GEOFFREY OMEDOAfrica Adaptation Programme

Programme OfficerAAP/UNDP Kenya

Tel: +254-20-7625079/2327359Skype: omedo.makeke

Email: geoffrey.omedo@undp.orgWebsite: http://www.ke.undp.org/

VULNERABILITY OF URBAN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

A CASE STUDY OF KOROGOCHO IN NAIROBI

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION: Background, Problem Statement,

LITERATURE REVIEW:Empirical Studies, Urbanization, Informal settlements,

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & STUDY AREA:

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

KEY DEFINITIONS• Hazard - A dangerous condition or event that threatens

or has the potential for causing injury to life or damage to property or the environment.

• Disaster - A serious disruption of the functioning of a society, causing widespread human, material, or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected society to cope using its own resources.

• Risk - The probability that a particular system or population will be affected by hazards.

• Vulnerability - Potential for loss due to a sudden or gradual environmental interruption.

BACKGROUND-The potential for loss of life and livelihoods due to environmental interruptions is a global phenomenon, but vulnerability is more pronounced in Africa-Over the last 20 years, there has been a notable growth of Nairobi as a regional socio-economic epicenter due to increased urban activities - Increase in urban sprawl and slums which pose significant challenge to the environment and livelihood- Most of the informal settlements in Nairobi and Africa are increasingly vulnerable to environmental hazards and disasters.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND STUDY AREA

Study was conducted in Korogocho located in the Nairobi North District, Kasarani Division, approximately 11 kilometers from the Central Business District. Comprises of nine settlements, namely (Grogan A, Grogan B, Kisumu Ndogo, Nyayo, Highridge, Korogocho A, Korogocho B, Gitathuru and Ngomongo)

Sources and methods of data collection: Study made use of both primary and secondary data through a random survey of households in Korogocho; Random informal interviews, Direct field observation; and 1 Focus Group Discussion

KOROGOCHO AND NAIROBI MAPS

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Common Types of hazards, their impact and coping strategies

TYPOLOGY OF HAZARDS IN KOROGOCHO SLUMBiological Geophysical Hydrological MeteorologicalEpidemics- Cholera, malaria, tuberculosis, dysentery, fungal infections, HIV/AIDs, common colds, flu, malnourishmentInsect Infestation- infestations- Rat infestations

Earthquake- Earth tremors are a common feature but no fatalities were reported Mass movement (dry)- Landslides especially during construction and in river banks

Floods- El Nino floods- Common flash floods- General flooding due to poor draining systems, construction of houses in flood plains and underground water seepage- Flooding due to River Gitathuru and bursting their banks

Storms- Strong storms that washed away houses- Localized storms during the main rainy season

Socio-climatologicalExtreme temperature (i.e. cold and hot), Droughts, Fires

Table 1: Flood occurrence, impact and coping strategies

Year Impact Coping strategies

198919951996199719982003200620092010

People were displaced Adults and children drowned Houses were washed away,

especially those near the river Houses collapsed, especially

those made of mud Houses were filled with water There was outbreak of

waterborne diseases Property and bridges were

destroyed Small livestock were swept

away

Temporarily moved to safer places or higher grounds

Dug channels to facilitate free flow of water

Use “soil” bags or tyres to divert water

The most affected received tents, food, clothes and medicine from Red Cross, the government and church (except in 2003 and 2009)

General flooding renders houses inhabitable in Vietnam, Grogan A and Nyayo Villages

Table 2: Fire occurrence, impact and coping strategies

Year Impact Coping strategies198019931994199920002007200820092010

Some people were burnt to death People were left homeless and

helpless Houses were burnt down Loss of property

Sought refuge and help from friends and relatives

Sought refuge in the community centre

Moved to other areas Went back to the rural home Mobilized ourselves to stop the fire

from spreading The most affected received tents,

food, clothes, household items, medicine, building materials and money from the church, NGOs, government, well wishers, Red Cross, Islamic community, area MP and Councillor (except in 1999 and 2010).

The fire brigade helped to put out the fire

Common types of housing materials in Korogocho

Year Disease Impact Coping strategies

199819992000200220032004200620092010

Cholera Malaria Typhoid TB HIV/AIDS Common

Colds

Some people, especially children died

The cost of medication was too high

People suffered poor health

Moved to designated areas Took preventive measures,

i.e. boiling water for drinking and improving hygiene conditions

Sought own treatment and medication

The affected people received free treatment, vaccine, medicine and food from Red Cross, the government, NGOs and the church (except in 2004)

Table 3: Disease occurrence, impact and coping strategies

Analysis of Hazard Probability and Severity in Korogocho

• This implies that the four most common hazards in korogocho are diseases, floods, fires and droughts

• Droughts have the least probability and severity of occurrence. In the FGDs, respondents reported that droughts lead to secondary impacts in the informal settlement

• Floods, fires and diseases are almost always a factor exacerbated by the living conditions (weighted scale of 3),

River Gitathuru

Exposure indicators: Quality of Housing and rent payable

(Source: Fieldwork)

EXPOSURE TO FLOODS

(Source: Fieldwork)

The risk index for common hazards in Korogocho

DPSIR FRAMEWORK

Adaptation

MitigationDRIVING FORCESPovertyPopulationUrbanizationPolicy

PRESSURESPoor HousingEnvironmental degrad.Poor infrastructure

STATEdisaster prone, insecure,Risky environment (disease, fires, floods,)

IMPACTPovertyDeathsDiseasesHopelessness

RESPONSEPolicyCBO/NGOsCommittee’sAwareness

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS

• Vulnerability of Korogocho to Hazards is a factor of the quality of houses, livelihoods and socio economic resilience

• Common hazards reported are floods, fires, diseases and drought. Diseases are associated with highest vulnerability

• Need for Mitigation and Adaptation measures as captured in the DPSIR

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Urban areas: Adaptation strategies needed • Projected scenarios in GCM Models will affect

vulnerability in informal settlements• Poverty is a major predisposing factor, but local

planning can have a major impact in reducing the levels of suceptability