COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HOUSING AMENITIES IN SLUMS IN KERALA USING 2011 CENSUS

DATA

Thesis

Submitted to the University of Kerala in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Demography

By

REENA SReg. No. DEM120508

DEPARTMENT OF DEMOGRAPHYUNIVERSITY OF KERALA

KARIAVATTOMTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM

2014

Dr. Anil Chandran S. Department Of Demography

Assistant ProfessorUniversity Of Kerala Kariavattom

Certificate

I hereby certify that this dissertation entitled COMPARATIVE STUDY OF

HOUSING AMENITIES IN SLUMS IN KERALA USING 2011 CENSUS DATA is a

bonafide record of work of Miss. Reena S. Carried out by her in the

Department of Demography, University of Kerala, under my supervision in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Master of Science

Degree in Demography of the University of Kerala and that no part of this

thesis has been presented before for any other degree.

Dr.AnilChandran S.

Acknowledgement

I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude and indebtedness to

Dr. Anil Chandran S, Assistant Professor, Department of Demography,

University of Kerala under whose supervision this work was carried out. His

constant support, stimulating guidance, creative suggestions and

instructive criticisms helped me in the successful completion of this work.

Also I express my special thanks to Dr. P. Mohanachandran Nair, Professor

and Head of the Department of Demography, University of Kerala for

providing me the necessary facilities for carrying out this work. My sincere

thanks are to all other teachers, friends and Librarian of my Department

for their encouragement throughout the course of this work.

REENA S.

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTERSPAGE

NO

       I.          INTRODUCTION 1-9

     II.          REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES 10-19

   III.          DATA AND METHODOLOGY 20-26

  IV.          HOUSING, HOUSEHOLD AMENITIES AND ASSETS - ANALYSIS 27-59

    V.          SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 60-63

REFERENCES 64

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title

Table 4.1: Percentage Share of Residential houses by Condition - Urban and Slum Households in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.2: Percentage Share of Residential houses by Predominant Material of Wall - Urban and Slum Households in Kerala - 2011census

Table 4.3: Percentage Share of Residential houses by Predominant Material of Floor - Urban and Slum Households in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.4: Percentage Share of Residential Houses by Predominant Material of Roof - Urban And Slum Households in Kerala - 2011census

Table 4.5: Percentage share of households by ownership status of the residential houses- urban and slum areas in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.6: Percentage Share of Households by Number of Dwelling Rooms of the Residential Houses- Urban and Slum areas in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.7: Percentage share of households by location of drinking water of the census houses- urban and slum households in Kerala 2011 Census

Table 4.8: Percentage Share of Households by Main Source of Drinking Water in the Residential Houses - Urban and Slum households in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.9: Percentage Share of Households by Main Source of Lighting

in the Residential Houses- Urban and Slum Areas in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.10: Percentage Share of Households by Availability of Latrine Facility in the Residential Houses- Urban and Slum Areas in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.11: Percentage Share of Households by Type of Latrine Facility within the Premises in Residential Houses- Urban and Slum areas in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.12: Percentage share of households by no latrine within premises alternative source in the residential houses- urban and slum areas in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.13: Percentage Share of Households by Type of Drainage Connectivity for Waste Water Outlet In The Residential Houses- Urban And Slum In Kerala 2011census

Table 4.14: Percentage Share of Households by Having Bathing Facility within the Premises in Residential Houses - Urban and Slum areas in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.15: Percentage Share of Households by Types of Fuel Used for cooking in the Residential Houses- Urban and Slum in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.16: Percentage Share of Households by Mode of Transportation in Residential Houses - Urban and Slum Areas in Kerala 2011census

Table 4.17: Percentage Share of Households by Mode of Communication in the Residential Houses- Urban and Slum in Kerala

2011Census

Table 4.18: Percentage share of households availing banking services in the residential houses- urban and slum in Kerala 2011census

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Slum is a densely populated urban settlement characterized by substandard housing and poor sanitation facilities. While slums differ in size and other characteristics from country to country, most lack reliable sanitation services, supply of clean water, reliable electricity, timely law enforcement and other basic services. Slum residences vary from shanty houses to professionally-built dwellings that because of poor-quality design or construction have deteriorated into slums.

Slums were common in the 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States and Europe. More recently slums have been predominantly found in urban regions of developing and undeveloped parts of the world, but are also found in developed economies.

Definition and types of slums in India

Census 2011 defines slum as

(i) All notified areas in a town or city notified as ‘Slum’ by State, Union territories Administration or Local Government under any Act including a ‘Slum Act’ may be considered as Notified slums

(ii) All areas recognized as ‘Slum’ by State, Union territories Administration or Local Government, Housing and Slum Boards, which may have not been formally notified as slum under any act may be considered as Recognized slums

(iii) A compact area of at least 300 populations or about 60-70 households of poorly built congested tenements, in unhygienic environment usually with inadequate infrastructure and lacking in proper sanitary and drinking water facilities. Such areas should be identified personally by the Charge Officer and also inspected by an officer nominated by Directorate of Census Operations. This fact

must be duly recorded in the charge register. Such areas may be considered as Identified slum

The NSSO, for the purpose of survey in 1976-77 defined slum as declared and undeclared slums. The declared slums were areas which have been formally declared as slum by the respective municipalities, corporations, local bodies or the development authorities. The undeclared slums were defined as “an aerial unit having twenty five or more katcha structures mostly of temporary nature, or inhabited by persons with practically no private latrine and inadequate public latrine and water.

For the purpose of the survey in 1993 and 2002, NSSO adopted the definition of slums as “A slum is a compact settlement with a collection of poorly built tenements, mostly of temporary nature, crowded together usually with inadequate sanitary and drinking water facilities in unhygienic conditions. Such an area, for the purpose of this survey, was considered as “non notified slum” if at least 20 households lived in that area. Areas notified as slums by the respective municipalities, corporations, local bodies or development authorities are treated as “notified slums”. The definition of slum area adopted by the State Governments is based on Slum Acts of the respective States i.e. based on legal stipulations unlike the definitions adopted by RGI and NSSO. The concept, perception and definition of slums vary across the states, depending on their socio-economic conditions but their physical characteristics are almost similar. Slums are usually a cluster of hutments with dilapidated and infirm structures having common toilet facilities, suffering from lack of basic amenities, inadequate arrangements for drainage and for disposal of solid waste and garbage. There are discrepancies between the parameters adopted by State Governments, RGI and NSSO. Generally the State laws provide for a procedure to ‘notify’ or ‘recognize’ slums but the stipulation regarding the number of

households in the definition of slums, which is part of the Census and NSSO definitions, is absent in the definitions adopted by State laws which do not place a limit on the number of households for the purpose of identifying a slum.

In 2002, the United Nations operationally defined slums as communities characterized by insecure residential status, poor structural quality of housing, overcrowding, and inadequate access to safe water, sanitation, and other infrastructure (United Nations Human Settlements Program, 2003).

Slums sprout and continue for a combination of demographic, social, economic, and political reasons. Common causes include rapid rural-to-urban migration, poor planning, economic stagnation and depression, poverty, high unemployment, informal economy, colonialism and segregation, politics, natural disasters and social conflicts.

The rapid increase in the population of the urban centre has resulted in an increase in the cost of living, because of higher demand on urban commodities that are getting shorter in supply by the day. Thus there is a dearth and high cost of urban land, and high cost of housing, which is often in short supply and out of the economic reach of the majority of the urban households who incidentally fall into the low-income category. The greater percentage of the poor in the urban area lives in the slum area of the city. This is mainly because substandard accommodation there is very cheap and the neighbourhoods are in close proximity to their work places.

The definition of housing quality embraces many factors which include the physical condition of the building and other facilities and services that make living in a particular area conducive. The quality of housing within any neighbourhood should be such that satisfies minimum health standards and good living standard, but should also

be affordable to all categories of households (Okewole and Aribigbola, 2006).

Housing is however an issue that touches on the life of individuals as well as that of the nation; a great importance is therefore ascribed to the role it plays in engendering human comfort by both nature and society. This is why Eldredgea (1967) concludes that housing represents a bundle of goods and services which facilitate and enhance good living; and a key to neighbourhood quality and preservation. Likewise, Agbola (1998) notes that housing is a combination of characteristics which provide a unique home within any neighbourhood; it is an array of economic, social and psychological phenomena. In other words, housing could be seen as a multidimensional package of goods and services extending beyond shelter itself.

1.2 Slums in the World

According to UN-HABITAT, around 33% of the urban population in the developing world in 2012, or about 863 million people, lived in slums. The proportion of urban population living in slums was highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (61.7%), followed by South Asia (35%), Southeast Asia (31%), East Asia (28.2%), West Asia (24.6%), Oceania (24.1%),Latin America, Caribbean (23.5%), and North Africa (13.3%). Among individual countries, the proportion of urban residents living in slum areas in 2009 was highest in the Central African Republic (95.9%). Between 1990 and 2010 the percentage of people living in slums dropped, even as the total urban population increased. The world's largest slum city is in Mexico City.

1.3 Slums in India

In India Slums are commonly called “JhuggiJhonpari” in Delhi, “Jhopadpatti or Chawls” in Mumbai, ”Bustees”inKolkatta, ”Cheris” in

Chennai, ”Keris”in Bangalore and “Petas” in Andhra Pradesh. Slum population in Indian cities constituted 17.5 percent of urban population in 1981 and was increased to 21.5 percent in 1991. In 2001, there were 23.5 percent of households in urban areas which were living in slums.

In India as a whole, during the 2001 census a total of 42.6 million people living in 8.2 million households have been enumerated in slums of 640 cities/ towns spread across 26 States and Union Territories. The slum population constitutes 4 percent of the total population of the country, 15 percent of the total urban population and 23.1 percent of the total population of 640 cities /town reporting slums.

As per 2011 census, the number of slum households was high in Maharashtra (2,499,948) followed by Andhra Pradesh (2,431,474), it is less in Andaman & Nicobar Islands (3324) and Arunachal Pradesh (3479). New Delhi, the capital, had a relatively low, 15% of households in slums, while the big cities of Kolkata and Chennai had 30% and 29% respectively. Bangalore, a high-tech centre, had only 9% of households in slums. The slum population was 52,371,589 according to 2001 census of which, 27,759,224 were males and 24,612,365 were females. But it is increased according to 2011 census to 65,494,604 with 33,968,203male population and 31,525,401 female populations.

In 2001 census reported slum towns sex ratio is 887 females per 1000 males but is increased 928 in 2011 census. In 2011 census data shows families living in slums have a far better child sex ratio than the urban Indian average. The child sex ratio (0-6 years) of an average slum household is 922 girls for every 1000 boys, compared to 905 for urban India. Both men and women living in slums

participate at a higher rate in the workforce than the urban average, even though fewer have employment through the year.

Slums’ literacy rate is 77.7 percent, which is also increased in the last decade. Literacy rate of slum-dwellers is highest in Mizoram (98.1%), followed by Kerala (93.1%), Tripura (90.7%), Meghalaya (89.0%) and Nagaland (88.8%). Literacy rate of slum-dwellers is lowest in Chandigarh followed by Jammu &Kashmir, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh (66.4%, 68.0%, 68.2%, 69.0% and 69.4% respectively).

1.4 Housing Amenities in Slums in India

According to the 2001 Census, 42.6 million people lived in slums in 8.2 million households and 640 towns spread across 26 states and Union Territories in India. The slum estimates did not include towns below 50,000 population, as well as a few towns and cities with a population of 50,000 or more where local bodies did not recognize any slum area (136 towns in all, including such large cities as Lucknow) and a few north-eastern states that did not have any urban centre with 50,000 or more population or that did not have any slum act (Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, 2005).

In all 1.73 crore census houses have been reported in house listing blocks, categorized as slums in India, comprising 1.37 crore slum households. In 19 cities with million-plus population, 25 percent of households live in slums.90 percent of slum households use electricity, 70 percent slum households have television, 72.7 percent have telephone facility while 10.4 percent households have computer or laptop in their house in 2011 census. In 2001, there were 23.5 percent of households in urban areas which were living in slums. It has now come down to 17.4 per cent. But there are still

17.35 million slum houses, 13.74 million slum households and we have 68 million people living in the slum areas as 2011 census.

The slum household census report says that 74 percent of these households use tap as the main source of drinking water followed by hand pump or tube which is used by 20.3 percent.66 percent households have toilet facility within the premises, but 18.9 percent slum households defecate in open and 15.1 percent use public facilities, according to the report on 'Housing Stock, Amenities And Assets in Slums Based on House Listing And Housing Census .Also 10.4 percent households have computer or laptop in their house, out of which 3.3 percent have internet connection as against 9.3 percent in non-slum areas. Telephone facilities are availed by 72.7 percent slum households, in non-slum areas this percentage is 83.9.

1.5 Slums in Kerala

The number of identified slums in Kerala in 1985 was 705 with a population of 2,78,674, where as 1996 it increased to 1169 slums with a population of 3,58,012 indicating a growth rate of 28.5% over a period of 10 years. The slums in urban Kerala state are the minimum most and are only 6%, whereas in India it is over 26% as per census 2001.  The percent share of Kerala state slum population in total slum population of India is almost negligible.  According to 2011 census in Kerala total slum population is 202,048, notified slums 186,835, recognized slums 8215, identified slums there are 59 total statutory towns, 19 slum reported towns.

1.6 Research Problem

In the recent past the problem of slums has been faced by almost all the major cities of the world, especially throughout the developing countries, including India. Slum is a by product of Urbanization. The physical characteristics in most of the slums are same; mostly they

are clusters of hutments with dilapidated and common toilet facilities, suffering from lack of basic amenities, inadequate arrangements for drainage and for disposal or solid wastes and garbage.

Also the major problem in slums are improper sanitation, unhygienic environmental conditions, social, economic, health, educational and cultural problems and many health hazards, Lack of basic amenities like safe drinking water, proper housing, drainage , disposal services and excreta. Poor sanitary conditions and poor quality of water lead to illnesses like diarrhoea and other water borne diseases, affecting the life expectancy of slum dwellers. Among water borne diseases, diarrhoea disproportionately affects children under the age of five. This study attempts to examine conditions of Kerala slums housing amenities. Assessing the housing and household amenities available in slums will be of particular interest especially because of its implications on the health and overall living standards of the inhabitants.

1.7 Importance of the Study

Kerala has been acclaimed as a state with high human development index in India. Kerala has been able to provide for the basic needs of most of its citizen. But Increasing numbers of slums constitute a challenge to development, especially in towns where there is presence of slums. Housing status and amenities available in the household are indicators of socioeconomic status of households and a study of availability of these in the slums of Kerala can provide valuable insights on the gravity of problems in slums. This study provides an in-depth understanding of the living conditions of people living in the slums of Kerala.

1.8 Objectives

The specific objectives of the study are

1) To understand living conditions in slums in Kerala.2) To make a comparative assessment of the socioeconomic

status of slums vis a vis overall situation of the state of Kerala and the various districts using census data of 2011.

3) To analyses the availability of housing amenities in slums in Kerala based on 2011 census data.

1.9 Organization of the Dissertation

This thesis has been divided into five chapters. First chapter gives an introductory note, the research problem, its relevance and the objectives of the study. Second chapter focuses on important studies reviewed related to slums. Data and methods of analysis are presented in the third chapter. Fourth chapter presents the results obtained from the analysis. The last chapter summarizes the findings and conclusions of the work done.

CHAPTER IIREVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES

2.1 Introduction

As part of this review of literature important studies reviewed here is mainly related to slums problems including problem of drinking water, sanitation, etc.

2.2 Review of Related Studies

Audinarayana(2001) in the research paper titled “Slum Demography of Selected States And Million + Cities: An Analysis Of 2001 Census Data” studied the situation of slums in the states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh ,Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, West

Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, as well as 8 million plus cities :Greater Mumbai, Faridabad, Meerut ,Nagpur, Kolkata, Thane, Ludhiana and Surat. About 4% of India’s total population lives in slum areas of which one fourth are in Maharashtra .Greater Mumbai the economic capital of the country has the highest slum population of 6.5 million .Large concentration of slum population noticed in more urbanized states and million plus cities . Sex ratio of the slum population as a whole is very masculine compared to non-slum population. Among the selected states and million+cities the general pattern of lower literacy rates in slum areas as against non-slum counterparts was noticed.

His findings shows that the lowest literacy rates for both males and females are observed in Uttar Pradesh and in Meerut city and the highest rates are noticed in Maharashtra and Nagpur city respectively. The gender inequality in work participation rates is almost negligible .The differences in work participation rates across the slum and non –slum areas for total population males are much lower in West Bengal as well as in Meerut city, Whereas the corresponding rates are higher in Haryana and Surat city.

In his paper UroojAfshanJabeen (2013) discusses the determination of health expenditure and access to health facilities in slums of Hyderabad. This study was based on primary data collected from sample households during 2009 in Hyderabad. This study revealed that there existed health inequity among slums located in developed and underdeveloped areas of Hyderabad city. The housing conditions, source of drinking water, electricity, toilets, drainage facilities, kitchen and cooking facilities, as well as health expenditure were better in the slums of AllahuddinKoti and Singhadibasti, which were located in developed areas, than in Moosa Nagar and AmbedkarNagar, which were located in backward areas. There was no availability of hospital/clinic/pharmacy in the study area

irrespective of the status of development. Slum dwellers in those areas reported more health problems than the slums in the non-industrial area probably because of higher pollution.

The study suggested an involvement of organised communities and all level of governments – local, state and national for promoting urban health equity.

Grace Bahalenet. al. in the research paper titled “Access to Civic Amenities in Slums of Mumbai”, using 2001 census data, showed that, taps are a source of safe drinking water in Mumbai slums; on an average one tap is shared by 52 slum dwellers in the slum in Mumbai. It showed that slum dwellers lack the access to tap water facility and also waited for houses for collection of water. More than 90% of the slum households are using electricity. Some wards reported only small percentage of households not having electricity facilities. Number of private toilets is very scanty in slum .only few households reported private toilets. This study revealed that a large number of slum people are migrants; most of them belong to lower socio economic class and from different parts of the country. The majority of the slum population is concentrated in core areas of the city. Most of places where slum dwellers live are unhygienic.

In rainy season they are more vulnerable to communicable diseases because most of the slums are in the low lying areas especially in the coastal cities like Mumbai .Wherever community toilets are available they are not properly maintained and as a result people resort to open defecation.

Jabir Hasan khan(2013) et.al in the research paper titled “Dimensions of housing and household amenities and assets in Madhya Pradesh” based on 2011 census data analyze the inter-district variations of housing status, housing conditions, the modern

household amenities and assets in the different districts of Madhya Pradesh. The overall analysis of the study reveals that the level of housing status and condition is high in the northern part of Madhya Pradesh. It is of low level in the southern parts of Madhya Pradesh. The availability of modern household amenities and assets, the western part of the state is more developed as compared to its eastern parts. The pattern of availability of housing and modern household amenities and assets as a whole is declining from north-west to south-east direction in the state. This study suggested that Government should be developed more effective housing policies.

Omole (2013) is the author of this article. Both primary and secondary data ware used for the analysis .Socio-economic Lifestyle of Respondents, Assessment of Housing Quality, Assessment of Infrastructure Facilities are discusses in the paper.

Roofing materials of the buildings in the area are 97.8% of zinc coated corrugated iron sheets types, only about 2.2% are made of asbestos materials. Over 80% of the buildings need either minor or major repairs, out of which 18.3% are completely old and dilapidated. The main source of water supply is largely through underground well water. In the study area only few, about 14.3% enjoy tap water, it is not regular. Irregular sanitation facilities are reason for spreading communicable disease. About 90% of sample households use electricity for lighting. About 73.9% respondents reported non-availability of health facilities.

This study suggested that the need for upgrading programmer through rehabilitation approach as well as provision of urban basic services.

Sufaira (2014) highlights the “Socio Economic Conditions of Urban Slum Dwellers in Kannur Municipal”, which included Socio-economic

profile of the study area, Basic Amenities available in the slum, Relationship between living environment and health status. Both primary and secondary data were used in this study. This study revealed that Kannur is the fourth urbanized districts in Kerala (65.26%, census 2011) with more than 50 percent of its residents living in urban area. The survey was conducted in two slum areas, notified and non -notified. In the notified slum, Muslims (93.2%) accounted for a major community. In non-notified slum, Hindus constitute 78.2 percent; Muslim and Christian constitute 17.7 and 4.1 percent respectively. About 25 percent of houses are pucca and 68.2 percent were semi-pucca in notified area and non-notified area, it is 6.4 and 79 percent respectively. The majority of the people engaged in coolie, cow rearing, and construction work. In the study area unemployed person is very high in females as compared to males. The living conditions in slums are unhygienic and are an important factor in transmission of various water borne diseases. In notified area, 86.4 percent of households did not have a toilet in their home. In non-notified area, it was 89.4 percent. In cases of drainage system 17.1 percent of the notified household did not have any drainage facility. In non-notified area, it was 32.3 percent. It was observed that TV sets were commonly found in slum household. In notified area, no one was buying newspaper. All most all households reported lack of drainage.

Hina (2013) studied “Poorest of the Poor: A Comparative Study of Two Slums of Central and North East Delhi, India” by using primary data. The study discusses the living conditions and basic amenities of selected slums. The present study is for two slum areas of Delhi i.e., BalmikiKabristan ITO and Janta Colony, Seelampur.

The major findings of the study is that the slums are facing problems like water supply condition, drainage system, disposal of garbage, lack of sanitation. In Jantacolony, Seelampur, around 59% of the

population is working in Janta colony, Seelampur and only 41% in BalmikiKabristan, ITO. Janta colony, Seelampur population is mostly suffering from permanent diseases like Asthma, T.B, Blood Pressure etc(62%) in comparison to BalmikiKabristan, ITO with only 38%.Unhygienic environment make their life prone to diseases like dengue, Malaria, diarrhoea etc. There is shortage of toilets which is especially faced by women and children. Cities need to invest in housing, water, sanitation and other urban services such as garbage and waste water disposal. These services must reach the poor living in the slums.

Sribas (2013) et.al in the research paper titled “Urban Poor Living in Slums: A Case Study of Raipur City in India” by using primary and secondary data. The present study mainly focuses on the several aspects of slum development in Raipur city. This study discussed the demographic characteristics of slum dwellers; evaluate the people’s participation in slum improvement programme, the living conditions and infrastructural facilities available in the slum areas, the health and nutrition level of slum dwellers, the level of general awareness among the residents of slums. The various policy measures and programme initiated by the government the environmental aspects of the city for the problems and constraints of slum development.

Jitendrakumar (2014) in the research paper titled “ Slums In India: A Focus On Metropolitan Cities” using 2001 census data, the findings showed that Only few states like Maharashtra, Haryana, and Andhra Pradesh had showed high percentage of slum population than the national average. Some states like Kerala, Assam and Goa had reported slum population less than 10 percent. In metropolitan cities every fifth person lived in slum areas spread over 57 districts and 369 towns in 2001. In thirty five metropolitan cities, 22.4 million populations lived in slums which were 52.6 percent of the total slum population and 20.7 Percent of the population of metropolitan cities.

Greater Mumbai, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Faridabad, Meerut, Nagpur, Vijayawada, Asansol, Jabalpur Amritsar and Ludhiana have high slum population. Patna and Kochi have recorded lowest concentration of slum population among all the metropolitan cities.

Jabir Hasankhan(2013) et.al in the research paper titled “Patterns of Availability of Housing and Household Amenities in Odisha” dealt with thePatterns of availability of rural, urban and total housing and modern household amenities in the state of Odisha .

According to 2001 Census of India, around 1% of the total population is without a home. While in the terms of housing units, the housing shortage is estimated to be 148.33 lakhs houses which has increased 0.89 million houses per year.

In 1991 and 2001 census In rural India proportions of households using different materials are: Grass/ Thatch/ Bamboo/ Wood/ Mud, etc.: (20% declined from 27.7%); Plastic/Polythene: (0.6% increased from 0.4%); Tiles: (28.7% declined from 37.5%); Burnt brick: (7.2% increased from 5.6%); Stone/Slate: (8.9% increased from 7.3%); G.I./ Metal/ Asbestos sheets: (15.9% increased from 9.8%); Concrete:(18.3% increased from 11%. But, Still 3.3 crores households in rural India live in houses with roof made up of Grass/ Thatch/ Bamboo/ Wood/ Mud, etc. The study find out that level of availability of housing and household amenities is high in the north-central and south-eastern coastal districts of the state of Odisha, while, it is moderate to low level in the northern, north-western and south-western parts of the state.

Shrinivas Reddy (2013) et.al in the research paper titled “An Evaluation of Housing Condition and Socio-Economic Life Styles of Slum Dwellers in Bidar City, Karnataka”, it discusses that the housing condition and socio economic life style of slum dwellers in

Bidar District of Karnadaka. Both primary and secondary data were used for this study .This study revealed that the person of this area is under below poverty line (BPL) category. About 49.1% of persons received monthly income below 1000, the general income below the national average .Because of this offered good quality housing, proper maintance be very difficult. The quality of housing in the study area is very low to the low quality of material were used to constrict buildings 30% of the buildings need either minor or major repairs out of which 118.3% are completely old and displaced.

Arinazanuzdana (2012) et.al in the research paper titled “Housing Satisfaction Related to Health and Importance of Services in Urban Slums: Evidence from Dhaka, Bangladesh” this research work is based on primary data; the objectives are identify the multiple sources of the satisfaction with housing in population of urban slums and rural areas in Dhaka, Bangladesh. In the study revealed that rural respondents reported to be more satisfied with the housing in comparison to their urban respondents. Quality of housing plays one of the key roles in human life and health, since inadequate housing may have direct or indirect negative impact on health. Higher satisfaction with housing was shown to be associated with higher income, higher age, a smaller family, higher education, being female and being an owner of a dwelling.

S. Chandrasekhar (2005) studied mainly Condition in the Slum Areas, Literacy and Sex Ratio, Difference Between Literacy in Slums and Rural Areas By Sex Water, Sanitation and Electricity, Health Outcomes in Slums, Housing Condition in the Slum Areas, Distribution of slum according to type of house in slum, types of access road, extent of electrification, water supply, Distribution of slums according to drainage facility, latrine type, garbage clearance, school and healthcare etc. Using a unique nationwide dataset on housing conditions and slum infrastructure from India we shed light

on how different the rural, non-slum urban poor are from the poor households residing in the urban slums. In 1981, nearly 28 million persons lived in the slums, in 1991 there were 45.7 million slum dwellers and as per 2001 Census data, there are 40.6 million persons living in slums. In 1981, nearly 28 million persons lived in the slums, in 1991 there were 45.7million slum dwellers and as per 2001 Census data, there are 40.6 million persons living in slums.

This study reveals that Kerala, Goa, Delhi has height female literacy rate in India. The percentage of non-notified slums with tap water is lower than the percentage of notified slums with tap water. The percentage of rural households without electricity is much larger than the percentage of slums without electricity. In 1993 only 30 percent of slums had majority of pucca houses. In 2002, this number was higher at 47.

Stanwix (2009) this study has been based on the primary data. The report has analyses data from selective slums in the seven cities of Gujarat and Rajasthan .This study revealed that the most of the households were poor, overall they lacked access to basic services, and the housing conditions for the most part were not very good. Despite living in an area for many years most of the families did not own land, and the majority of those who did own land did not have any legal proof. Saving rates in the slums were very low, and with the exception of Ahmadabad, loan rates too were low.

MajumdarParamita (2004) in his paper Quality of life in slums of Delhi reveals that physical infrastructure is grossly inadequate to cater the unabated population growth in the city. Civic amenities like housing, water supply, sanitation, waste disposal facilities, road network etc. which are minimum pre conditions to keep the city’s environment clean for safe and healthy conditions.

This is steady decline in environmental facilities is the major threat faced by the slum dwellers. The paper also discusses the various manifestations of poverty and also to focus the problems of environmental management in low income communities.

2.3 Conclusion

Many studies have been done assessing problems associated with

urban slums. None of the studies touch the comparison of housing

amenities in slums in the districts of Kerala. This study provides an

in-depth understanding of the living conditions of people living in the

slums in the districts of Kerala.

CHAPTER IIIDATA AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The aim of the present study is to analyse comparative study of housing amenities in slums in the districts of Kerala Details regarding the data used and methodology adopted for the study are presented in this Chapter.

3.2 Data

The data required for the study are taken from the published tables ‘H series’ on 'Housing Stock, Amenities and Assets in Slums Based on House Listing and Housing Census' in Kerala form Census of India 2011. The data are collected from the ‘Workstation for Research on Micro data from Census’, a centre established jointly by the Department of Demography, University of Kerala and the Directorate of Census Operations Kerala.

3.2 Methodology

Simple frequencies, cross tabulations etc. are used for the preliminary analysis. The various census terms used in this study are explained here

Households: A ‘household’ in Census is defined as a group of persons who normally live together and take their meals from a common kitchen unless the exigency of work prevents any of them from doing so. The persons in a household may be related or unrelated or a mix of both. However, if a group of unrelated persons live in a Census house but do not take their meals from the common

kitchen, they are not considered a part of a common household. Each such person is treated as a separate household.

Premises: Premises has been defined as a building along with the land and/or common places attached to it. A premise may not always have a compound wall or fencing. In such cases, the land or the common place as the case may be, available to the household is treated as ‘Premises

Housing Amenities: In 1971 census, 'House' was defined 'as a building or part of a building having a separate main entrance from the road or common courtyard or stair case etc. Used or recognised as a separate unit. It may be inhabited or vacant. It may be used for a residential or non-residential purpose or both'.

Independent house: An independent house is one which has a separate structure and entrance with self-contained arrangements. In other words, if the dwelling unit and the entire structure of the house are physically the same, it is considered as an independent house. Here dwelling unit means living rooms, kitchen, bathroom, latrine, store-room and verandah (both open and closed).The focus area of this section is on the condition of the predominant material used for construction of roof, wall and floor in Kerala urban and slum households. A study of the use of predominant materials for construction of roof, wall and floor helps understand the economic status of the households

Condition of Census Houses: It is seen that there are three levels that have understand the condition of census houses namely good, livable and dilapidated.

1) Good: Such census houses which do not require any repair and are in fairly good condition.

2) Livable: Census houses which need minor repairs are recorded in this category.3) Dilapidated: Such census houses which show signs of decay or those breaking down and required major repairs and are far from being in condition that can be restored or repaired are considered as dilapidated.

Predominant material of Floor: Seven categories of floor materials have been specified in Census 2011.They are Mud, Wood/Bamboo, Burnt Brick, Stone, Cement, and Mosaic/Floor Tiles, Any other.

Predominant material of Wall: There is a change in this question since the last Census. ‘Stone packed with mortar’ and ‘stone not packed with mortar’ have been listed as separate categories. This is aimed at giving better clarity on the type of material used. Material of Wall nine categories of floor materials have been specified in Census 2011,Grass/thatch/bamboo etc. ,Plastic/polythene, Mud/unburnt Brick, Wood Stone not packed with mortar Stone packed with mortar G.I./metal/asbestos sheets ,Burnt brick ,Concrete ,Any other.

Predominant material of Roof: Nine categories of roof materials have been specified in Census 2011they are Grass/thatch/bamboo/wood/mud etc., Plastic/polythene, handmade tiles, Machine made tiles, Burnt brick, Stone, Slate, G.I./metal/asbestos sheets, Concrete.

Ownership status of Census houses: The information regarding ownership status of every household was collected. If a household was self-occupying the Census house owned by it and not making payments in the form of rent to anyone, then the household was considered as living in an ‘owned’ house. A household was treated

as living in ‘rented’ house if rent was paid or contracted for by the household in cash or kind. Accommodation provided by employer like Government quarters, etc was also treated as rented.

Number of dwelling rooms exclusively in possession of the household: The number of dwelling rooms exclusively in possession of the household was recorded. The concept of a dwelling room in Census is any room with walls, a doorway and a roof having width and length enough for a person to sleep in, i.e., a length of not less than 2 metres, a breadth of at least 1.5 metres and a height of 2 metres. It was specifically clarified to the enumerator that a dwelling room includes living room, bedroom, dining room, drawing room; study room, servant’s room and other habitable rooms provided it satisfies the criterion of above dimensions. Kitchen, bathroom, latrine, store room, passageway and verandah which are not normally used for living were not considered as dwelling rooms.

Main source of drinking water: Data was collected regarding the main source of drinking water for the household. The source, which was availed during the greater part of the year, was to be recorded as the main source. Tap water was bifurcated in two categories, i.e., ‘Tap water from treated source’ and ‘Tap water from un-treated source’. Similarly Well water was separately canvassed under ‘covered well’ and ‘Un-covered well’. Hand pump code was used where ground water was extracted manually. Tube well/Borehole code was used where sub-soil water was taken out through electricity or diesel pump. Other sources included those cases where drinking water was made available by tankers or bottled water was used by the household.

Availability of drinking water source: Information on availability of drinking water source was collected depending upon the distance at which it was available.

1) Within the premises: the source was located within the premises where the household lived.

2) Near the premises: the source was located within a range of 100 metres from the premises in urban areas and within a distance of 500 metres in the case of rural areas.

3) Away from the premises: the drinking water source was located beyond 100 metres from the premises in urban areas and beyond 500 metres in rural areas.

Main source of lighting: The source of lighting used for major part of the preceding year was treated as the main source of lighting. Six sources Electricity, Kerosene, Solar, Other oil, Any other, No lighting

Availability and type of latrine within the premises: Two questions were canvassed during House listing & Housing Census, 2011 to ascertain the availability and type of latrine within the premises. The first question related to whether latrine facility was available within the premises. Types of Latrine Facility are

1) Flush/pour flush latrine connected to

Piped sewer system

Septic tank

Other system

2) Pit Latrine

With slab/Ventilated Improved Pit

Without slab/open pit

3) Night soil disposed into open drain

4) Service Latrine

Night soil removed by human

Night soil serviced by animals

5) No latrine within premises

Public Latrine Open

Connectivity of Waste water outlet: The information related to drainage system was recorded there are three systems, wastewater Outlet connected to: closed drainage, open drainage, No drainage.

Bathing facility within the premises: The information on bathing facility available for the household within the premises was recorded. In Census 2011, availability of proper bathroom within the premises was recorded and availability of an enclosure for bathing without a roof was also recorded. This categorization is new in this Census.

Fuel used for cooking: The type of fuel mostly used for cooking by the household was recorded. If the household was using more than one fuel for cooking, the predominant fuel used for cooking was recorded. In case, if no cooking was done in the household, the answer was recorded accordingly, for recording the information on type of fuel used.

Fuel Used for Cooking: Firewood, Crop residue, Cow dung cake, Coal/lignite/charcoal, Kerosene, LPG/PNG, Electricity, Bio-gas, Any other, No Cooking

Availability of assets: The availability of certain assets in the household was ascertained and the answers were recorded. The

assets for which the information was collected for each household were Radio/Transistor, Television, Computer/Laptop, Telephone/Mobile Phone, Bicycle, Scooter/Motor Cycle/Moped and Car/Jeep/Van. The enquiry was limited to their availability and not their number. The question on availability of Computers/laptop is a new question in Census 2011. This question also seeks to ascertain whether internet facility is available. Similarly, a new question on availability of mobile phone and both landline/mobile phone has been canvassed.

Availing banking services: A household was considered to be availing banking services if the head and/or any other member in the households were availing services provided by a bank or post office as a holder of any type of account. This covered nationalized bank, private banks, foreign banks and co-operative banks. However, credit and thrift societies were not considered part of the banking system.

CHAPTER IVHOUSING, HOUSEHOLD AMENITIES AND ASSETS -

ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

The objective of the study was to assess the condition of household and housing amenities in slums vis-à-vis the overall urban areas.

4.2 Condition of Households

As per 2011 census, only nine districts of Kerala have reported presence of slums and the districts are Kasaragod, Kannur, Kozhikode, Palakkad, Thrissur, Ernakulam, Alappuzha, Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram. So this analysis is done only for those nine districts where slums are available. The data of Census 2011, on condition of residential houses in Kerala indicates that 72.5 percent of urban households and 63.1 percent of slum households are in good condition, 23.6 percent urban households and 31.3 percent slum households are liveable.

Table 4.1 shows that the Slums and urban areas in Kerala, above 50 percent of all residential households are in good condition excluding in Thiruvananthapuram district where 15.2 percent of the houses are dilapidated. The Census 2011 data indicates that the lowest percentage of good condition houses is in slums of Thiruvananthapuram (40.57 percent), and maximum in Kasaragod urban (78.76%). Among liveable residential houses, Kasaragod Urban (18.49%) has minimum and Kannur slum (45.22%) has maximum percentages.

Table 4.1: Percentage Share of Residential houses by Condition – Urban and Slum Households in Kerala

2011census

Districts Name

ResidenceGood Livable Dilapidated

Urban

Slum

Urban

Slum

Urban

(%)

Slum

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Kasaragod78.7

654.8

118.4

938.1

72.74 6.93

Kannur78.5

552.5

719.3

345.2

22.11 2.21

Kozhikode77.1

954.3

619.2

539.5

93.56 5.98

Palakkad68.6

772.8

528.0

623.4

93.27 3.66

Thrissur67.4

970.1

228.4

125.9

64.10 3.90

Ernakulam74.7

266.6

022.1

829.4

93.10 3.90

Alappuzha66.8

669.0

526.6

427.1

16.50 3.85

Kollam70.1

754.0

624.3

340.5

35.50 5.35

Thiruvananthapuram

68.14

40.57

25.844.2

16.06

15.22

Kerala72.4

563.1

23.62

31.26

3.94 5.64

4.3 Residential houses by predominant material of wall

The predominant materials used for the purpose of roof construction are namely Plastic/ Polythene, Mud/ Un burnt brick, Wood, Stone not packed with mortar, Stone packed with mortar ,G.I./ Metal/ Asbestos sheets, Burnt brick, Concrete, Any other material etc, these are classified into three categoryThey are,Pucca materials: The walls and/or roof of which are made of material in concrete, Mosaic/floor tiles etc.

Kutcha materials: The walls and/or roof of which are made of material other than those mentioned above, such as un-burnt bricks, bamboos, , grass, thatch, Plastic Polythene, loosely packed stones, etc. are treated as kutcha materials.

Semi -Pucca materials: A house that has fixed walls or roof made up Mud, Mud/ Un burnt brick, Wood, Stone not packed with mortar, Stone packed with mortar, G.I./ Metal/ Asbestos sheets, Burnt brick etc.

Table 4.2: Percentage Share of Residential houses by Predominant Material of Wall - Urban and Slum Households in Kerala -

2011census

Districts Name

Katcha Semi-pucca PuccaAny other material

Urban

SlumUrba

nSlum

Urban

Slum

Urban

Slum

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Kasaragod 1.08 2.87 97.8396.9

00.93 - 0.16 0.28

Kannur 0.27 0.37 98.83 99.6 0.58 - 0.31 -

0

Kozhikode 1.43 2.77 97.2693.0

01.05 3.94 0.27 0.29

Palakkad 1.99 2.82 93.8992.4

03.72 4.59 0.40 0.23

Thrissur 2.79 0.94 94.1495.8

02.54 2.63 0.53 0.64

Ernakulam 0.89 3.68 93.9487.1

04.48 8.53 0.68 0.67

Alappuzha 2.90 0.76 93.8590.7

02.47 7.04 0.78 1.55

Kollam 1.9511.8

094.31

83.30

2.96 2.88 0.78 1.97

Thiruvananthapuram

1.97 8.90 91.1087.4

06.31 2.72 0.62 0.99

Kerala 1.61 3.25 94.9092.4

02.91 3.70 0.58 0.70

Table 4.2 shows that semi-pucca materials is used in highest proportion in urban(94.90 percent)and slum (92.35 percent) residential houses followed by pucca materials, in Kerala. Comparative study shows the semi-pucca materials predominant materials used in the maximum proportion for wall construction, include Mud, Mud/ Un burnt brick, Wood, Stone not packed with mortar, Stone packed with mortar, G.I./ Metal/ Asbestos sheets etcIn the context of use of semi-pucca materials Kollam slum residential houses (83.34 percent) as minimum and Kannur slum residential houses (99.63 percent) as maximum.

4.4 Residential houses by predominant material of floor

Table 4.3: Percentage Share of Residential houses by Predominant Material of Floor - Urban and Slum Households in Kerala

2011census

Districts Name

Material of Floor

Katcha Semi-pucca PuccaAny other material

Urban

SlumUrba

nSlum

Urban

SlumUrba

nSlum

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)Kasaragod 4.13 5.27 5.54 3.42 88.14 90.94 2.18 0.37Kannur 7.00 4.41 6.95 0.74 83.44 94.85 2.61 -Kozhikode 6.92 3.95 7.53 5.36 83.09 89.16 2.46 1.54Palakkad 7.26 5.82 2.86 3.63 88.17 89.19 1.72 1.36Thrissur 3.53 2.60 5.40 6.00 88.64 88.98 2.43 2.42Ernakulam 2.50 3.99 5.63 3.13 89.16 91.78 2.71 1.10Alappuzha 3.90 3.66 2.87 1.77 91.91 93.42 1.32 1.16Kollam 4.24 5.92 3.44 2.17 90.68 90.80 1.64 1.11Thiruvananthapuram 9.36 28.31 4.63 1.02 83.25 69.54 2.77 1.13Kerala 5.18 5.62 5.38 5.38 86.97 88.36 2.48 1.69

Table 4.3 shows that the pucca floors are made of material in concrete Mosaic/floor tiles etc used in highest proportion as predominant material for floor construction in slum (88.36 percent) and urban (86.97 percent) residence house in Kerala

At the district level, also Pucca material is used in maximum proportion for the purpose of floor construction. In the context of use of Pucca materials Thiruvananthapuram slum residential houses (69.54 percent) as minimum and Kannur slum residential houses (94.85 percent) as maximum.

4.5 Residential houses by predominant material of roof

Table 4.4 shows that the pucca materials are made of material in concrete Mosaic/floor tiles etc used in highest proportion as predominant material for roof construction in slum (58.03%) and

urban (48.93%) residence house in Kerala followed by semi-pucca materials urban (39.15%) and (46.32%) residential houses in Kerala.In Kazaragod ,Kannur, Kozhikode, Ernakulam ,Kollam districts urban houses maximum dependence Pucca materials and the slums houses maximum dependence on semi-pucca material are predominant material for roof construction, Thrissur and Thiruvananthapuram districts urban and slum houses maximum dependence on pucca material for roof construction, Palakkad districts semi-pucca material are predominant material for roof construction, Alappuzha districts urban houses maximum dependence semi-pucca material are predominant material for roof construction and pucca materials in slum residential houses .

Table 4.4: Percentage Share of Residential Houses by Predominant Material of Roof - Urban and Slum Households in

Kerala - 2011census

District Name

Material of Roof

Kacha Semi-pucca PuccaAny other material

Urban

SlumUrban

SlumUrban

SlumUrban

Slum

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Kasaragod 1.30 2.4036.2

355.5

562.4

141.8

70.05 0.18

Kannur 0.50 2.2139.2

269.4

960.2

128.3

10.08 -

Kozhikode 3.42 3.8836.5

854.8

459.9

241.0

00.09 0.28

Palakkad 2.34 3.8053.4

849.3

544.0

746.6

40.11 0.21

Thrissur 3.69 1.5533.5

338.6

962.6

059.6

40.18 0.12

Ernakulam 0.89 1.84 31.1 60.2 67.7 37.7 0.12 0.23

9 1 9 2

Alappuzha 2.42 0.9156.9

846.0

240.1

351.8

40.47 1.22

Kollam 2.37 9.7941.0

752.4

556.1

035.8

90.46 1.86

Thiruvananthapuram

6.3320.5

132.6

436.2

660.8

543.1

70.17 0.05

Kerala 2.63 4.3639.1

546.3

258.0

348.9

30.19 0.39

4.6 Ownership Status of Households

The information regarding ownership status of dwelling unit of

household was collected in three categories as below

Dwelling unit self occupied or owned by households was treated

as ‘Owned’

Household paying rent for the accommodation was treated as

‘Rented’

Households other than Owned and Rented were treated as

`Others’

Table 4.5: percentage share of households by ownership status of the residential houses- urban and slum areas in Kerala

2011census

Districts Name

Ownership StatusOwned Rented Any other

Urban

slumUrba

nSlum

Urban

Slum

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)Kasaragod 85.12 84.84 13.04 10.91 1.84 4.25Kannur 92.39 88.97 6.27 11.03 1.35 -Kozhikode 91.93 87.21 6.64 9.50 1.43 3.30Palakkad 84.94 76.76 12.99 19.81 2.06 3.43Thrissur 90.96 83.74 7.48 13.17 1.56 3.08Ernakulam 84.28 54.46 13.85 42.76 1.87 2.78Alappuzha 92.23 88.61 6.22 9.26 1.55 2.13Kollam 85.80 78.90 11.87 11.69 2.34 9.40Thiruvananthapuram

82.96 84.60 14.81 9.33 2.23 6.08

Kerala 88.30 81.71 10.00 14.40 1.70 3.89

Table 4.5 showed that the owned household percentage for Urban

Kerala is 88.30 percent and Slum Kerala is 81.71 percent, with

Thiruvananthapuram slum households (9.33 percent) as minimum

and Kannur Urban area (92.39 percent) as maximum (Table 4.5).

The rented household percentage for Urban Kerala is 10 percent and

Slum Kerala is 14.40 percent with Alappuzha urban household (6.22

percent) as minimum and Kannur slum household (88.97 percent) as

maximum.

The Any other household percentage for Urban Kerala is 1.70

percent and Slum Kerala is 3.89 percent With Kannur urban

household (1.31 percent) as minimum and Kollam slum household

(9.40 percent) as maximum.

4.7 Status of Dwelling Rooms

In terms of increase across different categories of dwelling rooms in

India, from 2001 to 2011, there is an increase of 61.4 percent in no

exclusive room, 23.9 percent for one room, 35.7 percent for two

rooms, 30.0 percent for three rooms, 28.0 percent for four rooms,

15.0 percent for five rooms and a decrease of 3.3 percent for six and

above.

Table 4.6: Percentage Share of Households by Number of Dwelling Rooms of the Residential Houses- Urban and Slum Areas in Kerala 2011census

Districts Name 

Households having number of dwelling roomsNo exclusive

roomOne room Two rooms Three rooms Four rooms Five rooms Six rooms and

aboveUrban Slum Urban Slum Urban Slum Urban Slum Urban Slum Urban Slum Urban Slum

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)Kasaragod 1.09 1.85 7.07 7.21 21.16 26.52 29.23 34.84 21.22 16.36 10.25 6.65 9.98 6.56Kannur 0.71 0.74 3.47 17.28 15.42 28.68 31.48 25.74 24.49 16.18 11.37 7.35 13.06 4.04Kozhikode 1.03 1.63 6.24 12.05 28.55 37.17 33.79 26.96 18.23 14.31 6.79 4.78 5.37 3.10Palakkad 1.07 1.26 9.74 16.42 30.76 30.00 29.99 27.87 16.69 12.90 6.58 5.90 5.16 5.65Thrissur 1.01 1.32 6.50 9.30 21.42 25.53 33.66 29.06 22.58 18.01 8.76 8.78 6.08 7.99Ernakulam 0.74 0.51 5.19 43.08 19.27 28.29 35.31 19.09 23.66 6.06 9.02 1.72 6.81 1.25Alappuzha 0.77 0.67 7.33 6.06 28.39 34.51 30.07 29.21 20.00 19.68 7.84 6.46 5.61 3.41Kollam 0.97 1.03 7.71 21.87 24.61 32.45 32.51 27.38 21.11 11.63 7.77 3.67 5.32 1.97Thiruvananthapuram 1.19 1.88 8.03 22.20 23.92 32.47 31.86 25.54 20.08 10.97 8.48 3.74 6.45 3.20Kerala 0.91 1.31 6.28 14.40 23.34 30.10 32.44 27.75 21.36 14.93 8.63 6.27 7.02 5.24

Table 4.6 showed that the dwelling rooms in urban and slum areas of Kerala, it is clear that there is 0.91 percent urban 1.31 percent and slum families do not have exclusive room to live, withErnakulam slum (0.51 percent) as minimum and Thiruvananthapuram slum household(1.88 percent) as maximum. About six percent urban and 14.40 percent slum households have one room, with Kannur urban household(3.74 percent ) as minimum and Ernakulam slum household (43.08 percent) ) as maximum., ,23.34 percent urban and 30.10 percent slum households for two rooms, with Kannur urban household(15.42 percent ) as minimum and Kozhikode slum household (37.17 percent) as maximum ., 32.44 percent urban and 27.75 percent slum households for three rooms, withErnakulam slum household(19.09 percent ) as minimum and Ernakulam slum household (35.31 percent) as maximum,21.36 percent urban and 14.93 percent slum households for four rooms, withErnakulam slum household (6.06 percent ) as minimum and Kannur urban household (24.49 percent) as maximum., 8.63 percent urban and 6.27 percent slum households for five rooms withErnakulam slum household (1.72 percent ) as minimum and Kannur urban household (11.37 percent) as maximum, and a 7.02 percent urban and 5.20 percent slum households for six and above rooms in 2011 withErnakulam slum household (1.28 percent ) as minimum and Kannur urban household (13.06 percent) as maximum.

4.7 Drinking Water Sources and Availability

Availability and access to improved source of drinking water is a basic indicator for human development. It bears direct relevance to health and well-being and is thus symbiotically linked to the achievement of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

This section focuses on two aspects related to drinking water. The first aspect is the Location of source of drinking water in urban and slum households in Kerala which is divided into three categories, namely; within the premises, near the premises and away from the premises. The second aspect is the major source of drinking water used by the households which could include Tap water from treated source , Tap water from un-treated source, Covered well, Un-covered well, Tube well/Borehole, Other sources (Hand pump, Spring, River/Canal, Tank/Pond/Lake, Other sources).This section helps to understand the main sources of drinking water available for households in Kerala urban and slum residential houses and for 2011census.

Location of source of drinking water

Availability of drinking water source was collected by distance from Premises,

Within the premises: If the source was located within the premises.

Near the premises: If the source was located within 100 metres from the premises in urban areas and within 500 metres in the case of rural areas.

Away from premises: If the drinking water source was located beyond 100 metres from the premises in urban areas and beyond 500 metres in rural areas.

As per 2011 national figures; 46.6 percent households have access to drinking water within premises, 35.8 percent near premises and 17.6 percent away from premises.

Table 4.7: Percentage Share of Households by Location of source of drinking water of the Residential Houses- Urban and Slum

Areas in Kerala 2011census

Districts Name

Location of source of drinking water

Within the

premises

Near the

premises

Away

Urban

Slum

Urban

Slum

Urban

Slum

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Kasaragod84.70

81.52

9.93

11.09

5.36

7.39

Kannur 85.74

95.59

9.79

4.41

4.47

-

Kozhikode 82.03

71.34

11.80

23.38

6.17

5.28

Palakkad79.24

75.47

15.75

22.04

6.31

2.50

Thrissur85.48

89.03

10.51

7.92

4.01

3.04

Ernakulam81.35

66.43

14.92

30.32

3.73

3.25

Alappuzha75.12

86.51

14.30

7.80

10.59

5.70

Kollam 86.60

76.96

9.95

17.90

3.45

5.15

Thiruvananthapuram

86.09

61.91

8.62

16.61

5.29

21.48

Kerala83.26

79.39

11.52

15.60

5.23

5.01

Table 4.7 shows that the Kerala 83.26 percent of urban households and 79.39 percent of slum households have access to drinking water within premises, with slum Thiruvananthapuram61.91 percent at the minimum and Kannur 95.59 percent at the maximum, 11.52 percent of urban households and 15.60 percent of slum households near the premises. With Kannur slum 4.41 percent at the minimum and Ernakulam slum30.32 percent at the maximum and 5.23 percent of urban households and 5.01 percent of slum households away from premises with Palakkad slum 21.48 percent at the minimum and Thiruvananthapuram slum 2.50 percent at the maximum.

It observed that above 60 percent of all Urban and Slum households have drinking water within the premises ,85.74 percent in Kannur urban households have drinking water with in the premises but Kannur Slum households better than urban households (95.59 percent).Comparatively high Percentage of Thiruvananthapuram Districts slum households depend away from their houses for location of sources of drinking water (21.48 percent).

Over all urban and slum households in Kerala the maximum households with drinking water facility within premises, followed by near the premises and lastly households with availability of drinking water away from the premises

Main Source of Drinking Water

The source, which was availed during the greater part of the year was recorded as the main source.

Tap water was bifurcated in two categories – Tap water from treated source Tap water from un-treated source

Well water was categorized as covered well uncovered well

Tube well/Borehole

Other sources included Hand pump, , Spring, River/Canal, Tank/ Pond/Lake and Other sources

Table 4.8: Percentage Share of Households by Main Source of Drinking Water in the Residential Houses - Urban and Slum households in Kerala 2011census

Districts Name

Main Source of Drinking Water

Tapwater from treated source

Tapwater fromCovered well Un-covered well

Tubewell/ Borehole

Other sourcesun-treated source

Urban Slum Urban Slum Urban Slum Urban Slum Urban Slum Urban Slum(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Kasaragod 13.81 28.28 4.8 2.5 3.87 3.05 54.13 36.14 17.37 11.83 6.03 18.21Kannur 10.27 98.53 1.57 0.37 8.73 0.37 75.75 0.37 1.92 - 1.76 0.37Kozhikode 19.08 79.64 3.6 1.45 17.93 3.07 54.69 13.66 2.1 0.52 2.6 1.64Palakkad 49.46 87.27 5.03 4.17 7.95 1.65 31.86 4.69 4.83 1.35 0.87 0.85Thrissur 21.61 26.16 5.08 5.63 20.17 29.22 43.58 35.3 5.6 2.44 3.95 0.34Ernakulam 63.17 90.22 3.07 0.23 11.65 4.34 20.32 4.97 1.02 0.16 0.77 0.08Alappuzha 25.16 22.39 9.54 17.21 11.01 19.77 34.09 39.17 16.88 0.67 3.31 0.79Kollam 24.22 53.24 8.96 4.07 21.39 5.84 42.82 35.41 0.72 1.03 1.89 0.36Thiruvananthapuram 47.52 49.84 4.17 3.68 10.97 9.78 33.78 34.14 1.65 0.05 1.91 2.5Kerala 30.35 53.21 4.5 39.33 15.04 14.12 43.86 24.83 3.93 1.6 2.32 1.51

Table 4.8 showed that thetap water from treated source constitute a major proportion of main source of drinking water in all residential houses in slum, Un-covered well constitute a major proportion of main sources of drinking water in all residential houses in urban in Kerala. Uncovered well is the main source of drinking water in Kasarakodedistrict urban(54.13%) & Slum residence households (36.14%) ,another main sources are tube well/ Borehole in urban households (17.37%) , Tap water from treated source in Slum households(28.28%) .Uncovered well is the main source of drinking water in Kannur district urban (75.75%) households but Slum households tap water from treated source is the main sources of Source of Drinking Water (98.53%).Uncovered well is the main source of drinking water in Kozhikode urban (54.69%) households but Slum households Tap water from treated source is the main sources of Source of Drinking Water (79.64%).

Tap water from treated source (49.46%) and Un –covered well (31.86%) is the main source of Drinking Water in urban households but Slum households Tap water from treated source is the main sources of Source of Drinking Water (87.27%) in Palakkad district .Uncovered well (43.58%) and Tap water from treated source (21.61%) and is the main source of Drinking Water in urban households but Slum households is Un –covered well (35.30%)and covered well (29.22%) the main sources of Source of Drinking Water (87.27%) in Trissur district. Tap water from treated source (63.17%) , Un –covered well (20.32%)and covered well (11.65%) is the main source of Drinking Water in urban households but Slum households Tap water from treated source is the main sources of Source of Drinking Water (90.22%) in Ernakulamdistrict .

Uncovered well is the main sources of Source of Drinking Water in Alappuzha District, (34.09%) in urban households, and (39.17%) in slum households. Tap water from treated source is the main sources

of drinking Water in Alappuzha district. Uncovered well is the main source of Drinking Water in Kollam District urban households (42.82%) but in Slum households Tap water from treated source is the main sources of Source of Drinking Water (53.24%).Tap water from treated source the main source of Drinking Water in Thiruvananthapuram District urban (47.52%) & Slum households (49.84%), Un –covered well is the another main sources in urban (33.78%) and Slum (34.41%) households

4.9 Main Source of Lighting

Table 4.9: Percentage Share of Households by Main Source of Lighting in the Residential Houses- Urban and Slum Areas in

Kerala 2011census

Districts Name

Main Source of lightingElectricit

yKerosen

eAny

other

Urban

Slum

Urban

Slum

Urban

Slum

(%)(%)

(%)(%)

(%)(%)

Kasaragod95.92

94.36

3.80

5.08

0.28

0.55

Kannur 97.59

97.06

2.20

2.94

0.21

0.00

Kozhikode 95.57

95.63

4.21

4.09

0.23

0.29

Palakkad97.02

97.12

2.80

2.81

0.18

0.07

Thrissur97.66

98.61

2.13

1.26

0.21

0.13

Ernakulam98.26

91.20

1.59

8.72

0.15

0.08

Alappuzha96.91

96.89

2.87

2.89

0.22

0.21

Kollam 97.18

95.87

2.57

3.49

0.25

0.65

Thiruvananthapuram

96.64

89.14

3.09

9.92

0.26

0.94

Kerala97.01

96.41

2.77

3.33

0.22

0.26

Table 4.9 showed that the electricity is main Source of lighting among slum (96.41 percent) and urban (97.01 percent) residence households in Kerala. Above 90% of slums and urban households using electricity is major source of lighting. In Kasaragod, Kannur , Kozhikode, Palakkad, Thrissur, Ernakulam , Kollam, Thiruvananthapuram districts slums and urban households using electricity major source of lighting. Kerosene is another source of lighting in all districts in Kerala

4.10 Availability of Latrine Facility

Table 4.10: Percentage Share of Households by Availability of Latrine Facility in the Residential Houses- Urban and Slum

Areas in Kerala 2011census

Districts Name

Availability of Latrine facility

Number of households

having latrine facility within the premises

Number of households not having

latrine facility within the premises

Urban Slum Urban Slum(%) (%) (%) (%)

Kasaragod 96.57 66.36 3.43 33.64Kannur 98.45 61.76 1.55 38.24

Kozhikode 98.24 95.72 1.76 4.28Palakkad 94.87 91.72 5.13 8.28Thrissur 98.32 98.92 1.68 1.08Ernakulam 98.31 75.67 1.69 24.33Alappuzha 94.67 95.13 5.33 4.87Kollam 96.42 94.24 3.58 5.76Thiruvananthapuram

96.32 79.06 3.68 20.94

Kerala 97.43 93.21 2.57 7.29

Table 4.10 shows that the 97.43 percent households in urban and 93.21 percent slum residence households with latrine facility within premises while the 2.57 percent households in urban and 7.29 percent slum residence households not having latrine facility within the premises in Kerala.

Type of Latrine (Toilet)

Water Closet (flush/pour flush) latrine connected to :

Piped sewer system: Flush/pour flush latrine is connected to piped sewer system.

Septic tank: Flush/pour flush latrine is connected to septic tank.

Other system: Flush/pour flush latrine connected to any other system.

Pit latrine : Defecation into pits dug into the ground

With Slab/ventilated improved pit: Seat firmly supported on all sides which is raised to prevent surface water from entering

the pit. Ventilated by pipe extending above the latrine roof Slab/open pit

Without a squatting slab or platform.

Night soil disposed into open drain

Service Latrine Night soil removed by human Night soil serviced by animals

No latrine within premises Public latrine Open

Table 4.11 shows that the Kerala 56.69 percent households in urban

and 55.85 percent slum residence households with latrine facility

within premises mainly used flush/pour flush latrine connected to

Septic tank. All these districts (urban and slum) residence house

mainly used flush/pour flush latrine connected to Septic tank, with

Palakkad slum 40.78 percent at the minimum and Kannur slum

82.14 percent at the maximum.

Table 4.11: Percentage Share of Households by Type of Latrine Facility within the Premises in Residential Houses- Urban And Slum areas in

Kerala 2011census

Area Name

Flush/pour flush latrine connected to

Pit latrineNight soil disposed into open

drain

Service LatrinePiped

sewer system

Septic tank

Other system

With slab/ventilated improved

pit

Without slab/

open pit

Urban(%)

Slum

(%)

Urban(%)

Slum

(%)

Urban(%)

Slum

(%)

Urban(%)

Slum

(%)

Urban(%)

Slum

(%)

Urban(%)

Slum

(%)

Urban(%)

Slum

(%)

Kasaragod11.44

3.90

59.29

81.48

7.87

1.67

18.94

12.67

0.31

0.28

0.04

-26.81

-

Kannur 15.91

16.67

60.24

82.14

5.27

1.19

17.46

-0.15

-0.03

-22.72

-

Kozhikode 15.01

19.75

69.51

66.67

2.61

0.80

11.30

12.28

0.28

0.27

0.02

0.22

13.91

-

Palakkad13.45

24.89

50.12

40.78

2.99

8.41

30.44

25.39

0.21

0.35

0.07

0.07

33.43

25.39

Thrissur11.98

16.31

60.10

61.73

4.27

2.28

22.13

18.94

0.38

0.32

0.07

0.06

26.40

Ernakulam16.69

12.41

59.14

62.51

3.69

1.19

18.54

15.10

0.28

0.47

0.63

8.27

22.24

15.10

Alappuzha9.41

6.02

45.37

49.12

11.73

9.77

28.88

34.49

1.31

0.54

0.46

0.03

40.61

34.49

Kollam 12.22

8.22

49.98

41.53

4.48

9.27

29.92

29.66

1.01

4.49

0.38

2.86

34.40

38.92

Thiruvananthapuram

23.71

16.56

45.18

46.04

2.75

1.56

25.72

24.52

0.55

5.64

0.26

4.05

28.47

26.08

Kerala14.70

16.72

56.69

55.85

4.39

4.08

22.01

20.83

0.44

1.02

0.21

0.88

26.40

24.91

In Kerala 20.13 percent households in urban and 21.01 percent slum residence households with latrine facility within premises used pit latrine with slab/ventilated improved pit, with Kozhikode urban 11.30 percent at the minimum and Alappuzha slum 34.49 percent at the maximum. In Kerala 0.44 percent households in urban and 1.02 percent slum residence households with latrine facility within premises used pit latrine without slab/ open pit, with Kannur urban 0.15 percent at the minimum and Thiruvananthapuram slum 5.64 percent at the maximum

Table 4.12: percentage share of households by no latrine within premises alternative source in the residential houses- urban and

slum areas in Kerala 2011census

Districts Name

No latrine within premises

Alternative sourcePublic latrine Open

Urban(%)

Slum(%)

Urban(%)

Slum(%)

Kasaragod 41.71 84.07 58.29 15.93Kannur 37.16 90.38 62.84 9.62Kozhikode 39.09 49.13 60.91 50.87Palakkad 14.51 12.69 85.49 87.31Thrissur 34.86 41.67 65.14 58.33Ernakulam 52.03 68.49 47.97 31.51Alappuzha 28.06 46.25 71.94 53.75Kollam 34.66 38.73 65.34 61.27Thiruvananthapuram 34.97 63.80 65.03 36.20Kerala 34.85 50.86 65.15 49.14

Table 4.12 shows that about three percent households in urban and 7.29 percent slum residence households are not having latrine

facility within the premises in Kerala ,about these 50.86 percent of slum households have no latrine within premises their alternative source is public latrine ,65.15 percent of slum households have no latrine within premises their alternative source is open place .

4.13 Drainage Connectivity

Table 4.13: Percentage Share of Households by Type of Drainage Connectivity for Waste Water Outlet InThe Residential Houses-

Urban And Slum In Kerala 2011census

Districts Name

Waste water outlet connected to 

Closed drainage

Open drainage

No drainage

Urban

SlumUrba

nSlum

Urban

Slum

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Kasaragod 15.17 6.93 24.240.7

660.63

52.31

Kannur 43.6265.8

123.29

27.94

33.09 6.25

Kozhikode 42.3136.5

318.55

21.24

39.1442.2

3

Palakkad 20.2029.5

832.32

38.62

47.4831.8

0

Thrissur 28.2635.4

530.91

36.34

40.8328.2

1

Ernakulum 48.3228.0

919.30

50.08

32.3921.8

3

Alappuzha 24.7938.7

114.58

19.59

60.63 41.7

Kollam 23.5025.2

115.02

16.44

61.4758.3

5Thiruvananthapuram

29.9915.0

811.57

16.51

58.4568.4

1

 Kerala 33.5431.7

421.00

30.71

45.4537.5

5

2011 As per Census, at the Kerala level, 45.45 percent of urban residential houses and 37.55 percent of slum residential houses report no drainage connectivity while a majority of households with Kannur slum 6.25 percent at the minimum and Thiruvananthapuram slum 68.41percent at the maximum.

Table 4.13 shows that the Kerala, 33.54 percent of urban residential houses and 31.74 percent of slum residential houses have closed drainage connectivity with Kasaragod slum 6.93 percent at the minimum and Kannur slum 6.81percent at the maximum.

In Kerala, 21 percent of urban residential houses and 30.17 percent of slum residential houses have open drainage connectivity Thiruvananthapuram urban 11.57 percent at the minimum and Ernakulum slum 50.08 percent at the maximum.

4.14: Bathing Facility within the Premises

Table 4.14 shows that the92.87 percent urban residential houses and 90.19 percent in slum residence house have bathing facility within the premises, 7.13 percent in urban residence house and 9.81 percent slum residence house have no bathing facility within the premises. Above 80% of all households in urban area have bathing facility within the premises.

But Thiruvananthapuram slum households have only 48.17% of bathing facility within the premises, in these above 90% households in Kasaragod (urban) ,Kannur(urban ,slum), Kozhikode (,urban Slum),Palakkad (slum and Urban) Thrissur (slum and Urban), Ernakulam (urban) ,and Above 80% households in Kasaragod

(slum) Alappuzha (urban and slum) Kollam (urban and slum) Thiruvananthapuram(urban), 77.97% slum households in Ernakulam districts having bathing facility within the premises. over all poor condition shows Thiruvananthapuram slum households have only 48.17% bathing facility within the premises,51.75% Thiruvananthapuram slum households no having bathing facility within the premises, followed by Ernakulam slum households (22.03%),below 20% all other slums and urban households have no bathing facility within the premise

Table 4.14: Percentage Share of Households by Having Bathing Facility within the Premises in Residential Houses -

Urban and Slum areas in Kerala 2011census

Districts Name

Number of households having bathing facility within the premises

Yes NoUrban

(%)Slum(%)

Urban(%)

Slum(%)

Kasaragod 96.31 85.21 3.69 14.79Kannur 96.07 96.69 3.93 3.31Kozhikode 93.57 96.52 6.43 3.48Palakkad 91.58 90.83 8.42 9.17Thrissur 97.37 98.69 2.63 1.31Ernakulam 96.80 77.97 3.20 22.03Alappuzha 88.14 85.87 11.86 14.13Kollam 87.60 84.01 12.40 15.99Thiruvananthapuram 84.17 48.25

15.83 51.75

Kerala 92.87 90.19 7.13 9.81

4.15 Types of fuel used for cooking

2011 As per Census, at the Kerala level, 49.35 percent of urban

residential houses used fire-wood fuel for cooking and 53.76 percent

of slum residential houses report LPG/PNG is the major fuel used for

cooking

Table 4.15 showed that the fire -wood is the main types of fuel used

for cooking among urban (53.79%) and slum (69.41%) households in

Kasaragod district .Another major type fuel used for cooking is LPG

(liquid petroleum gas) PNG(Piped Natural gas)in urban (43.80)

slums(26.34%) households.

Fire -wood is the main fuel used for cooking among urban (69.82%)

and slum (88.60%) households in Kannur district, in the Kozhikode

district Urban (69.95%) and slum (66.84%). LPG/ PNG main fuel

used for cooking in Palakkad, Thrissur, Alappuzha, Ernakulam,

Kollam districts.

But in Thiruvananthapuram districts slum households mainly used

Fire-wood (75.11%) for cooking, in urban households mainly used

LPG/PNG(56.05%) for cooking.

Table 4.15: Percentage Share of Households by Types of Fuel Used for Cooking inThe Residential Houses- Urban and Slum in Kerala 2011census

Districts Name

Types of fuel used for cookingFire-wood Kerosene LPG/PNG Electricity Biogas Any other

Urban Slum Urban Slum Urban Slum UrbanSlum

UrbanSlum

UrbanSlum

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Kasaragod53.79

69.41

0.52 1.11 43.8026.3

40.05 - 0.41 2.31 1.42 0.83

Kannur 69.82

88.60

0.25 0.37 28.11 9.93 0.04 - 0.47 0.74 1.31 0.37

Kozhikode 69.95

66.84

0.36 0.75 28.0130.4

10.05 0.13 0.40 0.55 1.22 1.32

Palakkad46.11

29.87

0.88 1.23 51.6267.9

80.05 0.08 0.44 0.10 0.90 0.73

Thrissur47.44

31.52

0.36 0.66 50.6566.6

80.04 0.06 0.69 0.34 0.82 0.73

Ernakulam22.01

14.95

1.0039.3

675.59

41.90

0.10 - 0.59 3.21 0.72 0.59

Alappuzha39.93

39.90

0.60 0.34 57.4958.9

10.03 0.03 0.62 0.18 1.33 0.64

Kollam 44.18

44.67

0.45 0.91 53.3252.7

40.02 - 0.69 0.02 1.35 1.66

Thiruvananthapura 41.28 75.1 0.63 0.56 56.05 22.4 0.03 - 0.69 0.27 1.31 1.61

m 1 5

Kerala49.35

42.16

0.52 2.58 48.4153.7

60.05 0.06 0.58 0.47 1.04 0.94

4.16 Transportation, Communication and Banking

Means of transportation: Information collected with regard to transportation related assets in house listing operations of Census 2011

Bicycle: Availability of bicycle in households was ascertained. Tricycle used by disabled persons was also considered as bicycle.

Scooter/Motorcycle/Moped: The availability of scooter or motorcycle or moped was ascertained from the respondent. This asset was treated as available if the household had any type of two wheeled motorized vehicle having 50 CC or above.

Car/Jeep/Van: A car or jeep or van was treated as available to the household, if this was put to use by the member(s) of the household for her/his/their own use. This asset was also treated as available to the household, if any member(s) of the household possessed a multi utility vehicle (MUV) or sports utility vehicle (SUV) or sports car.

Table 4.16 showed thattheKerala it is observed that the 25.57 percent of urban residential houses and 27.29 percent of slum residential houses having bicycles .The highest percentage share of this asset is reflected in respect of Alappuzha urban residence households (48.87 percent) and the lowest percentage share is Kasaragod slum residence households (7.76 percent).

In Kerala, 29.05 percent of urban residential houses and 28.96 percent of slum residence house depend on scooter/motorcycle/moped while 12.70 percent of urban residential houses and 12.07 percent of slum residence house percent use car/jeep/van as mode of transportation .

Table 4.16: Percentage Share of Households by Mode of Transportation in Residential Houses - Urban and Slum Areas in

Kerala 2011census

Districts NameBicycle

Scooter/ Motorcycle/Moped

Car/ Jeep/Van

Urban Slum Urban Slum Urban Slum(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Kasaragod 14.73 7.76 16.10 10.44 8.54 4.90Kannur 14.72 12.13 16.20 10.66 8.96 1.10Kozhikode 16.04 18.81 24.65 23.09 9.00 5.23Palakkad 20.23 27.14 30.47 34.21 11.25 13.66Thrissur 35.79 32.44 32.09 38.22 13.04 19.08Ernakulam 34.42 35.60 42.37 17.57 18.76 4.30Alappuzha 48.87 38.32 30.81 29.85 9.09 12.34Kollam 33.03 28.42 26.62 14.59 10.71 4.93Thiruvananthapuram 18.92 11.21 34.27 13.23 16.64 5.00Kerala 25.57 27.29 29.05 28.96 12.70 12.07

The highest percentage share of scooter/motorcycle/moped asset is reflected in respect of Ernakulam slum residence households (42.37 percent) and the lowest percentage share is Kasaragod slum residence households (10.44 percent).

The highest percentage share of car/jeep/van asset is reflected in respect of Thrissur slum residence households (19.08 percent) and the lowest percentage share is Kannur slum residence households (1.10 percent).

4.17 Communication

Information collected with regard to communication related assets in house listing operations of Census 2011

Radio/Transistor :Availability of a radio or a transistor or both was recorded.

Television :Whether the household had a television set, colour or black & white, was recorded.

Computer/Laptop : New question introduced in Census 2011 regarding whether the households had a computer, desktop or laptop with or without internet.

Telephone/Mobile phone:

If the household had a Landline Telephone only If the household had Mobile Phone only If the household had both the Landline Telephone as

well as Mobile Phone If the household had neither Landline Telephone nor

Mobile Phone

In Kerala it is observed that the 32.48 percent of urban residential

houses and 27.07 percent of slum residential houses having

Radio/Transistor. The highest percentage share of this asset is

reflected in respect of Kannur urban residence households (46.99

percent) and the lowest percentage share isKollam slum residence

households (8.39 percent).

Table 4.17: Percentage Share of Households by Mode OfCommunication in the Residential Houses- Urban and Slum in

Kerala 2011Census

Districts Name

Radio/ Transistor

TelevisionComputer/

LaptopTelephone/

Mobile Phone

Urban

SlumUrba

nSlum

Urban

Slum Urban Slum

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)Kasaragod 23.58 9.15 77.56 75.23 16.07 10.54 91.21 81.24Kannur 46.99 32.35 83.46 76.47 18.36 3.68 93.32 91.18Kozhikode 34.30 26.62 77.12 77.72 17.63 16.49 93.11 90.47Palakkad 26.52 18.91 81.14 85.18 18.06 21.89 89.92 88.49Thrissur 37.18 37.20 84.79 88.59 20.38 25.05 91.29 89.45Ernakulam 36.34 40.92 89.95 77.43 26.91 8.80 94.17 86.23Alappuzha 24.23 21.72 82.95 84.98 15.23 17.27 89.05 90.83Kollam 16.75 8.39 83.86 78.84 15.43 16.15 87.68 77.16Thiruvananthapuram

35.97 19.60 84.51 66.77 25.51 13.31 86.99 70.67

Kerala 32.48 27.07 82.24 82.72 20.36 19.82 91.54 86.86

In Kerala, 82.24 percent of urban residential houses and 82.72

percent of slum residence house having television while. The

highest percentage share of this asset is reflected in respect of

Ernakulam urban residence households (89.95 percent) and the

lowest percentage share is Thiruvananthapuram slum residence

households (66.77 percent).

In Kerala, 20.36 percent of urban residential houses and 19.82

percent of slum residence house having computer/laptop while. the

highest percentage share of this asset is reflected in respect of

Ernakulam urban residence households (26.91percent) and the

lowest percentage share is Kannur slum residence households (3.36

percent).

In Kerala, 91.54 percent of urban residential houses and 86.86

percent of slum residence house having telephone/mobile phone

while. The highest percentage share of this asset is reflected in

respect of Ernakulam urban residence households (94.17 percent)

and the lowest percentage share is Thiruvananthapuram slum

residence households (70.67 percent).

4.18 Economic Inclusion- Households Availing Banking Services

Banking in India originated in the last decades of the 18th century.

The first banks were The General Bank of India, which started in

1786, and Bank of Hindustan, which started in 1790; both are now

out of commission. The oldest bank in existence in India is the State

Bank of India, which originated in the Bank of Calcutta in June 1806,

which almost immediately became the Bank of Bengal.

Table 4.18: percentage share of households availing banking

services in the residential houses- urban and slum in Kerala

2011census

Districts NameTotal number of households

availing Urban Slum(%) (%)

Kasaragod 81.05 73.11Kannur 86.69 71.32Kozhikode 72.71 57.56Palakkad 78.70 77.48Thrissur 76.16 71.14Ernakulam 78.55 32.08Alappuzha 66.61 63.51Kollam 69.89 49.25Thiruvananthapuram 69.92 39.11Kerala 74.68 63.55

Data on access to banking was collected during 2001 and 2011

census during the first phase. This covered all types of banks,

nationalized, private, foreign banks as well as co-operative banks

and post office. However, self help group, primary agricultural credit

societies etc which do not form part of banking system have been

excluded.

In Kerala, 74.68 percent of urban residential houses and 63.55

percent of slum residence house availing banking services, the

highest percentage share of households is registered in Kannur

urban residence households with 86.69 percent. The lowest

percentage share has been reported in Ernakulam slum households

with 32.0 percent.

CHAPTER VSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Introduction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate critically the living conditions of slum dwellers in Kerala and to make a comparative assessment of the living status of slums vis-à-vis overall situation in the urban areas of Kerala. The State’s human development is comparable with those of the developed countries of the world. Kerala has achieved a high degree of equality in the distribution of human development across gender, space, and social groups. Public housing schemes in Kerala have had an impressive record during the past two decades in terms of both investment and physical achievements.

The study concluded that the standard of living in urban slums of Kerala is much better compared to slums in other states of India. This study revealed that slum residents in Kerala have most of the basic amenities like drinking water, latrine facility and electricity and even facilities like mobile phones, internet and private vehicles. The average size, quality, and value of houses in slum and urban areas of Kerala are far better than those in the rest of the States in India.

5.2 The Major Research Findings

Of the 14 districts of Kerala, nine districts (19 slum areas) have slum households and they are Kasaragod, Kannur, Kozhikode, Palakkad, Thrissur, Ernakulum, Alappuzha, Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram. Thrissur district has the highest number of slum households (20018) and Kannur has the least (272). Comparing urban areas, it can be seen that Thrissur Municipal Corporation has the highest number of slum households (19500) and Chavakkad Municipality has the lowest (173).

Slum and urban residential houses in all districts are in equally (above 90 percent) good/liveable condition, except slums of Thiruvananthapuram. Most of the Kannur urban residential houses are in good condition compared to other areas in Kerala. But Thiruvananthapuram shows the highest number of slum residential houses in dilapidated condition (15.22%), and there is only marginal difference in the condition of houses in urban and slum households (6.06% and 15.22% respectively).

Semi Pucca/Pucca materials are mainly used for wall/roof/floor construction in urban and slum residential houses in Kerala, but comparatively Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam urban and slum residential houses show high variation. Urban and slum residential houses in other districts used Semi Pucca/Pucca materials equally.

As per Census 2011, majority of houses are owned by the household members in Urban Kerala and Slum Kerala. In urban areas of Kannur have comparatively more number of owned households and more number of rented households is there in Ernakulum slum area.

Overall above 50 percent of all urban and slum residential houses have two or three dwelling rooms. In Kasaragod ,Kannur, Thrissur and Ernakulum districts, urban residential houses are having three or four dwelling rooms, these (Kasaragod, Kannur, Thrissur)districts slum residential houses having two or three dwelling rooms and Ernakulum slum residential houses showing comparatively poor status 43.08 percent having one dwelling room and 28.29 percent residential houses having two dwelling rooms.

Most of the urban and slum households in Kerala have drinking water facility within premises. Comparatively high percentage of

Kannur slum households has drinking water within the premises. Compared to slums in other districts, slum households in Thiruvananthapuram district depend drinking water sources away from their houses.

Tap water from treated source constitute a major proportion of main sources of drinking water in all residential houses in slum, Uncovered well constitute a major proportion of main sources of drinking water in all residential houses in urban in Kerala.

Electricity is main Source of lighting among slum (96.41 percent) and urban (97.01 percent) residential households in Kerala. Above 90 percent of slums and urban households using electricity as major source of lighting.

About 90 percent of slums and urban households have latrine facility within premises while the 2.57 percent households in urban and 7.29 percent slum residence households do not have latrine facility within the premises. Flush/pour flush latrine and pit latrine are the major type of latrine facility using within the premises in all residential houses in urban in Kerala.

One of the reasons for morbidity and mortality is the environment in which people live. Clean and healthy environment leads to better life. So importance needs to be given for environmental sanitation. The analysis shows that in Kerala about 45 percent of urban residential houses and 37 percent of slum residential houses reported no drainage connectivity, with slum households in Kannur report the minimum and Thiruvananthapuram the maximum.

Above 80% of all households in urban areas have bathing facility within the premises, but only about half of the slum households in Thiruvananthapuram have bathing facility within the premises.

Most of the urban and slum residential houses in Kasaragod, Kannur, Kozhikode and Thiruvananthapuram slum areas used firewood is the major fuel for cooking, remaining districts urban and slum residential houses used LPG/PNG is the major fuel for cooking. In urban Ernakulum most of the residential houses used LPG/PNG.

In Kerala it is observed that the 25.57 percent of urban residential houses and 27.29 percent of slum residential houses having bicycles, 29.05 percent of urban residential houses and 28.96 percent of slum residence house depend on scooter/motorcycle/moped,12.70 percent of urban residential houses and 12.07 percent of slum residence house depend on scooter/motorcycle/moped Car/ Jeep/Van.

Most of the urban residential houses and slum residential houses have good communication facility.

In Kerala, 74.68 percent of urban residential houses and 63.55 percent of slum residence house availing banking services.

REFERENCES

1. AmaoFunmilayoLanrewaju (2012) “Urbanization, housing quality and environmental degeneration in Nigeria” Department of Architecture, LadokeAkintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning Vol. 5(16).

2. ArinaZanuzdana • Mobarak Khan • Alexander Kraemer(2012) “Housing Satisfaction Related to Health and Importanceof Services in Urban Slums: Evidence from Dhaka,Bangladesh” Published online: 3 May 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

3. Bamidele M. Ogunleye (2013)“ Analysis of the socio-economic characteristics and housing condition in the core neighbourhood of Akure, Nigeria” The Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning Vol. 6(6), pp. 229-236, August, 2013

4. Benjamin Stanwix (2009) “Urban Slums in Gujarat and Rajasthan Study of Basic Infrastructure in Seven Cities” pulished by Mahila Housing SEWA Trust 401-402, Akashganga Complex, Brahmkshatriya Co-op. Society Gujarat College Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380 009, INDIA

5. Dr. Jabir Hasan Khan*, Tarique Hassan**(2013), “Patterns of Availability of Housing and Household Amenities in Odisha” *Associate Professor, **Senior Research Fellow, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh ,Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research (JBM&SSR) , Volume 2, No.4, April 2013

6. Dr. Jabir Hasan Khan*; Nisar Ahmed**; Tarique Hassan*** (2013) “Dimensions Of Housing And Household Amenities And Assets In Madhya Pradesh” *Associate Professor, **Research Scholar, ***Research Scholar, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. AJRSH: Asian Journal Of Research In Social Science & Humanities Volume 3, Issue 6 (June, 2013)

7. Dr. SribasGoswami& Prof. Samita Manna (2013)“Urban Poor Living in Slums: A Case Study of Raipur City in India” SidhoKanhoBirsha University, India Global Journal of Human Social Science sociology& Culture Volume 13 Issue 4 Version 1.0 Year 2013

8. G. Gopikuttan (2002)“Public Housing Schemes for Rural Poor in Kerala:A critical study of their suitability” Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development Centre for Development Studies Thiruvananthapuram

9. Jitendra Kumar (2014) “Slums In India: A Focus On Metropolitan Cities” Department of Geography, KLP College, Rewari, India, International Journal of Development Research Vol. 4, Issue, 2, pp. 388-393, February, 2014

10. K Gangadharan “Health And Living Environment In Urban Slum” a micro level analysis published by Manglam Publications ,Delhi -110053(India)

11. Ms.Hina (2013)“Poorest of the Poor: A Comparative Study of Two Slums of Central and North East Delhi, India” Research Scholar, Department of Geography, JamiaMilliaIslamia, New Delhi Global Advanced Research Journal of Geography and Regional Planning (ISSN: 2315-5018) Vol. 2(5) pp. 087-096, August, 2013

12. NiharRanjan Rout (2008) “Slum Growth In Bhubaneswar: A Problem Or Solution?”Lecturer, Department of Population Studies, Fakir Mohaan University, Balasore, Orissa ,ITPI Journal 5 : 4 (2008) 59 – 64 www.itpi.org.in

13. Primary Census Abstract for Slum(2011) Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India New Delhi, 30-09-2013

14. Report Of The Committee On Slum Statistics/Census, Government Of India Ministry Of Housing And Urban Poverty Alleviation National Buildings Organization New Delhi.

15. S. Chandrasekhar*(2005) “Growth of Slums, Availability of Infrastructure and Demographic Outcomes in Slums: Evidence from India” Paper to be presented during the session on Urbanization in Developing Countries at the Population Association of America, 2005,Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, USA.

16. Shrinivas Reddy R*; Dr. S. AnsiyaBegam**;Dr.Jaganatsindhe*** (2013)“ An Evaluation Of Housing Condition And Socio-Economic Life Styles Of Slum Dwellers In Bidar City, Karnataka” *Lecturer In

Sociology,** Research Guide And Professor*** Co-Guide And Professor dept. Of Sociology Gulbarga University Gulbarga Karnataka EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies EIJMMS, Vol.3 (8), August (2013)

17. Sufaira.C (2013)“Socio Economic Conditions of Urban Slum Dwellers in Kannur Municipality” Research scholar, Department of Economics, Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod, Kerala, India. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 10, Issue 5 (May. - Jun. 2013), PP 12-24

18. UroojAfshanJabeen (2013) “Unmasking Health Inequities in the Slums of Hyderabad in India” Lecturer in Economics, School of Business Studies, Mulungushi University, Zambia ,Journal of Exclusion Studies Vol. 3 No. 1February 2013 DOI: 10.5958/j.2231-4555.3.1.007