6

10

5

13

34

19

9

7

4

4

2

2

5

26

4

1

4

5

0

1

0

1

0

4

0

0

1

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Non c amp

Camp

Non c amp

Camp

Non c amp

Camp

Non c amp

Camp

Non c amp

Camp

Jord

anSA

RLe

ban

on

Gaz

aW

est

Ban

k

Pav ed s treet /road Partly pav ed road Unpav ed road A gric ultural road /path Other

Source UNRWA-NEP, 200�. N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,�62, camps 412; SAR: non-camps = 1,331, camps = 6��; Lebanon: non-camps = 971, camps = 1,017; Gaza: non-camps = 1,149, camps = 838; West Bank: non-camps = 1,331, camps = 648.

n 41 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Figure 20: Level of satisfaction with availability of public transportation close to the residence, by residential site and location (q51r, q63l) (%).

14

11

17

18

20

10

20

26

14

20

55

57

63

56

58

54

52

51

66

65

16

21

15

18

13

14

14

11

11

10

10

10

5

6

4

6

10

6

5

4

4

1

1

2

4

16

4

5

3

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Non camp

Camp

Jord

anSA

RLe

bano

nG

aza

Wes

tBa

nk

Very satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Very unsatisfactory Does not even exist

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�.N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,��2, camps = 417; SAR: non-camps = 1,32�, camps = 6�2; Lebanon: non-camps = 960, camps = 1,006; Gaza: non-camps = 1,136, camps = 828; West Bank: non-camps = 1281, camps = 624.

n 42 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

12. Respiratory problems caused by the housing environment

Respiratory problems may occur when toxic fumes generated within the housing environment are inhaled on a daily basis. Fuels such as coal, fuelwood and kerosene may cause severe respiratory problems when ventilation or exhaust systems are inadequate. The availability of certain fuels depends on the supply networks and on households’ resources to install a cooking/heating system (stove, heater) and purchase the appropriate fuel supply. Underprivileged communities living in a designated environment (refugee camps, their periphery, or poor neighbourhoods) may lack access to safe fuels and leading to greater respiratory problems. Poor ventilation, not only impedes the release of toxic fumes, it also increases humidity, which can be the cause of major respiratory problems such as asthma due to allergic reactions to fungi that thrive in a humid environment.

We transformed respiratory data from the survey to create a dependent variable for analysis in a logistic regression. A value of 1 was attributed if respiratory problems were observed in at least one household member, and a value of 0 was attributed if no household member suffered from such problems. We then retained six independent variables, and their effect on respiratory problems was tested. The variable, no kitchen, was created on the assumption that households without kitchens may lack appropriate exhausts, which may result in a greater risk of inhaling toxic fumes. The variable, no stove, was created on the assumption that households that lack conventional gas or electric ovens or stoves are more likely to burn biomass, which releases harmful fumes. The variable, toxic heating, was created to test whether households using kerosene, fuelwood or coal as a source of heating may have more respiratory problems than those using central heating, diesel, electricity or gas. Humidity, poor ventilation and residential site (camp/non-camp) were other independent variables tested for their effect on respiratory problems.

The regression (table 10) shows that the variables, humidity and no kitchen, were reported to have a rather strongly adverse effect on respiratory problems. The variable, poor ventilation was also seen to have a fairly strong effect in all sites and locations. The variable, toxic heating, was reported as having a weak effect in all fields, except in the Syrian Arab Republic where it was reported to have a strong negative effect. Residential site (camp/non-camp) and poor ventilation were reported to have the strongest adverse effect in the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon, which are the two country locations with the highest chi-square and highest significance. However, the model has no significance in Jordan and Gaza (p>0.0�) and a low Nagelkerke R-square in all the locations, suggesting that the overall model performs poorly, and thus any conclusions drawn should be tempered.

n 43 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Table 10: Logistic regression between respiration problems using respir as a dependent variable (0=none; 1=observed) and the listed independent variables.

Variables Exp (B) Nagelkerke R-square a n Missing

Jordan

Camp/non-camp

ns 1 867 133

No stoveNo kitchenToxic heatingHumidityPoor ventilationConstant

SAR

Camp/non-camp 1.�86

0.044*** 1 967 33

No stove 0.643No kitchen 1.474Toxic heating 0Humidity 1.448Poor ventilation 1.383Constant 0.0�0

Lebanon

Camp/non-camp 1.221

0.043*** 1 867 133

No stove 0.701No kitchen 1.764Toxic heating 1.1��Humidity 1.642Poor ventilation 1.39�Constant 0.111

Gaza

Camp/non-camp

ns 1 891 109

No stoveNo kitchenToxic heatingHumidityPoor ventilationConstant

West Bank

Camp/non-camp 1.049

0.030* 1 84� 1��

No stove 0.7�7No kitchen 0.167Toxic heating 1.032Humidity 1.823Poor ventilation 1.�36Constant 0.39

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�. a Based on chi-square: *** <= 1‰ ; ** <= 1% ; * <= �% ; ns > �%.

Table 11 suggests that fuelwood could be the cause of the higher rate of respiratory problems in Lebanon. Although fuelwood is quite commonly used in the West Bank and Gaza, the milder winter and thus shorter exposure to its fumes may explain the lower rates of respiratory problems there. The large proportion of refugees in Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic who use kerosene and diesel may indicate that central heating systems with adequate exhausts reduce the amount of respiratory problems.

Table 11: Proportion of households in which at least one member has respiratory problems, and most common source of heating (%).

Respiratory problems observed

Most common source of heating

Second most common source of heating

Jordan 7 Kerosene – 64 Gas – 2�

SAR 6 Diesel – 89 Gas - 4 andelectricity – 4

Lebanon 13 Gas – 31 Fuel wood – 23

Gaza 8 No heating device – 44 Electricity – 24 and fuelwood – 24

West Bank � Gas - 40 Fuelwood – 24Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�. N: Jordan: 1,868; SAR: 1,972; Lebanon: 1,867; Gaza: 1,908; West Bank: 1,883.

n 44 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

13. Gastro intestinal problems caused by the housing environment

The urban poor often lack access to community services such as undisrupted water supply, collection and disposal of refuse, covered drains and sewerage networks. Human exposure to sewage poses risks of water-borne diseases such as diarrhoea, gastro-enteritis, hepatitis A, dysentery, giardia, or, in more extreme cases, cholera and polio. In addition to daily hygiene needs, low-income households depend on water to earn their living from laundry, washing and other water-reliant jobs. When not supplied regularly through the community service network, water is trucked from unregulated sources at high cost. Hence, resorting to water of lower quality containing different levels of contamination is often the only alternative to satisfy daily water consumption needs, while increasing the risks of contracting gastrointestinal diseases.

Figure 21: Percentage of households reporting at least one member with gastrointestinal problems, by residential site and location (q51r, q19_1_2i to q_19_8_2i) (%).

0 2 4 6 8 10

Non camp

camp

Non camp

camp

Non camp

camp

Non camp

camp

Non camp

camp

Jord

anSA

RLe

bano

nG

aza

Wes

tBa

nk

Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�. N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,�69, camps = 419; SAR: non-camps = 1,333, camps = 6�8 ; Lebanon: non-camps = 97�, camps = 1,024; Gaza: non-camps = 1,1�1, camps = 842; West Bank: non-camps = 1,042, camps = 914.

Figure 21 shows that households in Lebanon reported higher levels of gastrointestinal problems than elsewhere. Table 12 suggests that households outside camps in the West Bank and Gaza are the worst off: 30 percent (the highest number) and 26 percent of them, respectively, complained of not having a sewage connection to their homes. Likewise, 1� percent and 10 percent respectively (highest figures) reported lack of a garbage collection service. It is worth noting that for sewage connection and garbage collection, refugees in camps are far better served than outside camps, which contradicts the main trend so far. Refugees in the Syrian Arab Republic (20 percent outside camps and 36 percent in camps – highest figure) reported that their houses lacked access to drinking water.

A tentative logistic regression in which gastrointestinal problems was used as a dependent variable and the variables in table 12 were independent, lacked significance, with p>0.0�. The effect of the variables on the occurrence of gastrointestinal problems could thus not be tested. Nevertheless, special attention should be directed to refugees who lack these services to ensure a healthy housing environment.

n 4� n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

Table 12: Absence of services and habitat variables contributing to gastrointestinal and water-borne diseases in households, by residential site and location (q51r, q60a1, q55a03-04, q60a3, q60a4) (%).

Hou

se d

oes

not

have

a to

ilet

N

Mis

sing

Hou

se d

oes

not

have

dri

nkin

g w

ater

(q60

a1)

N

Mis

sing

Hou

se d

oes

not

have

a s

ewag

e co

nnec

tion

(q

60a3

)

N

Mis

sing

Gar

bage

of

hous

e is

not

co

llect

ed (q

60a4

)

N

Mis

sing

JordanNon-camp 8 1 �69

121 1 ��7

3210 1 477

1203 1 �2�

76Camp 11 419 1 411 4 403 1 399

SARNon-camp 2 1 334

720 1314

323 131�

386 1 316

43Camp 3 6�9 35 6�4 6 647 9 641

LebanonNon-camp 5 97�

110 9�8

4911 90�

12810 921

96Camp 8 1 024 6 993 6 967 4 983

GazaNon-camp 4 1 1�0

1�1 1 124

4725 1 120

��15 1 119

64Camp 5 83� 1 829 12 82� 9 817

West Bank

Non-camp 11 132626

2 130��9

29 1 27�97

10 1 2897�

Camp 6 648 1 643 7 628 5 636Source: UNRWA-NEP, 200�.

n 46 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

14. Proposals for further investigation

The results highlighted in this report indicate the need for further research. It is suggested, that density of urban camps be compared with that of cities in which camps have merged, such as the camp of Wihdat in the city of Amman, Jordan. In addition to the identification of urban camps, the density of cities to which they are attached should be determined and integrated in the database of the survey. Running different types of analyses in this case would allow gauging the range of differences between ‘urban’ camps adjacent or within larger cities.

Further investigation should help determine the type and level of gravity of structural defects in refugees’ dwellings, as well as the causes of these structural defects.

Climatic conditions for each region where UNRWA operates should be taken into account to sharpen the analysis relating to housing comfort. The passive cooling and heating properties of construction materials along with the design of houses can have a major effect on housing comfort, and, if adequate, allow a reduction in the use of heating and cooling devices, thereby also diminishing the risks due to inappropriate use of energies. The temperature within houses should be monitored throughout the year.

A better understanding of the types of fuels used for heating and cooking, and of the fumes resulting from their combustion should be further investigated to enable a better analysis of the health risks in the housing environment.

Commuting time to job centres and administrations should be surveyed to identify the degree of remoteness endured by refugees. Such a survey would help improve the standard of the housing analysis.

An additional analysis should compare housing conditions of refugees with housing standards of their host countries.

Finally, for equal services received, the level of satisfaction perceived by respondents in different countries may vary given the overall living conditions. It is expected for example, that a respondent in Lebanon, having harsh living conditions in general, may report that a specific issue related to his living environment is satisfactory. A refugee responding on the same specific issue in another country may report that he is unsatisfied with it. Surveys conducted across fields tend not to capture and correct this effect.

n 47 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

1�. References

BADIL (2006). Survey of Palestinian Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons 2004-200�, BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee RightsCohre (200�). The Pinheiro Principles, United Nations Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons, Geneva: COHRE International secretariatDestremau D (199�). Les camps de réfugiés palestiniens ou la double identité territoriale, le cas d’Amman. Les Cahiers d’URBAMA, 11: �-�6.FAFO (1997). Constructing order: Palestinian Adaptations to Refugee Life, report 236FAFO (1998). Jordanian society: Living conditions in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Report 2�3, OsloFAFO (2001). Growing fast: the population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Report 3�3, OsloFAFO (2003a). Finding means: UNRWA’s financial crisis and refugee living conditions. Report 427, vol. 1, OsloFAFO (2003b). Difficult past, uncertain future: Living conditions among Palestinian refugees in camps and gatherings in Lebanon. Report 409, OsloFAFO (2004). The material and social infrastructure, and environmental conditions of refugee camps and gatherings in Lebanon: Community development of Palestinian refugee camps. Analytical support to Jordan’s preparations for the Geneva conference on Humanitarian Needs of Palestinian Refugees, June 2004, OsloHalabi Z (2004). Exclusion and identity in Lebanon’s Palestinian refugee camps: a story of sustained conflict (Chatila). Environment & Urbanization, 6 (2): 39-48.Leckie S (2000). Housing Rights. In: UNDP, Human Development Report 2000. New York, United Nations.Sayyigh R (200�). A house is not a home: insecurity of habitat for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon, in Forced Migration Review (available online only: www.fmreview.org/pdf/sayyigh.pdf )Suleiman J (2006). Marginalised community: The case of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Brighton, Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, University of Sussex. Takkenberg L and Mukhles H (200�). Neirab Rehabilitation Project. Forced Migration Review, 22, January. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre, Queen Elisabeth House. UNCHS (1996). An Urbanizing World – Global Report on Human Settlements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.UNRWA (2003). Who are the refugees? Social, economic and legal conditions. Paper presented at the Stocktaking Conference on Palestinian Refugee Research in Ottawa, Canada, June 17-20, 2003, by Harish Parvathaneni, UNRWA HQ, Gaza.UNRWA and SDC (2004). Community development and refugees: infrastructure, environment, housing and social development. Working Group II of the Conference, Meeting the Humanitarian Needs of the Palestine Refugees in the Near East: Building Partnerships in Support of UNRWA, Geneva, 7-8 June 2004.UNRWA (200�). Report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. 1 July 2004–30 June 200�.UNRWA (2006). Shelter Rehabilitation: Comparative Study. Preliminary Report 2: Design, Specification and Standards. Amman, Jordan: UNRWA HQ (in preparation)

n

n

n

nn

nn

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n 48 n

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report

List of Tables

Table 1: World classification of average housing occupancy (per area and room), by national income level. ...........................................................................................................................16

Table 2: Number of persons and number of rooms in house (bedrooms and living rooms)................17Table 3: Logistic regression between overcrowding as a dependent variable

(0=normal; 1=crowded) and listed independent variables by location (q��b01, q��b02, nhouse, q�6a, q�1r, q33_totq, q�4, q6�a). ......................................................20

Table 4: Cross tabulation between overcrowding in houses (either by area or occupancy) and household size by location (q��_ crow and nhouse) (%). .............................................................20

Table �: Registered refugees: population densities in camps by location, as of 31 March 200�. .........22Table 6: The 10 most densely populated administrative units in the world. ...............................................22Table 7: Distribution of income groups by site and location (q�1r, q33_totq) (%). ...................................23Table 8: Distribution of appliances (q62a to r, q33_totq) by income level (q33_totq),

by location and in households who reported owning the appliances (%) .............................28Table 9: Logistic regression between defects as the dependent variable (0=no defects reported;

1=defects reported) and listed independent variables (q�1r, q33_ totq, q�3ao, q�3bo, q�4, q�8). .................................................................................................................33

Table 10: Logistic regression between respiration problems using respir as a dependent variable (0=none; 1=observed) and the listed independent variables. ....................................43

Table 11: Proportion of households in which at least one member has respiratory problems, and most common source of heating (%). ....................................................................43

Table 12: Absence of services and habitat variables contributing to gastrointestinal and water-borne diseases in households, by residential site and location (q�1r, q60a1, q��a03-04, q60a3, q60a4) (%). ......................................................................................4�

n 49 n

Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees

List of Figures

Figure 1: Proportion of refugees residing in camps and non-camps by location (q�1r)a (%).. .............12Figure 2: Relationship between average population density of registered refugees

in camps and occupancy in camp households (q��_cror, q��_croa and q��_crow).........17Figure 3: Percentage of households with overcrowding observed in terms of room

occupancy and area occupancy, or either, by residential site and location (q��_cror, q��_croa and q��_crow) (%). .............................................................................................19

Figure 4: Average population density of registered refugees in camps by location ±SD, as of 31 March 200�. ..........................................................................................................................21

Figure �: Distribution of appliances in households, by residential site and location (q62_scor) (%). ...............................................................................................................................................24

Figure 6: Proportion of households having the listed appliances (q62 a to f ) by residential site and location (%) ....................................................................................................................................2�

Figure 7: Proportion of households having the listed appliances (q62 g to m), by residential site and location (%) ....................................................................................................................................26

Figure 8: Proportion of households owning the listed appliances (q62n to r), by residential site and location (%). ...................................................................................................................................26

Figure 9: Differences between the lowest and highest household income quintiles in terms of appliances in households by location (q62a to r, q33_totq) (%). ................................................29

Figure 10: Proportion of reported structural defects in living rooms and bedrooms of dwellings, by residential site and location (q�7b) (%). .............................................................30

Figure 11: Distribution of refugees by tenure by residential site and location (q�1r by q�8) (%). ......31Figure 12: Distribution of housing types by residential site and location (q�1r by q�4)(%). ................32Figure 13: Proportion of main construction material used in respondents’ houses for

outside walls by residential site and location Q�1r, q�3bo (%). .................................................33Figure 14: Level of satisfaction with privacy (distance between houses) in the

neighbourhood, by residential site and location (q�1r, q63h) (%). ............................................3�Figure 1�: level of satisfaction with recreational facilities in neighbourhoods by residential

site and location (q63g) (%). .....................................................................................................................36Figure 16: Level of satisfaction with green areas in neighbourhoods, by residential site

and location (q63f ) (%). ..............................................................................................................................37Figure 17: Commuting time to school by residential site and location

(q�1r, q12e01 to 12) (%). ............................................................................................................................39Figure 18: Degree of importance given to improvement of transportation to UNRWA

schools, by residential site and location (q�1r, q1�i) (%). ..............................................................39 Figure 19: Distribution of roads/street types leading to residence, by residential site

and location (q�1r, q�2) (%). .....................................................................................................................40Figure 20: Level of satisfaction with availability of public transportation close to the

residence, by residential site and location (q�1r, q63l) (%). ..........................................................41Figure 21: Percentage of households reporting at least one member with gastrointestinal

problems, by residential site and location (q�1r, q19_1_2i to q_19_8_2i) (%). .....................44