Climate Change and Migration in Nairobi Environmental Migration and its Urban Manifestation at the Local Scale

Transcription

1 Climate Change and Migration in Nairobi Environmental Migration and its Urban Manifestation at the Local Scale Cecilia Kinuthia Njenga (UN Habitat, Nairobi) Paola Kim Blanco (Columbia University, New York City) May 2009 Introduction This study focuses on environmental migration in Kenya. Personal interviews were conducted with a random sample in two major slums in Nairobi (Kibera and Mathare) assuming that most of rural migrants are likely to stay in affordable settlements. Migrants are classified as environmental migrants, if they mentioned at least one environmental related issue as a reason for their migration into Nairobi. The main environmental reasons listed by interviewees were lack of rainfall or drought and floods. In that regard, a spatial pattern was also found, where droughts were mainly mentioned by people migrating from the southeastern region and floods from the Nyanza and western regions in Kenya. This paper will argue that there is evidence of environmental migration in Nairobi. Statistical significant changes in temperature and rainfall levels in Kenya between and are associated with the increased number of environmental migrants since Literature review Population migration is the process of changing residence from one place to another on a permanent or temporary basis (Kliot 2004). A basic conceptual framework for migration is the push pull model (Black, McLean Hilker et al. 2004; Kliot 2004; Renaud, Bogardi et al. 2007), which suggests the presence of two contrasting forces: stressing factors that push individuals out of their place of origin; and incentives that pull individuals into a different location. Kliot describes un or underemployment, ethnic and religious tensions and natural disasters as significant pushing factors whereas labor opportunities, political and religious tolerance, medical and social provisions and environmental security (availability of natural resources) are mentioned as potential pulling factors for individuals. Additionally Faist introduces a third component that regards the sociological concept of chain migration (Faist 1997 in Berger 2004). Basically chain migration suggests that the presence of social networks is an indispensible factor for future migration and the information provided by the the first migrants, if positive, will stimulate a more sustained and accelerated migration (Faist 1997 in Berger 2004; (Black, McLean Hilker et al. 2004). Although the concept of environmental migration has been often defined by several authors 1 (Black 2001), there is still a lack of theoretical consensus on how to characterize it; whether they are migrants or can be considered refugees. Environmental migration is often referred as the change of residence due to resource scarcity and/or natural disasters. As such, Beniston argues that under adverse conditions, it can be surmised that the severe depletion of an essential resource could lead to out migration, with persons moving from a region affected by 1 El Hinnawi (1985) and Jacobson (1988) classified migrants according to the extent of new residence (temporal or permanent) and the environmental stress (progressive, permanent or temporal). The International Organization for Migration (1992) not only included El Hinnawi s and Jacobson s classification but also included speed as another variable (emergency or slow onset movements) as well as whether the movement was internally or internationally. Suhrke (1993) categorized environmental migration by source (whether it was induced by deforestation, rising sea levels, desertification and drought, and land, water and air degradation (Black 2001). 1

2 resource loss to regions where the resource is still sufficient to sustain both the local and the migrant populations (Beniston 2004). Environmental adversity acts as the pushing factor that motivates people to relocate. However not every migration case under adverse climatic conditions should be considered as environmental migration. For instance, nomads from Kenya s arid northern region, migrate as part of their pastoral livelihoods; this behavior should be understood as part of the community tradition and not as a response to climate adversity (Clarke and Noin 1998; Berger 2004). This becomes a problem when the climatic conditions change unexpectedly. More too often farmers face difficulties to sustain themselves and their families. Under the adverse effects of changes in climate, subsistence farmers became more vulnerable to food insecurity and poverty. Whenever it is possible, a common response is to migrate; hence the environmentally induced change of residence, motivated by the absence of an adequate subsistence level, should be understood as environmental migration. On the other hand Brown (1970) and El Hinnawi (1985) began the discussion on whether environmental migrants should also be recognized as environmental refugees (Black 2001; Kliot 2004; Renaud, Bogardi et al. 2007). Moreover, Jacobson extended this definition to include people who were forcibly evacuated from their homes due to large development projects or industrial catastrophes (Jacobsen 1988 in Kliot 2004). Although there is not legal acknowledgement of this concept by the United Nations (UN), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 1993 identified environmental degradation as one of the root causes for refugee flow (UNHCR 1993 in Beniston 2004). Despite terminologies, indeed people could be streaming out of rural areas due to environmental stresses (broadly defined) in an involuntary basis. As more labor opportunities and access of education and health services concentrate within cities, it is expected that people will consider relocating to those areas. As Hanna (1969), Hope (1998) et al have argued, migration is one of the main reasons for urban growth in African countries (Hanna and Hanna 1969; Hope 1998; Landau 2007). In the presence of changes in climate, the question is whether environmental migration should be also considered as a potential factor of rapid urbanization (or slum growth rates) in Kenya. Slums are informal settlements that configure the poorest portions of the city. UN Habitat has identified slumdwellers as urban households lacking one or more of the following: durable housing; sufficient living area; access to an improved water source; access to improved sanitation; or secure tenure (UN Habitat in United Nations Population Division 2007).Usually neglected by the local authorities, slums are crowded places in which people inhabit under adverse hygienic and social conditions. For instance, 60% of the population that lives in Nairobi is a slum dweller (Commission on Social Determinants of Health 2008) who occupies just 5% of the city s residential land (Henry, Yongsheng et al. 2006). Those social and physical conditions have serious implications in terms of environmental health, human security and urban services; in addition, they are often correlated with urban income inequalities. The persistence of urban poverty will ultimately augment the number of slum dwellers within cities; and Nairobi is not the exception. Methodology With aims to obtain a realistic assessment of the environmental migration in Kenya, a survey was conducted within two main slums in Nairobi: Kibera and Mathare. Assuming that most migrants prefer to stay in affordable settlements, 500 random and representative interviews were administered by Umande Trust (UT) staff 2 from May 2 Umande Trust (UT) is a local NGO headquartered in Olympic Estate, Kibera. UT works at the community level, mainly at urban and peri urban area, promoting environmental awareness and sustainable development. 2

3 6 th to May 17 th,2009 in both slums. The localities surveyed include Laini Saba, Shimoni, Silanga, Lindi, Gatwekera and Toi market in Kibera; Mashimoni, Huruma, Ngei, Bondeni and Mathare s sections 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B and 10 in Mathare. This study specifically assumes that internal migrants will face economic limitations; therefore it is presumable that internal migrants will settle down in slums, or at least temporarily. The sample size was based on Salant et al (1994) estimation for a population of one million or more 3 considering a + 5% sample error tolerance and 50% 50% weighted distribution (Salant and Dillman 1994). For this study, ruralurban migrants are defined as those individuals who declared themselves as Kenya naturals, meaning that it excluded foreign migrants or people that did not mention their place of origin. Environmental migrants regard those interviewees who are classified as rural urban migrants and mention at least one environmental factor as a reason to relocate. In addition, several external data sources were consulted in order to compare and contrast the results obtained from the survey. The climatic data was gathered from EM DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster database and the LEWS Livestock Early Warning System (Texas A&M University 2008; Universite Catholique de Louvain 2008). The former included the number of people affected by major natural disasters in Kenya from 1961 to 2007, whereas the latter consisted of average annual temperature and rainfall levels by region 4 during the same period. Population and poverty data was obtained from the Gridded Population of the Globe, the Global Urban Rural Mapping Project and the Global Poverty Mapping Project (Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Columbia University, International Food Policy Research Institute (IPFRI) et al. 2004; Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Columbia University and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) 2005; Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) 2005). All three data sets included geographical references by sub national or district levels in Kenya and were based on official records from the 1999 National Census (Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Planning and National Development, Government of Kenya). The geographic positioning of places of origin mentioned during the survey was located using Google Earth and the spatial analysis was conducted in ArcGIS version 9.3. Results From the total 500 surveys conducted only 485 were valid; the rest had too much missing information to complete the analysis. The valid data set comprised a population of 51% females and 49% males with an average age of 40 years for both groups on January 1 st Evidence of rural urban migration was found in 88% of the valid cases, excluding foreign migrants (3%) and Nairobi naturals (8%). Figure 1 Distribution of Environmental Migrants by place of origin 3 There are no official records for the current population in Nairobi or in Nairobi slums. In order to calculate the sample size, the slum population was estimated following UN Population Division figures for 2005 (United Nations Population Division, 2007). Assuming that on average 60% of the population in Nairobi are slum dwellers (Commission on Social Determinants of Health 2008) then 1.653million people lived in Nairobi slums at that time. Salant et al (1994) estimates a 380+ sample size for a population ranging from one to ten million; hence a sample size of 500 seems appropriate. 4 LEWS data set includes 109 monitoring points spread throughout Kenya except for the Nyanza and western region; hence it only monitors climatic conditions from the north, south and central parts of the country. 3

4 Source: Data collected from the survey; Center for International Earth Science Information Network (2005). As mentioned before, there is no single motivation but a multiplicity of reasons that household members take into consideration when they decide to migrate. The primary reason given as a motivation to migrate was the desire to increase wealth and other income related opportunities (76%), followed by environmental factors (44%) and access to a better education and urban services (28%). Interestingly (and fortunately) only 9% of the rural migrants mentioned tribal conflict as a reason to migrate, whereas other reasons (like marriage) were mentioned by 11% of rural migrants, mainly women. As such, people that mentioned at least one environmentally related issue as a reason to migrate crop failure, natural disasters, lack of wood for cooking, land degradation, inadequate access to safe drinking water, or other if applicable were considered environmental migrants. Less than half of rural urban migrants fall into that category. The distribution of environmental migrants can be observed in Figure 1. Figure 2 Main Environmental drivers as reasons to migrate 4

5 Source: Data collected from the survey; Center for International Earth Science Information Network (2005). When interviewers asked to qualitatively describe the particular circumstances that environmental migrants faced in their places of origin, drought, rainfall unpredictability or the lack thereof was mentioned by 43% of the sample; floods were mentioned secondly by 17% of the sample followed by lack of farming technology or adequate equipment (12%), land scarcity (11%), land degradation (10%) and resource depletion (2%). Thus the main environmental reasons to migrate from the countryside to Nairobi were persistent droughts and floods; see figure 2 Figure 3 Total Population affected by drought and floods in Kenya. Source: EM DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster database(universite Catholique de Louvain 2008) 5

6 Note: The total affected population in Kenya by droughts has been scaled by 0.1 in order to fit accordingly into the scale of the graph; the latter means that on average in there were 30 million people affected and in there were 28.5 million. As figure 3 show, the two main environmental drivers that severely affect the Kenyan population are droughts and floods. Within this set, a temporal divide between the periods and can be observed. The increased frequency of droughts and floods suggests a significant change in temperature and rainfall levels between those periods, thus a statistical t test of average annual temperature and precipitation was conducted to validate the latter (see table 1). Table 1 Results from the t test (paired sample) Paired differences Paired samples test Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean t df Sig (2 tailed) Pair 1 Temp (before) Temp (after) Pair 2 Precip (before) Precip (after) Source: Texas A&M University (2008). LEWS Livestock Early Warning System, Texas A&M University and Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program (GL CRSP). Temperature is measured in degrees Celsius and precipitation in centimeters. In regards to temperature, assuming variance homogeneity and normality, it can be observed that on average, there is a statistical significant difference in the temperature between (before) and (after) with a confidence level of %. The latter was concluded after having a p value (0.007) significantly lower than the alpha value (0.05). Additionally, the t value ( ) was higher than the critical value at 95% confidence and 108 degrees of freedom (~1.984). The difference in means from 109 independent observations suggest that on average the post 1990 period in Kenya was C hotter than before with a standard deviation equal to C. Similarly, there is a statistically significant difference in precipitation between (before) and (after) with a confidence level of %, assuming variance homogeneity and normality. The p value (0.000) is significantly lower than the pre established alpha value (0.05); additionally the t value (13.15) was higher than the critical value at 95% confidence and 108 degrees of freedom (~1.984). The difference in means from the same 109 independent observations suggest that on average the post 1990 period in Kenya was on average mm drier per day, with a standard deviation equal to 0.33 mm. Therefore there is strong confidence that the post 1990 period has been hotter and drier than before; hence the sample of environmental migrants was also temporally divided to see if any change could be denoted. Figure 4 Environmental Migration in Kenya 6

7 Source: data collected from the survey; Center for International Earth Science Information Network (2005). The image on the left shows the environmental migration during (before); the image on the right illustrates the environmental migration that happened during (after). Interestingly 74% of environmental migrants arrived to Nairobi between 1991 and 2008 whereas 26% did so before 1990, consequently the number of migrants has increased in the last 20 years (see figure 4). However it would be misleading to assume that the change in climatic conditions is the only reason that the number of environmental migrants has increased. It is possible that environmental migrants from the pre 1990 period returned to their places of origin or migrated to other urban settlements. It is also probable that the rapid population growth that Kenya has been experiencing in the past 50 years accounts also for this increasing trend (UN Habitat 2006). Nevertheless, an association between the increased number of environmental migrants and the change in climatic conditions can be assumed. Besides the temporal pattern, a spatial pattern between droughts and floods the two main environmental drivers can be inferred. Figure 5 shows a prevalence of drought motivation in the southeastern region comprising Machakos, Kitui and Mwingi districts whereas floods were mainly mentioned in the western region including Budalangi, Nyando and Ndhiwa districts. Figure 5 Droughts and Floods as main reasons to migrate 7

8 Source: Data collected from surveys; Center for International Earth Science Information Network (2005). Discussion As it was mentioned before, there might be an association between climatic conditions and the increasing number of environmental migrants in Nairobi. Environmental migrants seemed geographically clustered according to its specific motive to migrate, particularly in regards to droughts and floods. However, when mapped with socioeconomic variables, environmental migration might evidence other associations as well. As noted in figures 4 and 5, the central districts represent the lowest percentages of rural poverty at the national scale 5 and relatively low density of rural poor. The desire for a better income level act as a pulling factor, not only for environmental migrants but for rural urban migrants in general. In the same regard, results from the survey show a similar pattern. The majority of environmental migrants (65%) declared that household income levels were better from what they used to have in the countryside, whereas only 3% mentioned that it was worse and 2% that it was the same than before 6. In addition, 88% of environmental migrants responded to have in overall a better living standard in the city than what they had back home; 5% considered it was the same and 5% that it was worse from what they used to have before 7. The latter evidences that although there are strong environmental reasons behind the motivation to migrate, there are also socioeconomic components embedded into that dimension. Therefore, it can be misleading to treat the environment as the sole reason to migrate; rather it should be considered as part of a set of motivations. Conclusions 5 There is no data available for northeastern districts in Kenya. 6 31% of the interviewees considered this question too personal and decided not to answer it. 7 Only 3% did not answer the question. 8

9 In regards to environmental migration to Nairobi, a temporal and spatial pattern was found. The temporal pattern refers to the association between the significant change of climatic conditions between and and the increase in the number of environmental migrants to Nairobi for the same periods. The spatial pattern relates to the two main environmental factors mentioned by migrants. Droughts have been a persistent motivation to relocate for the population of the southeast region whereas floods are a constant reason to migrate for the people of the Nyanza and western districts. It has been evidenced that environmental stresses act as pushing factors for environmental migrants. A similar association can be made when environmental migrants are mapped together with poverty figures. The desire for a better income level act as a pulling factor, not only for environmental migrants but for rural urban migrants in general. 9

10 Bibliography Adow, M. (2008). Pastoralists in Kenya. Forced Migration Review. Oxford, UK, Refugee Studies Center, University of Oxford. 31. Beniston, M. (2004). Issues relating to environmental change and population migrations. A climatologist's perspective. Environmental Change and its implications for population migration. Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Berger, T. (2004). Innovation as an alternative to migration? Exemplary results from a multiple agent programming model applied to Chile. Environmental Change and its implications for population migration. Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Black, R. (2001). Environmental refugees: myth or reality? New Issues in Refugee research. Sussex, UK., University of Sussex. Black, R., D. Kniveton, et al. (2008). Demographics and Climate Change: Future Trends and their policy implications for mitigation. Sussex, UK., Development Research Center on Migration, Globalization and Poverty. Black, R., L. McLean Hilker, et al. (2004). Migration and pro poor policy in East Africa. UK, Sussex Centre for Migration Research. C7. Boko, M., I. Niang, et al. (2007). Africa. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof and e. al. Cambridge, UK., Cambridge University Press: Brown, O. (2007). Climate change and forced migration: Observations, projections and implications. Human Development Report 2007/ Geneva, Switzerland. 17: 35. Carbajal, L. (2007). Impacts of Climate Change on Human Development. Human Development Report 2007/08. New York, United Nations: 31. Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Columbia University and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) (2005). Gridded Population of the World v3 (GPWv3): Population Density Grids. Palisades, Columbia University. Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Columbia University, International Food Policy Research Institute (IPFRI), et al. (2004). Global Rural Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP): Urban/Rural Extents., Columbia University. Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), C. U. (2005). Small Area Estimates of Poverty and Inequality 2005, CIESIN. Central Bureau of Statistics, The World Bank, et al. (2005). Geographic dimensions of well being in Kenya. Who are where are the poor? Nairobi, CBS, The World Bank, SIDA. Christensen, J. H., A. Hewitson, et al. (2007). Regional Climate Projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning and e. al. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA., Cambridge University Press. City Council of Nairobi (2007). City of Nairobi Environment Outlook. Executive Summary. Nairobi, CCN, UNEP and Kenya Ministry of Environment. Clarke, J. and D. Noin (1998). Population and Environment in Arid regions. UK, UNESCO and The Parthenon Publishing Group. Commission on Social Determinants of Health (2008). Chapter 6: Healthy Places healthy people. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health.. Geneva, World Health Organization. Garau, P., E. Sclar, et al. (2005). A home in the city. Task force on Improving the life of slum dwellers. London, Earthscan. Geda, A., N. de Jong, et al. (2001). Determinants of Poverty in Kenya: Household Level Analysis. Nairobi, Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis KIPPRA. Discussion paper #9. Giannini, A., M. Biasutti, et al. (2008). "A global perspective on African Climate." Climatic Change 90(4): Gleditsch, N. P., R. Nordås, et al. (2007). Climate change and conflict: the migration link. Coping with crisis, International Peace Academy. 10

11 Hanna, W. J. and J. L. Hanna (1969). "Influence and Influentials in two urban centered African communities." Comparative politics 2(1): Henry, R., Z. Yongsheng, et al. (2006). "Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries Kenyan case study." Waste Management 26. Hope, K. R. (1998). "Urbanization and urban growth in Africa." Journal of Asian and African Studies 33(4): Infrastructure and Economic Services Division (IESD) and Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA) (2008). Nairobi Metro 2030, A vision for a World Class Metropolis, First and Foremost in Africa and the world. Nairobi, Kenya, Ministry of Nairobi Metropolitan Development. IPCC 2007: Summary for Policymakers (2007). Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. S. Solomon and et.al. Kenya Meteorological Department. (2008). "The climate of Nairobi city." Retrieved December 18th, 2008, from Kniveton, D., K. Schmidt Verkerk, et al. (2008). Climate Change and Migration: Improving Methodologies to Estimate Flows. IOM Migration Research Series. Geneva, Switzerland. 33: 72. Kliot, N. (2004). Environmentally induced population movements: their complex sources and consequences. Environmental Change and its implications for population migration. Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kolmannskog, V. (2008). Future floods of refugees. A comment on climate change conflict and forced migration. Oslo, Norwegian Refugee Council. Landau, L. (2007). Urban Trends and challenges. Global Urban Poverty: setting the agenda. A. M. Garland, M. Massoumi and B. A. Ruble. Washington, D.C., Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and USAID. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR (May 16th 2008,). Environmental migrants and refugees. Refugees Magazine, UNHCR. Parry, M. L., O. F. Canziani, et al. (2007). IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,. Cambridge, UK,: 976. Renaud, F., J. J. Bogardi, et al. (2007). Control, adapt or flee. How to face environmental migration? Bonn, UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security. Salant, P. and D. A. Dillman (1994). How to conduct your own survey. US, John Wiley and sons, Inc. Sivakumar, M. V. K. and J. Hansen (2007). Climate Prediction and Agriculture: Summary and the way forward. Climate Prediction and Agriculture: Advances and Challenges. New York, Springer: 13. Texas A&M University (2008). LEWS Livestock Early Warning System, Texas A&M University and Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program (GL CRSP). The World Bank (2008). World Development Indicators Washington DC, The World Bank. The World Bank and Columbia University (2005). Natural disasters hotspots Drought hazard frequency and distribution, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, EI. The World Bank and Columbia University (2005). Natural disasters hotspots Flood hazard frequency and distribution, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, EI. Timmerman, J. (2008). The Edge of the City. Wageningen University and Research Centre Department of Social Sciences. Wageningen, The Netherlands, Wageningen University. M Sc in Management of Agro Ecological Knowledge and Social Change: 91. UN Habitat (2006). State of the world's cities 2006/7. Nairobi, United Nations. UN Habitat (2008). The State of the African cities Nairobi, UN Habitat and UNECA. United Nations Population Division (2001). Population, Environment and Development New York, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations Population Division (2003). Urban Agglomerations New York, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations Population Division (2003). Urban and Rural Areas New York, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 11

12 United Nations Population Division (2007). Urban Population, Environment and Development New York, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Universite Catholique de Louvain (2008). EM DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster database, Universite Catholique de Louvain,. University of Michigan, University of Sheffield, et al. (2001). Slums Growth, Worldmapper. University of Michigan, University of Sheffield, et al. (2001). Urban Slums, Worldmapper. Unruh, J., M. Krol, et al. (2004). Environmental Change and its implications for population migration. Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Woldemarian, E. and L. Mohammed (2003). Poverty Mapping for Selected African countries, Economic Commission for Africa: 28p. 12

13 APPENDIX I FOLIO INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS SURVEY To be filled by the interviewer Date: Name of interviewer: Settlement: Sector: I. Household information 1. House ID number: 2. Name of the occupier: ID no: 3. Age of the occupier(as in January 1 st, 2009): 4. Gender of the occupier: F M 5. Which is your status as occupier? Structure Owner Tenant Other (please specify) 6. Number of occupants in the structure: more? please specify: 7. Please state the age and gender of the rest of occupants in the structure: Family member 1 age: gender F M Family member 2 age: gender F M Family member 3 age: gender F M Family member 4 age: gender F M Family member 5 age: gender F M If the interviewed has more than 5 family members living in the same house, please write them down in the extra papers provided. Do not forget to include the record as part of this folio survey. 8. Please specify the number of rooms in your house: II. Family Information 9. Are you married? If you do, please provide the number of wives that you have. Y N Number of wives: 13

14 10. Do you have children? If you do, please provide ages and gender of each one. Y N Children 1 age: gender F M Children 2 age: gender F M Children 3 age: gender F M Children 4 age: gender F M Children 5 age: gender F M If the interviewed has more than 5 children please write them down in the extra papers provided. Do not forget to include the record as part of this folio survey. 11. Which is your position within your family structure? First born 2 nd child 3 rd child 4 th child III. Immigration information Other (please specify) 12. When you arrived to Nairobi, was that your first time in the city? Y N 13. If you answered no in the previous question, please select if the time period for each stay was: 1 st visit less than 1 month less than 2 months less than 3 months less than 6 months 2 nd visit less than 1 month less than 2 months less than 3 months less than 6 months 3 rd visit less than 1 month less than 2 months less than 3 months less than 6 months If the interviewed has come to Nairobi more than 3 times, please write them down in the extra papers provided. Do not forget to include the record as part of this folio survey. 14. Where did you live before you came to this settlement? I was born in this settlement (jump to section III) In another slum in Nairobi In a formal residential area in Nairobi Outside Nairobi (please specify the location) 15. When did you arrive to Nairobi? (year) 16. How long have you been living in? This settlement: (in years) This structure: (in years) 17. Why did you choose to stay in this structure? please select all that apply Affordable Connectivity to roads and transportation Marriage Job opportunity 14

15 Access to services: water, waste management, electricity, etc House security (less probability of being evicted) Recommendation from a friend/ relative Other (please specify) 18. Did you first arrive? Alone With my wife/ husband With my entire family With friends Other (please specify) 19. Did anyone help you to settle down in Nairobi or in this settlement? Y N Can you tell us who? 20. Why did you move to Nairobi? Please choose all that apply 1. Increase income 7. Eviction from my land 2. Natural disaster 8. Education for me/ family 3. Job opportunity 9. Fail of crops 4. Lack of wood for cooking 10. Access to health facilities 5. Tribal conflict 11. Not enough access to safe drinking water 6. Land degradation 12. Other (please specify) 21. If your answer in the previous question included options 2,4,6,9 or 11 please explain your personal/ family situation: 22. Please prioritize in order of importance the issues that you specified as reasons to move to Nairobi: Increase income Eviction from my land Natural disaster Education for me/ family Job opportunity Fail of crops Lack of wood for cooking Access to health facilities Tribal conflict Not enough access to safe drinking water Land degradation Other (please specify) In this question it is expected to have blank options if the interviewed did not select all options from the previous question. Please assist the interviewed in determining the min max scale (i.e. the number of options selected from question 19) 23. If your answer in question 19 was fail of crops, please specify the reason of such failure: 24. Is your family here with you now or still at home? Here with me in the settlement They are back home 25. Are you the owner of a parcel/ livestock in your home land? Yes No 15

16 26. Do you have any chance to inherit a parcel/ livestock in your home land? Yes No 27. Have you considered going back to your home land? Yes No Don t know 28. Please describe under which conditions would you go back to your home land? (even if it is in the long run) 29. Do you send remittances to your homeland? Yes No (jump to section III) 30. How often do you send remittances to your homeland? (in months): 31. On average, how much do you send in remittances to your homeland? (in Ksh): III. Income/welfare perception information 32. Are you (or any other household member in Nairobi) currently employed? Yes No (jump to next section) 33. How many other household members (living in Nairobi) contribute with the total monthly income? More than How many others are dependent from the household income? 35. Do you consider that the current household income is enough to cover all the households basic needs? Yes No 36. If your answer in the previous question was no, how much more do you estimate will be enough to cover all households basic needs? (in Ksh): 37. Do you think that the current household income is: Better from the one that I used to earn back home Worse than I used to earn back home I earn the same here respect to what I used to earn back home 38. In overall, would you consider your current situation in the city as better, worse or the same than what you had back home? Better Worse 16

17 The same Please specify why? 17