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 S
Reg. No. DEM120508

DEPARTMENT OF DEMOGRAPHY
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
KARIAVATTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
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

CHAPTERS

PAGE 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 socioeconomic 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 ruralto-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, BusteesinKolkatta, Cheris in
Chennai, Kerisin 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 II
REVIEW 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 Indias 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 nonindustrial 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 interdistrict 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 northwest 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 peoples
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 northcentral 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 citys
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 III
DATA 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, servants 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 IV
HOUSING, 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--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

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam
Thiruvananthapu
ram
Kerala

Residence
Good
Livable
Dilapidated
Urba Slu Urba Slu Urba Slu
n
m
n
m
n
m
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
78.7 54.8 18.4 38.1
2.74 6.93
6
1
9
7
78.5 52.5 19.3 45.2
2.11 2.21
5
7
3
2
77.1 54.3 19.2 39.5
3.56 5.98
9
6
5
9
68.6 72.8 28.0 23.4
3.27 3.66
7
5
6
9
67.4 70.1 28.4 25.9
4.10 3.90
9
2
1
6
74.7 66.6 22.1 29.4
3.10 3.90
2
0
8
9
66.8 69.0 26.6 27.1
6.50 3.85
6
5
4
1
70.1 54.0 24.3 40.5
5.50 5.35
7
6
3
3
68.1 40.5
44.2
15.2
25.8
6.06
4
7
1
2
72.4
23.6 31.2
63.1
3.94 5.64
5
2
6

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 category
They 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
Katcha
Districts Name

Urba
n
(%)

Slum
(%)

Semi-pucca
Urba
n
(%)

Slum
(%)

Pucca
Urba
n
(%)

Slu
m
(%)

Any other
material
Urba
Slu
n
m
(%)
(%)

Kasaragod

1.08

2.87

Kannur

0.27

0.37

Kozhikode

1.43

2.77

Palakkad

1.99

2.82

Thrissur

2.79

0.94

Ernakulam

0.89

3.68

Alappuzha

2.90

0.76

Kollam

1.95

11.8
0

Thiruvananthapura
m

1.97

8.90

Kerala

1.61

3.25

97.8
3
98.8
3
97.2
6
93.8
9
94.1
4
93.9
4
93.8
5
94.3
1
91.1
0
94.9
0

96.9
0
99.6
0
93.0
0
92.4
0
95.8
0
87.1
0
90.7
0
83.3
0
87.4
0
92.4
0

0.93

0.16

0.28

0.58

0.31

1.05

3.94

0.27

0.29

3.72

4.59

0.40

0.23

2.54

2.63

0.53

0.64

4.48

8.53

0.68

0.67

2.47

7.04

0.78

1.55

2.96

2.88

0.78

1.97

6.31

2.72

0.62

0.99

2.91

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
Material of Floor
Any other
material
Districts Name
Urba
Urba
Urba
Urba
Slum
Slum
Slum
Slum
n
n
n
n
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Kasaragod
4.13
5.27
5.54 3.42 88.14 90.94
2.18 0.37
Kannur
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 1.54
Palakkad
7.26
5.82
2.86 3.63 88.17 89.19
1.72 1.36
Thrissur
3.53
2.60
5.40 6.00 88.64 88.98
2.43 2.42
Ernakulam
2.50
3.99
5.63 3.13 89.16 91.78
2.71 1.10
Alappuzha
3.90
3.66
2.87 1.77 91.91 93.42
1.32 1.16
Kollam
4.24
5.92
3.44 2.17 90.68 90.80
1.64 1.11
Thiruvananthapuram
9.36 28.31
4.63 1.02 83.25 69.54
2.77 1.13
Kerala
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
Katcha

Semi-pucca

Pucca

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
Material of Roof
Kacha
District Name

Urba
n
(%)

Slum
(%)

Kasaragod

1.30

2.40

Kannur

0.50

2.21

Semi-pucca
Urba
n
(%)
36.2
3
39.2

Slum
(%)
55.5
5
69.4

Any other
material
Urba Slu
Slum
n
m
(%)
(%) (%)
41.8
0.05 0.18
7
28.3 0.08
-

Pucca
Urba
n
(%)
62.4
1
60.2

Kozhikode

3.42

3.88

Palakkad

2.34

3.80

Thrissur

3.69

1.55

Ernakulam

0.89

1.84

Alappuzha

2.42

0.91

Kollam

2.37

9.79

Thiruvananthapura
m

6.33

20.5
1

Kerala

2.63

4.36

4.6

2
36.5
8
53.4
8
33.5
3
31.1
9
56.9
8
41.0
7
32.6
4
39.1
5

9
54.8
4
49.3
5
38.6
9
60.2
1
46.0
2
52.4
5
36.2
6
46.3
2

1
59.9
2
44.0
7
62.6
0
67.7
9
40.1
3
56.1
0
60.8
5
58.0
3

1
41.0
0
46.6
4
59.6
4
37.7
2
51.8
4
35.8
9
43.1
7
48.9
3

0.09

0.28

0.11

0.21

0.18

0.12

0.12

0.23

0.47

1.22

0.46

1.86

0.17

0.05

0.19

0.39

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

Ownership Status
Rented
Any other

Owned
Urba
slum
n
(%)
(%)

Urban

Slum

(%)

Kasaragod

85.12 84.84

13.04

Kannur

92.39 88.97

6.27

Kozhikode

91.93 87.21

6.64

Palakkad

84.94 76.76

12.99

Thrissur

90.96 83.74

7.48

Ernakulam

84.28 54.46

13.85

Alappuzha

92.23 88.61

6.22

Kollam

85.80 78.90

11.87

Thiruvananthapuram

82.96 84.60

14.81

Kerala

88.30 81.71

10.00

(%)
10.9
1
11.0
3
9.50
19.8
1
13.1
7
42.7
6
9.26
11.6
9
9.33
14.4
0

Districts Name

Urban Slum
(%)

(%)

1.84

4.25

1.35 1.43

3.30

2.06

3.43

1.56

3.08

1.87

2.78

1.55

2.13

2.34

9.40

2.23

6.08

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)

4.7

as maximum.

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

Households having number of dwelling rooms

Districts Name

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam
Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala

No exclusive
room
Urban
Slum
(%)
(%)
1.09
1.85
0.71
0.74
1.03
1.63
1.07
1.26
1.01
1.32
0.74
0.51
0.77
0.67
0.97
1.03
1.19
1.88
0.91
1.31

One room
Urban
(%)
7.07
3.47
6.24
9.74
6.50
5.19
7.33
7.71
8.03
6.28

Slum
(%)
7.21
17.28
12.05
16.42
9.30
43.08
6.06
21.87
22.20
14.40

Two rooms
Urban
(%)
21.16
15.42
28.55
30.76
21.42
19.27
28.39
24.61
23.92
23.34

Slum
(%)
26.52
28.68
37.17
30.00
25.53
28.29
34.51
32.45
32.47
30.10

Three rooms
Urban
(%)
29.23
31.48
33.79
29.99
33.66
35.31
30.07
32.51
31.86
32.44

Slum
(%)
34.84
25.74
26.96
27.87
29.06
19.09
29.21
27.38
25.54
27.75

Four rooms
Urban
(%)
21.22
24.49
18.23
16.69
22.58
23.66
20.00
21.11
20.08
21.36

Slum
(%)
16.36
16.18
14.31
12.90
18.01
6.06
19.68
11.63
10.97
14.93

Five rooms
Urban
(%)
10.25
11.37
6.79
6.58
8.76
9.02
7.84
7.77
8.48
8.63

Slum
(%)
6.65
7.35
4.78
5.90
8.78
1.72
6.46
3.67
3.74
6.27

Six rooms and

above
Urban
Slum
(%)
(%)
9.98
6.56
13.06
4.04
5.37
3.10
5.16
5.65
6.08
7.99
6.81
1.25
5.61
3.41
5.32
1.97
6.45
3.20
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, Uncovered 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

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam

Location of source of
drinking water
Within
Near
the
the
Away
premise premise
s
s
Ur
Ur
Ur
Slu
Slu
Slu
ba
ba
ba
m
m
m
n
n
n
(% (% (% (% (% (%
)
)
)
)
)
)
84. 81. 9.9 11. 5.3 7.3
70 52
3
09
6
9
85. 95. 9.7 4.4 4.4
74 59
9
1
7
82. 71. 11. 23. 6.1 5.2
03 34 80 38
7
8
79. 75. 15. 22. 6.3 2.5
24 47 75 04
1
0
85. 89. 10. 7.9 4.0 3.0
48 03 51
2
1
4
81. 66. 14. 30. 3.7 3.2
35 43 92 32
3
5
75. 86. 14. 7.8 10. 5.7
12 51 30
0
59
0
86. 76. 9.9 17. 3.4 5.1
60 96
5
90
5
5

Thiruvananth
apuram
Kerala

86. 61. 8.6 16. 5.2 21.

09 91
2
61
9
48
83. 79. 11. 15. 5.2 5.0
26 39 52 60
3
1

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

Main Source of Drinking Water

Districts Name

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam
Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala

Tapwater from
treated source
Urban
(%)
13.81
10.27
19.08
49.46
21.61
63.17
25.16
24.22
47.52
30.35

Slum
(%)
28.28
98.53
79.64
87.27
26.16
90.22
22.39
53.24
49.84
53.21

Tapwater from
un-treated
source
Urban
Slum
(%)
(%)
4.8
2.5
1.57
0.37
3.6
1.45
5.03
4.17
5.08
5.63
3.07
0.23
9.54
17.21
8.96
4.07
4.17
3.68
4.5
39.33

Covered well
Urban
(%)
3.87
8.73
17.93
7.95
20.17
11.65
11.01
21.39
10.97
15.04

Slum
(%)
3.05
0.37
3.07
1.65
29.22
4.34
19.77
5.84
9.78
14.12

Un-covered well
Urban
(%)
54.13
75.75
54.69
31.86
43.58
20.32
34.09
42.82
33.78
43.86

Slum
(%)
36.14
0.37
13.66
4.69
35.3
4.97
39.17
35.41
34.14
24.83

Tubewell/
Borehole
Urban
(%)
17.37
1.92
2.1
4.83
5.6
1.02
16.88
0.72
1.65
3.93

Slum
(%)
11.83
0.52
1.35
2.44
0.16
0.67
1.03
0.05
1.6

Other sources
Urban
(%)
6.03
1.76
2.6
0.87
3.95
0.77
3.31
1.89
1.91
2.32

Slum
(%)
18.21
0.37
1.64
0.85
0.34
0.08
0.79
0.36
2.5
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

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad

Main Source of lighting

Electricit Kerosen
Any
y
e
other
Ur
Ur
Sl Ur
Sl
Slu
ba
ba u
ba u
m
n
n
m n
m
(
(
(% (% (%
(%
%
%
)
)
)
)
)
)
95. 94. 3.8 5. 0.2 0.
92 36
0 08
8 55
97. 97. 2.2 2. 0.2 0.
59 06
0 94
1 00
95. 95. 4.2 4. 0.2 0.
57 63
1 09
3 29
97. 97. 2.8 2. 0.1 0.

Thrissur
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam
Thiruvananth
apuram
Kerala

02
97.
66
98.
26
96.
91
97.
18
96.
64
97.
01

12
98.
61
91.
20
96.
89
95.
87
89.
14
96.
41

0
2.1
3
1.5
9
2.8
7
2.5
7
3.0
9
2.7
7

81
1.
26
8.
72
2.
89
3.
49
9.
92
3.
33

8
0.2
1
0.1
5
0.2
2
0.2
5
0.2
6
0.2
2

07
0.
13
0.
08
0.
21
0.
65
0.
94
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
Number of
households
households
having latrine
not having

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam
Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala

facility within
the premises
Urban Slum
(%)
(%)
96.57 66.36
98.45 61.76
98.24 95.72
94.87 91.72
98.32 98.92
98.31 75.67
94.67 95.13
96.42 94.24
96.32 79.06
97.43 93.21

latrine facility
within the
Urban Slum
(%)
(%)
3.43 33.64
1.55 38.24
1.76
4.28
5.13
8.28
1.68
1.08
1.69 24.33
5.33
4.87
3.58
5.76
3.68 20.94
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.

1
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

82.14 percent at the maximum.

at the minimum and Kannur

slum

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

3
Flush/pour flush latrine
connected to

Area Name

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur

Piped
sewer
system

Septic
tank

Pit latrine

Other
system

Urb
an
(%)

Slu
m
(%)

Urb
an
(%)

Slu
m
(%)

Urb
an
(%)

11.
44
15.
91
15.
01
13.
45
11.

3.9
0
16.
67
19.
75
24.
89
16.

59.
29
60.
24
69.
51
50.
12
60.

81.
48
82.
14
66.
67
40.
78
61.

7.8
7
5.2
7
2.6
1
2.9
9
4.2

Night soil
disposed
into open
drain

Slu
m
(%
)
1.6
7
1.1
9
0.8
0
8.4
1
2.2

With slab/
ventilated
improved
pit

Without
slab/
open pit

Urb
an
(%)

Slu
m
(%)

Urb
an
(%)

18.
94
17.
46
11.
30
30.
44
22.

12.
67

0.3
1
0.1
5
0.2
8
0.2
1
0.3

12.
28
25.
39
18.

Service
Latrine

Slu
m
(%
)
0.2
8
0.2
7
0.3
5
0.3

Urb
an
(%)
0.0
4
0.0
3
0.0
2
0.0
7
0.0

Slu
m
(%
)
0.2
2
0.0
7
0.0

Urb
an
(%)
26.
81
22.
72
13.
91
33.
43
26.

Slu
m
(%)
25.
39

Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam
Thiruvananthap
uram
Kerala

98
16.
69
9.4
1
12.
22
23.
71
14.
70

31
12.
41
6.0
2
8.2
2
16.
56
16.
72

10
59.
14
45.
37
49.
98
45.
18
56.
69

73
62.
51
49.
12
41.
53
46.
04
55.
85

7
3.6
9
11.
73
4.4
8
2.7
5
4.3
9

8
1.1
9
9.7
7
9.2
7
1.5
6
4.0
8

13
18.
54
28.
88
29.
92
25.
72
22.
01

94
15.
10
34.
49
29.
66
24.
52
20.
83

8
0.2
8
1.3
1
1.0
1
0.5
5
0.4
4

2
0.4
7
0.5
4
4.4
9
5.6
4
1.0
2

7
0.6
3
0.4
6
0.3
8
0.2
6
0.2
1

6
8.2
7
0.0
3
2.8
6
4.0
5
0.8
8

40
22.
24
40.
61
34.
40
28.
47
26.
40

15.
10
34.
49
38.
92
26.
08
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

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam
Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala

No latrine within premises

Alternative source
Public latrine
Open
Urban
Slum
Urban
Slum
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
41.71
84.07
58.29
15.93
37.16
90.38
62.84
9.62
39.09
49.13
60.91
50.87
14.51
12.69
85.49
87.31
34.86
41.67
65.14
58.33
52.03
68.49
47.97
31.51
28.06
46.25
71.94
53.75
34.66
38.73
65.34
61.27
34.97
63.80
65.03
36.20
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 HousesUrban And Slum In Kerala 2011census
Waste water outlet connected to

Districts Name

Closed
drainage
Urba
Slum
n
(%)
(%)

Kasaragod

15.17

Kannur

43.62

Kozhikode

42.31

Palakkad

20.20

Thrissur

28.26

Ernakulum

48.32

Alappuzha

24.79

6.93
65.8
1
36.5
3
29.5
8
35.4
5
28.0
9
38.7
1

Open
drainage
Urba
Slum
n
(%)
(%)
40.7
24.2
6
27.9
23.29
4
21.2
18.55
4
38.6
32.32
2
36.3
30.91
4
50.0
19.30
8
19.5
14.58
9

No drainage
Urba
n
(%)
60.63
33.09
39.14
47.48
40.83
32.39
60.63

Slum
(%)
52.3
1
6.25
42.2
3
31.8
0
28.2
1
21.8
3
41.7

Kollam

23.50

Thiruvananthapura
m

29.99

Kerala

33.54

25.2
1
15.0
8
31.7
4

15.02
11.57
21.00

16.4
4
16.5
1
30.7
1

61.47
58.45
45.45

58.3
5
68.4
1
37.5
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

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam
Thiruvananthapuram

Number of households having bathing

facility within the premises
Yes
No
Urban
Slum
Urban
Slum
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
96.31
85.21
3.69
14.79
96.07
96.69
3.93
3.31
93.57
96.52
6.43
3.48
91.58
90.83
8.42
9.17
97.37
98.69
2.63
1.31
96.80
77.97
3.20
22.03
88.14
85.87
11.86
14.13
87.60
84.01
12.40
15.99
15.83
51.75
84.17
48.25

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
LPG/PNG(56.05%) for cooking.

mainly used

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

Fire-wood
Districts Name

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam

Urban

Slum

(%)

(%)
69.4
1
88.6
0
66.8
4
29.8
7
31.5
2
14.9
5
39.9
0
44.6

53.79
69.82
69.95
46.11
47.44
22.01
39.93
44.18

Types of fuel used for cooking

Kerosene
LPG/PNG
Electricity
Slu
Urban Slum Urban Slum Urban
m
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
26.3
0.52
1.11 43.80
0.05
4
0.25

0.37

28.11

0.36

0.75

28.01

0.88

1.23

51.62

0.36

0.66

50.65

1.00

39.3
6

75.59

0.60

0.34

57.49

0.45

0.91

53.32

9.93
30.4
1
67.9
8
66.6
8
41.9
0
58.9
1
52.7

Biogas
Slu
Urban
m
(%)
(%)

Any other
Slu
Urban
m
(%)
(%)

0.41

2.31

1.42

0.83

0.04

0.47

0.74

1.31

0.37

0.05

0.13

0.40

0.55

1.22

1.32

0.05

0.08

0.44

0.10

0.90

0.73

0.04

0.06

0.69

0.34

0.82

0.73

0.10

0.59

3.21

0.72

0.59

0.03

0.03

0.62

0.18

1.33

0.64

0.02

0.69

0.02

1.35

1.66

Thiruvananthapura
m
Kerala

41.28
49.35

7
75.1
1
42.1
6

0.63

0.56

56.05

0.52

2.58

48.41

4
22.4
5
53.7
6

0.03

0.69

0.27

1.31

1.61

0.05

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

Bicycle
Districts Name
Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam
Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala

Urban
(%)
14.73
14.72
16.04
20.23
35.79
34.42
48.87
33.03
18.92
25.57

Slum
(%)
7.76
12.13
18.81
27.14
32.44
35.60
38.32
28.42
11.21
27.29

Scooter/
Motorcycle/Moped
Urban
Slum
(%)
(%)
16.10
10.44
16.20
10.66
24.65
23.09
30.47
34.21
32.09
38.22
42.37
17.57
30.81
29.85
26.62
14.59
34.27
13.23
29.05
28.96

Car/ Jeep/Van
Urban
(%)
8.54
8.96
9.00
11.25
13.04
18.76
9.09
10.71
16.64
12.70

Slum
(%)
4.90
1.10
5.23
13.66
19.08
4.30
12.34
4.93
5.00
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

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur

Radio/
Transistor

Television

Urban
(%)

Slum
(%)

Urban
(%)

23.58

9.15

77.56

46.99
34.30
26.52
37.18

32.3
5
26.6
2
18.9
1
37.2

83.46
77.12
81.14
84.79

Slum
(%)
75.2
3
76.4
7
77.7
2
85.1
8
88.5

Computer/
Laptop
Urban
(%)
16.07
18.36
17.63
18.06
20.38

Telephone/Mo
bile Phone

Slum
(%)
10.5
4

Urban
(%)

Slum
(%)

91.21

81.24

3.68

93.32

91.18

93.11

90.47

89.92

88.49

91.29

89.45

16.4
9
21.8
9
25.0

36.34

Ernakulam

24.23

Alappuzha

16.75

Kollam
Thiruvananthapuram

35.97
32.48

Kerala

0
40.9
2
21.7
2
8.39
19.6
0
27.0
7

89.95
82.95
83.86
84.51
82.24

9
77.4
3
84.9
8
78.8
4
66.7
7
82.7
2

5
26.91
15.23
15.43
25.51
20.36

8.80
17.2
7
16.1
5
13.3
1
19.8
2

94.17

86.23

89.05

90.83

87.68

77.16

86.99

70.67

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 Name

Kasaragod
Kannur
Kozhikode
Palakkad
Thrissur
Ernakulam
Alappuzha
Kollam
Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala

Total number
of households
availing
banking
services
Urban Slum
(%)
(%)
81.05 73.11
86.69 71.32
72.71 57.56
78.70 77.48
76.16 71.14
78.55 32.08
66.61 63.51
69.89 49.25
69.92 39.11
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 V
SUMMARY 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--vis overall situation in
the urban areas of Kerala. The States 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