index

Housing Quality and Housing Services

It is of interest to assess the means and standard of living directly provided by the government and that which is acquired by the household. Shelter is one of the basic needs, and housing conditions are one of the key determinants of the quality of life.

To observe the access to housing facilities, three indicators are used Vis a Vis, proportion of households using electricity, cooking gas and tap water; while the quality of housing stock is evaluated in terms of the material used in the wall and roof, and the type of toilet in the house. All this information is obtained at the household level from the household survey (PSLM) and thus truly reflects the living standards of the district.

Information regarding the type of material used in roof is displayed in Exhibit 2.3.1. The table reveals that about 86 percent of households (45 percent urban and 89 percent rural) reported inadequate (wood) roof material. Iron, cement and RCC are reported by 2 percent of households, while 40 percent of urban households reported roofing with „graders‟.

Exhibit 2.3.1

Material Used in Roof – Percentage of Household [2012-13]

       

Overall%

 

Urban%

 

Rural%

 
             

RCC, RBC

2

14

1

 
           
 

Iron, Cement

   

2

 

1

 

2

 

Garder, T-Iron

10

40

8

 
         
 

Wood etc.

   

86

 

45

 

89

In terms of material used in wall, the majority (91 percent) of households reported the use of mud bricks or mud (Exhibit 2.3.2). Burnt bricks or blocks are used in about 8 percent and 22 percent of rural and urban households respectively.

Exhibit 2.3.2

Wall Structure – Percentage of Households [2012-13]

   

Overall%

 

Urban%

 

Rural%

 
         

Burnt Brick- Blocks

9

22

8

 
         

Mud Bricks/ MUD

 

91

 

78

 

92

 

Wood etc.

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

Source: PSLM, 2012-13

             

Information regarding the type of toilet used by households is furnished in Exhibit 2.3.3. About 7 percent of rural households reported the unavailability of toilet facilities in their house. The table also reveals that the bulk of households (53 percent) reported the use of non-flush toilets. The use of flushes was reported by 82 percent and 38 percent of urban and rural households respectively.

Exhibit 2.3.3

Type of Toilet – Percentage of Households [2012-13]

   

Overall%

 

Urban%

 

Rural%

 
         

Flush

40

82

38

 
         

Non-Flush

 

53

 

17

 

55

 

No Toilet

7

1

7

 

Source: PSLM, 2012-13

             

About 93 percent of households of the district are connected with the grid and use electricity for lighting purposes as evident from the Exhibit 2.3.4. No sharp rural-urban differences exist. About 100 percent and 93 percent of households reported the use of electricity in urban and rural areas respectively.

Exhibit 2.3.4

Source of Lighting – Percentage of Households [2012-13]

   

Overall%

 

Urban%

 

Rural%

 
         

Electricity

93

100

93

 
         

Oil

 

2

 

0.00

 

2

 

Other

5

0.00

5

 

Source: PSLM, 2012-13

             

Exhibit 2.3.5 furnishes information regarding the sources of cooking fuel. Wood and charcoal are the main sources of cooking fuel in rural areas. About 62 percent of households use either wood or charcoal. About 96 percent and 38 percent of urban and rural households respectively reported the use of gas/oil for cooking.

Exhibit 2.3.5

Cooking Fuel – Percentage of Households [2012-13]

   

Overall%

 

Urban%

 

Rural%

 
         

Gas/Oil

40.81

96.81

37.84

 
         

Wood/Charcoal

 

59.19

 

3.19

 

62.16

 

Other

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

Source: PSLM, 2012-13

             

The provision of safe drinking water is an important part of planning for a healthy population. Exhibit 2.3.6 displays the sources of drinking water in the district with urban-rural division. The source of tap water is reported by the majority (83 percent) of households; 93 percent and 82 percent in urban and rural areas respectively. A very low percentage (13 percent) of households fetches water from unsafe sources (uncovered water reservoirs and dug wells).

Exhibit 2.3.6

Source of Drinking Water – Percentage of Households [2012-13]

   

Overall%

 

Urban%

 

Rural%

 
         
               

Tap Water

83

93

82

 
         
         

Hand Pump

 

0.00

 

0.00

 

0.00

 
         

Motor Pump

4

2

4

 
         
         

Dug Well

 

5

 

0

 

6

 
         

Other (Uncovered)

8

6

8

 

Source: PSLM, 2012-13

  • Was this Helpful ?
  • Yes   No
Transport and Communication
District Pishin

Related posts

Khanozai History

admin

Environmental Analysis

admin

Important Institutions

admin

Leave a Comment