Housing_UNRWA_HR

UNRWA - Near East Project
Assessment of
Housing Conditions
of Palestine Refugees
Henri Rueff
Alain Viaro
Thematic Report - May 2007
Project coordinated by:
J. Al Husseini, R. Bocco,
M. Brunner and F. Lapeyre

Creative layout by Jack A. Rabah
Cover photo Copyright UNRWA Photo Library

UNRWA-NEP Thematic Report
Assessment of Housing Conditions of
Palestine Refugees
Henri Rueff
Alain Viaro
November 2007

n n
Assessment of Housing Conditions of Palestine Refugees
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................7
1. Main findings ......................................................................................................................................................8
2. Policy relevance...................................................................................................................................................9
3. Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................10
4. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................14
5. Objectives..........................................................................................................................................................15
6. Crowding in housing.......................................................................................................................................16
8. Appliances owned...........................................................................................................................................24
9. Structural defects, house types, tenure and construction material .....................................................30
10. Neighbourhood public spaces, green spaces and recreation .............................................................35
11. Access, mobility, paved streets and transportation networks .............................................................38
12. Respiratory problems caused by the housing environment ...............................................................42
13. Gastro intestinal problems caused by the housing environment ......................................................44
14. Proposals for further investigation.............................................................................................................46
15. References ......................................................................................................................................................47
List of Tables..........................................................................................................................................................48
List of Figures........................................................................................................................................................49

n n
Abbreviations
COHRE Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions
FAFO Fagbevegelsens Senter for Forskning (Institute for Applied International Studies
IDF Israel Defense Force
OPT Occupied Palestinian Territories
SAR Syrian Arab Republic
SHC Special hardship case
UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
WHO World Health Organization

n n
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Guy Siri and Muna Budeiri at UNRWA for their insights and comments on this report,
which greatly helped sharpening its content. We are indebted to Jalal Al Husseini and Jaber Suleiman
for having shared their expertise and knowledge on Palestine refugees, explained UNRWA’s position on
various issues, and provided us with ideas and answers to our numerous questions. Matthias Brunner
was of invaluable help in assisting us for our data organization and analyses, and made much of his
time available to discuss results. The core team of the project was remarkable in providing drafters
with the best possible working conditions. Our gratitude goes to Riccardo Bocco, Luigi Di Martino
and Elisabeth Nyffenegger for their assistance. We are thankful to the people working at Datadoxa,
especially to Celine Calve, Christian Buhler, Benjamin Firmenich and Markus Peter, who went over our
various analytical syntaxes and reviewed our tables and figures. We would like to thank Praveen Bhalla
forhereditingworkonourchapter.Finally,wewerewarmlywelcomedbyrefugeesandcampmanagers
who let us see the living condition they endure. We hope that the housing conditions portrayed in this
work will assist in better understanding needs for better housing to Palestine refugees.

n n
1. Main findings
There is a sharp variation in housing conditions of refugees living in camps and outside camps in
all locations: they are generally inferior in camps than outside camps.
Overcrowding affects a large proportion of refugees in all locations. Those living in camps are
proportionally much more likely to face overcrowding. Interestingly, households’ income has a
limited effect on levels of overcrowding. Households larger than seven members and living in
camps in Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic are much more exposed to overcrowding than
households elsewhere.
The population density of registered refugees (pers./km2
) is critical and comparable, if not higher,
than that of the densest administrative units in the world. The average density of camps in the
Syrian Arab Republic appears to be twice as high as in other locations, due to two camps having
extreme levels of density, which pulls the average upwards. Lebanon has the highest proportion
of camps with a density superior to 100,000 pers./km2
, which makes it the most critical field in
terms of camp density. This finding is consistent with the visible vertical extension of houses. The
status of refugees and restrictions enforced by host authorities seem to be the main reasons for
the population density in camps.
Electricity reaches most houses, regardless of residence location. Televisions and refrigerators are
thetwomostcommonlyownedappliancesfoundinhouseholdsinallthelocations.Airconditioners,
private cars, sewing machines and water filters are the least common. The unequal ownership of
appliances in camps and outside camps confirms the uneven distribution of income between the
two categories of refugees. Except for the commonly found appliances (TV, refrigerators), refugees
living outside the camps possess more appliances than refugees living in the camps.
The majority of refugees report the lack of recreational space and public spaces in their
neighbourhoods.
Houses in camps have more structural defects than those outside camps.
A paved path leading to the front door of houses is found more often outside the camps than in
camps. The situation in camps in Lebanon is the worst, with a large majority of refugees lacking
paved access to their residence. Students endure lengthy commutes to their schools, regardless
of residence location.
Refugees in camps in Lebanon reported higher levels of dissatisfaction at the lack of public
transportation close to their residence.
The choice of energy, quality of ventilation and occurrence of humidity in dwellings have the
strongest effects on respiratory problems, though in varying degrees at different locations. There
seems to be a lower incidence of respiratory problems in the Syrian Arab Republic, possibly due to
the use of diesel fuel as the main form of energy for heating. In other locations, on the other hand,
the use of fuelwood tends to increase the incidence of respiratory problems.
In this report‘site’refers to camp/non-camp and location or field refers to country or territory.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

n n
2. Policy relevance
Assistance should give priority to refugees living inside the camps. It should target critical problems
such as overcrowding, density, sewerage connections, toilets, kinds of energy used, means of
transportation, and structural strength of houses. Solutions for density and overcrowding should be
sought, such as negotiating for the extension of camps and finding ways for large families to extend
their houses, to split up among different houses, or be relocated in larger houses where possible. The
camp of Ein el Tal has demonstrated how effective solutions can be found.
Additional surveys could better identify the factors influencing levels of crowding (temporarily whilst
youngsters are studying and staying with their parents, or in poor economic situations). Additional
research could provide a more accurate assessment of the needs of the camps (discussed below under
further investigation needed).

n 10 n
3. Introduction
Housingconditionsaffectthephysicalandpsychologicalhealthofdwellers,moresotheunderprivileged
communities with an unsettled status and unstable livelihoods. Housing for Palestine refugees has
beenakeyissuesincethebeginningoftheUNRWAmandatein1949.Habitationincampsevolvedfrom
tents and one-room shelters provided 50 years ago to the vertical and horizontal sprawl of houses built
according to needs and assets of dwellers. The often overcrowded camps have only a limited amount
of land so that extending them is not always possible. Thus, when not regulated by host governments,
floors have been added to houses to accommodate growing families.
Population growth in camps has spurred the demand for services and housing. However, UNRWA’s
budget has not increased in proportion to the growing refugee population. This has affected the
provision of services and increased the difficulties in meeting needs (FAFO, 2003a). Additionally, the
status of Palestine refugees in their host countries has remained provisional for more than 50 years.
This requires that refugees be provided, at the very least, with acceptable accommodation, sanitation,
community services and access to jobs. Housing rehabilitation programmes, which are committed to
assuring housing rights, have targeted hardship cases in particular, to assist them in satisfying their
basic housing needs.
The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) defines seven pillars of housing rights: (i) security
of tenure, which gives housing a legal basis that protects dwellers from eviction; (ii) availability of
services, materials, facilities and infrastructure, which are necessary attributes of decent housing
conditions; (iii) affordability, which ensures that resources allocated to housing are not at the expense
of other vital needs; (iv) habitability of housing, which ensures sufficient individual space, adequate
heatingandcooling,sanitationandprotectionagainstnaturalelements;(v)accessibility,whichensures
adequate shelter for physically or financially disadvantaged groups; (vi) location, which ensures that
dwellings are in the vicinity of economic, administration and health centres for accessing jobs, supplies
and services; and (vii) culturally appropriate housing, which ensures the protection of cultural identity
and that houses are suitable for worshipping rites.
The Principles of Healthy Housing established by the World Health Organization (WHO) seek to ensure
an adequate and healthy environment in housing, considering that it is “the environmental factor
most frequently associated with disease conditions in epidemiological analyses; i.e. inadequate and
deficient housing and living conditions are invariably associated with higher mortality and morbidity
rates”(in Leckie, 2000).
Additional housing rights are to be considered in the case of refugees. While people in exile may be
granted all the above housing rights, these may nevertheless fail to provide a sense of home. Refugees
often endure a double deprivation due to the uncertain return to where is home following the evicting
authorities reluctance to their repatriation coupled to the unwillingness of the host country to grant
full rights (Sayyigh, 2005). Sayyigh (2005) also describes home for refugees as “[…] a symbol of loss,
as ultimate goal of struggle, and also as base of daily life needs”. While house refers to the physical
structure sheltering dwellers, home refers to a town, a village or a neighborhood with which a person
identifies. Palestine refugees have kept and transmitted objects across generations as evidence of their
house and land ownership in pre-1948 Palestine.
In many cases, refugees have strived to reconstruct
as closely as possible the atmosphere of the village of origin by reuniting relatives and neighbours.
Despite the temporary character of housing in camps, achieving satisfactory habitation standards for
refugees is essential for their sustained existence (FAFO, 1997).
Assisting with the provision of the highest possible standards of housing may thus be perceived
as a way to create a new sense of home, as opposed to the symbolic meaning of the original home
associated with the right of return. In response to this contradiction, one of the Pinheiro Principles
(COHRE, 2005) for refugee housing states that the right of housing and land restitution should be
granted (second principle) while at the same time providing refugees with adequate housing in host
countries (eighth principle).
The key (miftah) is the main symbol‘tying’Palestine refugees to what is considered home

n 11 n
Moreover, long-term rehabilitation projects to address the deterioration of housing conditions should
not compromise the Palestine refugees’ right of return, to which they aspire, according to United
Nations Resolution 194 (Takkenberg and Mukhles, 2005). And this right should not prevent refugees
from being granted decent housing in their host countries. Neither should it hinder camp managers
and host authorities from developing long-term urban master plans for refugee camps.
Analyzing refugees’ housing conditions cannot be limited to the study of the close vicinity and
environment of the dwellings. Their living conditions depend on mobility, access to markets and jobs,
and availability of efficient community services. Mobility and access to jobs are in turn dependent
on the status of the refugees in the host country, their social integration, levels of discrimination,
location of their residence – whether at the periphery or close to town centres – availability of roads
and transportation, political stability and security.
Palestine refugees’ conditions vary considerably according to the environment of the host country.
Freedomofmobilityandintegrationcontributetothebettermentoftheirlivingconditions.Forexample,
refugees in Lebanon face a housing crisis due to the lack of re-housing alternatives in response to
populationgrowth.IntheWestBankandGaza,theIsraeliDefenseForce(IDF)hasincreasinglypressured
refugees through closures, demolition of houses and incursions into camps and houses. In Jordan and
the Syrian Arab Republic, on the other hand, refugees face fewer problems. In Jordan particularly, the
possibility for acquiring citizenship to refugees has reduced inequalities. Overall, however, refugee
housing conditions can be characterized as minimal in all the locations.
Camps are generally defined as land allocated to UNRWA by the host government for the construction
of house units intended to shelter Palestine refugees. Camps are also associated with the provision
to refugees by UNRWA of health, education and community services, regardless of the location of
their residence. However, excessive distance from camps may hinder refugees living elsewhere from
accessing these services. Members of households are recipients of UNRWA services if at least one
member is a male Palestine refugee.
The host authorities supposedly regulate constructions, though hardly any regulation is enforced.
UNRWA lacks such a mandate. In Jordan, the State has assumed charge of the sewerage networks and
the provision of water. UNRWA has installed sewerage systems and water networks in the worst-off
camps when host governments have failed to do so (FAFO, 2003a).
UNRWA has responded to the deteriorating living conditions in camps by setting a series of standards
and guidelines. Standards for housing have been established in terms of plot size, area for courtyards
and height of walls to ensure privacy, number of rooms per person, surface occupancy, provision for
the expansion of residences and number of sanitary facilities.
Host authorities have different levels of control over camp constructions. For example, Lebanon
imposes a tighter control on the amount of construction material entering camps, sometimes even
completely blocking their entry. It has also restricted the extension of camps. Consequently, camps in
Lebanon are likely to have a high population density (pers./km2
), given the growing families who are
not permitted to relocate. At the household level, houses are likely to become overcrowded, since the
lack of construction materials prevents the construction of additional floors to houses.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Palestinian Authority has had a much more moderate policy with
regard to constructions in refugee camps. Nevertheless, physical controls have been harsher than in
other locations for some refugees
due to the IDF’s military occupation targeting refugee camps along
with other urbanized and rural areas. These controls have further impeded the mobility of refugees
and damaged houses in different ways.
Suleiman (2006) extensively describes the circumstances that brought Palestine refugees in Lebanon to endure the worst condition
within the Agency’s areas of operation.
Some camps, such as Al Arroub between Hebron and Bethlehem, were fenced off by the IDF with single gates to control traffic entering
and leaving the camps. The IDF constructed watchtowers guarded by armed soldiers to permanently monitor the movements of refugees
and main streets were widened for military control. The IDF has adopted force to ensure the safe movement of its troops within camps. One
strategy consists of having troops progressing inside the camps by collapsing walls between houses, rather than patrolling in streets, which
would expose them. Military strikes have severely damaged refugees’houses, let alone human lives, especially in areas recurrently shelled by
the IDF, under escalating tensions. Palestine refugees’housing conditions in the West Bank and Gaza are affected more by military activities
than by host authorities’restrictions.

n 12 n
The recent re-housing programme in Neirab was planned on the basis of UNRWA’s standards and
served as a pilot project for replication elsewhere (Takkenberg and Mukhles, 2005). In addition to these
measures, the Agency has standardized its “bills of quantities” to harmonize construction costs at all
locations.
Improvements of the physical, environmental and social infrastructure have increasingly involved
refugees themselves and their community in what is called a “community development approach”.
UNRWA adopts self-help programmes, co-sharing and microfinance programmes to enhance the
participation of refugees in the development of their camps and neighbourhoods. However, the
community development trend and the transfer of roles from the Agency to the refugees do not imply
that UNRWA has withdrawn or renounced its responsibilities and provision of services.
Several geographic differences influence housing conditions. First, the sharp climatic gradient from
the mountainous areas and plains in northern Lebanon to hyper-arid conditions in southern Jordan
and the West Bank, results in different needs in terms of housing design and construction material.
Construction material properties are another important consideration affecting housing comfort, in
terms of passive cooling and heating. Second, the legal status of refugees in host countries affects
mobility, job opportunities and thus living conditions. Finally, housing conditions may differ between
refugees living in camps, gatherings or outside areas under UNRWA’s operational mandate. Figure
1 shows that, except in Lebanon, most refugees live outside camps. Given this uneven distribution
between refugees living inside and outside camps, housing conditions may not necessarily reflect
the policy of UNRWA. The socio-economic indicators for refugees show variations according to the
location of their residence (UNRWA, 2003). The analyses of this report thus focus mainly on the camp/
non-camp level and on the field level.
Figure 1: Proportion of refugees residing in camps and non-camps by location (q51r)a
(%).
79
67
49
58
67
21
33
51
42
33
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Jordan
SAR
Lebanon
Gaza
West Bank
Non camp Camp
Source: UNRWA-NEP.
N: Jordan: 1988; Syrian Arab Republic (SAR): 1993; Lebanon: 1999; Gaza: 1994; West Bank: 1982.
a
Database variables used for all analyses have a code used in the statistical analysis package and the electronic version of the
report. The variables codes are added to the titles of tables and figures in which they are used.
Housing issues relating to Palestine refugees can be grouped into four categories: safety and health,
comfort, public spaces and mobility. Safety and health-related issues cover indoor and outdoor
environmental conditions. The use of some materials for the construction of unplanned or improvised
housesenhancesstructuraldefects,whichputsdwellersatrisk.Thekindsofconstructionmaterialsused
also influence passive cooling and heating of houses that affect indoor temperatures and, indirectly,
health. The release of toxic fumes from the combustion of some fuels used for heating and cooking
can cause respiratory problems, as do the lack of ventilation and the presence of humidity. The lack of
a sewerage connection, drinking water and garbage collection can cause gastrointestinal problems.
Comfort-related issues include house crowding and camp density, both of which also affect privacy.
The number and kinds of appliances available may, to some extent, indicate levels of comfort and,
indirectly, a household’s income. Recreational areas and green spaces compensate for the limited

n 13 n
amount of public spaces due to the narrowness of streets. Gathering places for community-based
organizations and playgrounds are also a growing need.
Issues related to mobility or accessibility are important because they directly affect livelihoods (access
to jobs and markets), education and access to administrative offices. Pavement of streets and roads,
transportation networks, and refugees’status in host countries are factors that impede or ease mobility.
This report is organized as follows. The methodology used throughout this analysis is explained in
section 2. Section 3 presents an analysis of housing variables grouped by theme. Section 4 offers
suggestions for further investigation on housing issues for Palestine refugees.

n 14 n
4. Methodology
In the UNRWA-NEP survey, 12 out of 67 questions contained 119 housing-related variables. The
questionnaire was answered by a sample of 10,000 respondents representing the 4,125,000 registered
refugees population across the five locations of UNRWA’s mandate. It is the first survey with such a
large sample size that covers all five locations of UNRWA’s area of operation.
Theanalyseswereperformedusingseveralanalyticalmethodsdependingonthetypeofrelationobserved
between variables. Frequencies were used to analyse isolated variables. Cross tabulations were used to
analyse the relation between two variables, while significance based on chi-square allowed gauging
the strength of the relationship. Logistic regressions were used to test the effect of several independent
variables (under their mutual control) on a specific dependent variable previously transformed into
a binary format. Exp (B) coefficients were used to return the effect of independent variables taken
separately, and Nagelkerke R-squares were used to test the strength of the logistic models.
Indices were used to observe scores by aggregating the values of several variables. The analyses went
beyond the housing-related variables, to also include those related to education, health and household
economics, where relevant in relation to housing. References to the variables used have been added to
all tables and graphs based on the UNRWA-NEP survey.
Some material was gathered from the existing literature on Palestine refugees published by UNRWA
and other sources listed in the references. Field visits and interviews with UNRWA officials provided
numerous additional insights.
This report does not provide analyses beyond the scope covered by the UNRWA-NEP survey, except for
that on the density of camps, which was based on data provided by UNRWA directly. It is thus worth
noting that this report does not analyse issues such as street narrowness or accessibility for elderly and
disabled people in camps, to mention a few, for which variables from the survey did not make available
good enough proxies.
The absence of coverage in the survey of some key habitat issues (street narrowness, accessibility,
availability of land for extending camps) is intentional, due to the concern of keeping the questionnaire
at an acceptable length for respondents. Even without those issues, it covers a wide array of aspects
related to Palestine refugees’general living conditions.
In addition, some key habitat issues could not
be treated because they would have required different techniques of data collection and analysis than
those used for the survey. For example, analysis of the narrowness of streets in camps, which can be
useful to help determine critical access for emergency services (e.g. fire brigade, ambulances), would
have required examining aerial photographs by means of geographic information systems. For the
purpose of this report, the questionnaire was limited to some selected issues only.
The methodology used in this report favours a two-scaled approach to analyse housing issues. A first
scale of analysis compares the camp/non-camp differences in housing conditions within locations.
The second scale of analysis compares the housing conditions between different locations.The figures
in tables and graphs reflect this two-scaled approach. A previous report (UNRWA, 2003) suggests
that this scale of analysis is systematic and well balanced. Consequently, local specificities were not
considered. Nevertheless, the electronic version of the report allows the reader to access the database
of the survey to use different scale approaches if needed.
Issues covered by the survey are: education, health, socio-economics, coping strategies, housing and community life.

n 15 n
5. Objectives
Considering the above issues, this report aims at:
Producing a comprehensive analysis of housing across the five areas of UNRWA’s operation, while
comparing camp/non-camp differences within the different locations.
Producing an executive summary on habitats, outlining key issues and main trends, quantifying
UNRWA’s services and identifying unmet needs.
Providing a knowledge base for UNRWA’s urban development programmes oriented towards
community empowerment.
Providing input for the elaboration of housing quality standards based on indicators identified in
the survey database and on the analysis provided in this report. Relevant international standards,
where available, also helped with the elaboration of such standards.
Highlighting fields for further investigation.
n
n
n
n
n

n 16 n
6. Crowding in housing
Assuring adequate space for dwellers is an important housing right contributing to a healthy living
environment (i.e. preventing the spread of diseases) and privacy (Leckie, 2000). Yet crowding of
housing is a major difficulty faced by Palestine refugees (FAFO, 2004). Crowding is measured both by
the occupancy per room and by the floor area per capita. Levels of house occupancy are considered
normal when no more than three household members share a room, including bedrooms and living
rooms (FAFO, 2003a).
International standards for acceptable levels of crowding do not exist. Such standards cannot be
elaborated due to local realities, governmental norms applied locally and cultural differences.
Crowding is generally related to the national income per capita and to the population density of a
city. As previously observed (UNCHS, 1996), the higher the national income the more living space
per person (table 1). Cities with very high population density may experience high crowding rates of
housing in spite of their national wealth (e.g. inhabitants of the city of Hong Kong, China, occupy, on
average, no more than seven square meters per person). Crowding correlates fairly well to the level of
population density, at least as observed in UNRWA’s refugees camps (Figure 2).The Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has set a standard/norm for the area occupancy per
person in shelters of at least 3.5 square meters.
Table 1: World classification of average housing occupancy (per area and room), by national income
level.
Countries per national income
Crowding per area occupancy
(m2
/ pers.)
Crowding per room occupancy
(pers. / room)
Low-income countries 6.1 2.47
Low-middle-income countries 8.8 2.24
Middle-income countries 15.1 1.69
Middle-high-income countries 22 1.03
High-income countries 35 0.66
Source: World Bank 1993, in United Nations Centre for Human Settlements – Habitat (UNCHS), 1996.
In general, UNRWA sets its assistance criteria for shelter rehabilitation and re-housing at two persons
per room per house unit. For large households (7 persons or more) the density may occasionally be
more than two persons per room (living rooms and bedrooms) but should not exceed three persons.
According to UNRWA’s housing norms, normal floor area occupancy should not be less than 7 square
meters per person excluding bathroom (6m2
), kitchen (10m2
), a circulation space of 25 percent over
the net area, and a staircase space allowance estimated at 4m2
.

n 17 n
Figure 2: Relationship between average population density of registered refugees in camps and
occupancy in camp households (q55_cror, q55_croa and q55_crow).
y = 2709.7x - 69714
R2= 0.3981
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Average household crowding reported in camps (%)
Source: UNRWA-NEP, 2005 and UNRWA’s data on registered refugees.
N: Jordan: 1,923; SAR: 1,965; Lebanon: 1,881 Gaza: 1,967 ; West Bank: 1,908.
Table 2: Number of persons and number of rooms in house (bedrooms and living rooms).
Number of persons Shelter type
1 – 2 persons 1 room
3 – 4 persons 2 rooms
5 – 7 persons 3 rooms
8 – 10 persons* 4 rooms
11 – 13 persons* 5 rooms
14 +* 6 rooms
Source: UNRWA, 2006 and 2004.
* Norms for 8 persons or more were extrapolated.
According to figure 3, all refugees in all locations and sites experience considerable overcrowding,
both in terms of area per person and number of persons per room. The situation is particularly bad
in camps in Jordan (70 percent), the Syrian Arab Republic (73 percent) and Lebanon (71 percent).
Unexpectedly, camps in the West Bank and Gaza, although also highly overcrowded, are nevertheless
better off (Gaza 46 percent and West Bank 49 percent). There are fewer discrepancies between the
incidence of overcrowding in camps and non-camps in the West Bank and Gaza, while overcrowding
is observed far more inside camps than outside them in the three other locations. The largest gap in
terms of overcrowding between those living in camps and those living outside them can be found in
Lebanon. There is less overcrowding of refugees living outside camps in Lebanon than in any other
location. Refugees in the Syrian Arab Republic living in camps are the most exposed to overcrowding.
Except for overcrowding observed in camps in the Syrian Arab Republic, these findings are in line with
the Badil report (2006).
Averagepopulationdensity
incamps(pers./km2
)

n 18 n
Neirab
Hama
Homs
Dera'a
Dera'a Emergency
Khan Eshieh
Khan Dannoun
Fawwar
Arrub
Tulkarm
Nur Shams
Askar
Jenin
Balata
Camp no1
Jalazone
Ein El Sultan
Kalandia
Amari
Dheisheh
Jabalia
Beach
Rafah
Khan Yunis
Deir el Balah
Nuseirat
Burej
Maghazi
Jaramana
Dbayeh
Shatila
Beddawi
Mar Elias
Burj Barajneh
Mia Mia
Nahr el-Bared
El BussRashidieh
Ein El Hilweh
Irbid
Husun
Jerash
Zarqa
Baqa'a
ANC
Tabieh
Marka
Ein el Tal
Latakia
Yarmouk
Dheisheh
Aida
Deir Ammar
Litani river
Jordanriver
Tiberia
lake
DeadSea
Yarmouk river
Zarqa river
Burj Shemali
Wavel
Jabal el Hussein
Suf
Aqabat Jaber
Beit Jibreen
28,397
42,574
78,205
101,250
126,300
846,739
Six-quantile breaks of registered refugees
population km-2
Many non registered refugees reside in camps and
are not included in these estimates. The actual
total population density in camps is thus
much higher than that of registered refugees only.
However, to date, systematic estimations of the total
population in camps are unavailable.
UNRWA's operation area
Occupied Golan area
Boundaries and names shown on
this map do not imply official
endorsement or acceptance
by any state or organisation.
Source:
Rekacewicz, P. 2000.
'Des millions de rÈfugiÈs palestiniens au
Proche Orient', in Le Monde Diplomatique
UNRWA
ESRI
Digital Chart of the World
Map, layout and methodology
Henri Rueff 2006
Unofficial camps
N
0 20 40 km
Rafah
Khan Yunis
Gaza
Tel Aviv
Haifa
Jenin
Tulkarm
Qalqilyah
Nablus
Ramallah
Jericho
Jerusalem
Bethlehem
Hebron
Israel
Egypt
Jordan
Syrian Arab Republic
Lebanon
Iraq
Turkey
Aleppo
Latakia
Hama
Homs
Damascus
Beyrouth
Quneitra
Dera'a
Sweida
Tripoli
Baalbek
Saida
Tyre
Nabatieh
Irbid
Jerash
Madaba
ZarqaSalt
Amman
Karak
Golan
West Bank (PNA)
Gaza Strip
(PNA)
MediterraneanSea
Fawwar 7630 27908
Irbid 24,351 99,799
Husun 20,988 27,116
Suf 15,882 31,764
Jerash 15,488 20,651
Zarqa 18,004 100,022
Marka 38,425 41,903
Baqa'a 68,386 48,847
Jabal al Hussein 29,998 73,166
ANC 50,703 103,900
Talbieh 871 6,700
Neirab 17,703 119,615
Ein el Tal 4,329 27,056
Latakia 6,354 28,882
Hama 7,578 126,300
Homs 13,230 88,200
Yarmouk 112,550 53,341
Jaramana 3,721 124,033
Sbeineh 17,261 639,296
Qabr Essit 19,475 846,739
Khan Eshieh 16,108 23,345
Khan Dannoun 8,500 70,833
Dera'a 4,952 126,974
Dera'a (Em.) 4,354 111,641
Nahr el Bared 30,439 153,632
Beddawi 15,641 78,205
Wavel 7,551 173,846
Dbayeh 4,002 47,885
Shatila 8,212 207,547
Mar Elias 612 113,333
Burj Barajneh 15,484 148,599
Ein El Hilweh 45,004 149,496
Mia Mia 4,473 82,772
El Buss 9,287 116,088
Burj Shemali 18,625 138,373
Rashidieh 25,745 103,643
Jabalia 106,691 78,449
Beach 78,768 91,378
Nuseirat 57,120 51,459
Bureij 28,770 40,521
Maghazi 22,266 42,574
Deir El-Balah 19,534 122,088
Khan Younis 63,219 52,683
Rafah 95,187 95,187
Jenin 15,496 41,504
Nur Shams 8,659 38,314
Tulkarem 17,455 96,972
Far'a 7,244 28,408
Camp No.1 6,508 143,443
Askar 14,629 122,933
Balata 21,903 86,934
Deir Ammar 2,275 15,690
Jalazone 10,390 40,906
Ama'ri 8,805 9,783
Ein El Sultan 1,723 1,980
Kalandia 10,024 28,397
Aqabet Jaber 5,510 3,264
Shu'fat 10,069 4,9601
Aida 4,534 68,697
Beit Jibreen 2,025 101,250
Dheisheh 12,045 38,936
Arrub 9859 40861
Camps
Registered
refugees
population
in camps
Registered
refugees
density in
camps
(pers. km-2)
Administrative unit Inhabitants km-2
Huangpu District, Shanghai 126,542
St. Anthony Parish, Macao 98,776
Tondo District, Manila 64,796
St. Lazarus Parish, Macao 52,370
Distrito II, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat 51,658
Kwun Tong District, Hong Kong 51,104
St. Lawrence Parish, Macao 50,904
Our Lady Fatima Parish, Macao 47,000
Wong Tai Sin District, Hong Kong 46,197
Yau Tsim Mong District, Hong Kong 43,168
Ten most densely populated administrative
units in the world (local censuses 2000-2006)
In red and bold are camps with a
population density above
100,000 pers. km-2
Population Density of
Registered Refugees in
UNRWA's Camps
(as at 31st of March 2005)

n 19 n
Figure 3: Percentage of households with overcrowding observed in terms of room occupancy and area
occupancy, or either, by residential site and location (q55_cror, q55_croa and q55_crow) (%).
38
58
46
59
26
46
31
35
36
35
33
56
46
58
24
61
20
30
29
39
49
70
61
73
35
71
37
46
44
49
0 20 40 60 80
non camp
camp
non camp
camp
non camp
camp
non camp
camp
non camp
camp
JordanSARLebanonGazaWestBank
overcrowding by room occupancy (q55_cror)
overcrowding by area occupancy (q55_croa)
overcrowding by room or area occupancy (q55_crow)
Source: UNRWA-NEP.
N: Jordan: 1,923, SAR: 1,965, Lebanon: 1,881, Gaza: 1,967, West Bank: 1908.
As suggested in an FAFO report (1998), in some cases, overcrowding may be only temporarily
experienced while youngsters still share the family’s dwelling before living on their own. Thus, results
should be interpreted with caution.
The variable, overcrowding, was created taking the value of 1 if crowding was observed in either
occupancy per room or per area and the value of 0 if no crowding was observed in either case (table
3). Five independent variables (camp/non-camp, income, dwelling type, citizenship, household size) were
considered against crowding in a logistic regression. Among the five independent variables in table
3, household size had the strongest positive effect on crowding. Indeed, the proportion of households
experiencing overcrowding increases with the household size while it decreases for households not
experiencing crowding in all fields. Residence location (camp/non-camp) has the second strongest
effect, which clearly indicates that there are higher levels of crowding among refugees in camps, often
living on lower incomes.

n 20 n
Table 3: Logistic regression between overcrowding as a dependent variable (0=normal; 1=crowded) and
listed independent variables by location (q55b01, q55b02, nhouse, q56a, q51r, q33_totq, q54, q65a).
Independent
variables
Exp (B)
Nagelkerke
R-squarea N Missing
Jordan
Camp/non-camp 2.026
.331*** 1 723 277
Income 0.627
Dwelling type 0.937
Citizenship 0.862
Household size 4.027
Constant 0.141
SAR
Camp/non-camp 1.189
.255*** 1 910 90
Income 0.695
Dwelling type 1.133
Citizenship 4.303
Constant 0.166
Lebanon
Camp/non-camp 3.274
.350*** 1 655 345
Income 0.706
Dwelling type 1.275
Citizenship 0.609
Constant 0.049
Gaza
Camp/non-camp 1.363
.237*** 1 924 76
Income 0.798
Dwelling type 1.405
Citizenship 0.575
Constant 0.036
West Bank
Camp/non-camp 1.143
.259*** 1 754 246
Income 0.761
Dwelling type 0.993
Citizenship 0.683
Constant 0.084
Source: UNRWA-NEP, 2005.
a
Significance (p value) based on chi-square ( *** = 1 ‰ ; ** = 1 % ; * = 5 % ; ns 5 %).
Income has a steady negative effect on overcrowding, as expected, in that the higher the income the
less overcrowding is experienced. Although the variables dwelling type and citizenship have an effect
on crowding in houses, it is very small. The number of floors could not be used as a variable, since
respondents were asked for the number of floors only when living in buildings.
Table 4: Cross tabulation between overcrowding in houses (either by area or occupancy) and household
size by location (q55_ crow and nhouse) (%).
Household size
1-2
pers.
3-6
pers.
7-9
pers.
=10
pers.
Total Na
Missing
Jordan
normal 13 58 23 6 100 896***
76
crowded 2 31 41 26 100 1 028***
SAR
normal 13 67 17 3 100 690***
33
crowded 3 45 35 17 100 1 277***
Lebanon
normal 18 62 18 2 100 889***
118
crowded 3 48 38 10 100 993***
Gaza
normal 10 38 33 19 100 1 165***
28
crowded 2 17 34 47 100 807***
West Bank
normal 14 53 27 6 100 1 039***
86
crowded 2 29 45 24 100 875***
Source: UNRWA-NEP, 2005
t
Significance (p value) based on chi-square ( *** = 1 ‰ ; ** = 1 % ; * = 5 % ; ns 5 %).

n 21 n
7. Population density of registered refugees in camps, and
distribution of residence location
Urban patterns and integration of camps into larger cities influence the population density of camps.
Other factors contributing to differences in density by location are land legislation and the status of
refugees in the host country. Restrictions imposed on mobility and re-housing opportunities outside
camps coupled with less land provided for the expansion of camps are additional factors.
Figure 4: Average population density of registered refugees in camps by location ±SD, as of 31 March 2005.
55 , 387
183 , 558
126 , 118
71 , 792
51 , 883
-100 , 000
0
100 , 000
200 , 000
300 , 000
400 , 000
500 , 000
Jordan SAR Lebanon Gaza W estbank
Source: www.unrwa.org
N: Jordan: 10, SAR: 13, Lebanon: 12, Gaza: 8, West Bank: 19.
When compared to the 10 most densely populated administrative units in the world (table 6), the
population density of registered refugees in camps clearly shows critical levels of population density,
regardless of location.
Figure 4 shows that camps in the Syrian Arab Republic are the worst-off, with an average population
density of registered refugees more than twice as high as in Gaza, the West Bank or Jordan. This is
due to two outsider values with very high densities bringing the average upwards. Except for these
two camps Sbeineh and Qabr Essit (table 5), the average density in Syria for camps is comparable to
other fields. It is in the camps of Lebanon that refugees endure higher density over 100,000 registered
inhabitants in most camps, while the standard deviation remains comparable to that of Jordan, Gaza
and the West Bank. The West Bank and Jordan have the lowest average density. These figures do not
include the total inhabitants (i.e. non-registered refugees or non-refugees), which may, in some cases,
more than double the population density in the camps. Systematic estimates of total inhabitants of
camps in the five locations of operation are to date unavailable. Table 5 indicates that highly densely
populated camps often are relatively small camps. Indeed, while Camp no.1 and Beit Jibreen show a
population density of over 100,000 inhabitants per square kilometre, their population of registered
refugees does not exceed 7,000 inhabitants.

n 22 n
Table 5: Registered refugees: population densities in camps by location, as of 31 March 2005.
Camps Registered refugees
Density
(pers. / km2
)
Camps
Registered
refugees
Density
(pers. / km2
)
Jordan
Irbid 24 351 99 799
Gaza
Jabalia 106 691 78 449
Husun 20 988 27 116 Beach 78 768 91 378
Suf 15 882 31 764 Nuseirat 57 120 51 459
Jerash 15 488 20 651 Bureij 28 770 40 521
Zarqa 18 004 100 022 Maghazi 22 266 42 574
Marka 38 425 41 903 Deir El-Balah 19 534 122 088
Baqa’a 68 386 48 847 Khan Younis 63 219 52 683
Jabal al
Hussein
29 998 73 166 Rafah 95 187 95 187
ANC 50 703 103 900
WestBank
Jenin 15 496 41 504
Talbieh 871 6 700 Nur Shams 8 659 38 314
SAR
Neirab 17 703 119 615 Tulkarem 17455 96 972
Ein El Tal 4 329 27 056 Far’a 7 244 28 408
Latakia 6 354 28 882 Camp No.1 6 508 143 443
Hama 7 578 126 300 Askar 14 629 122 933
Homs 13 230 88 200 Balata 21 903 86 934
Yarmouk 112 550 53 341 Deir Ammar 2 275 15 690
Jaramana 3 721 124 033 Jalazone 10 390 40 906
Sbeineh 17 261 639 296 Ama’ri 8 805 9 783
Qabr Essit 19 475 846 739 Ein El Sultan 1 723 1 980
Khan Eshieh 16 108 23 345 Kalandia 10 024 28 397
Khan Dannoun 8 500 70 833 Aqabet Jaber 5 510 3 264
Dera’a 4 952 126 974 Shu’fat 10 069 49 601
Dera’a (Em.) 4 354 111 641 Aida 4 534 68 697
Lebanon
Nahr el-Bared 30 439 153 632 Beit Jibreen 2 025 101 250
Beddawi 15 641 78 205 Dheisheh 12 045 38 936
Wavel 7 551 173 846 Arroub 9 859 40 861
Dbayeh 4 002 Fawwar 7 630 27 908
Shatila 8 212 207 547
Mar Elias 612 113 333
Burj Barajneh 15 484 148 599
Ein El Hilweh 45 004 149 496
Mia Mia 4 473 82 772
El Buss 9 287 116 088
Burj Shemali 18 625 138 373
Rashidieh 25 745 103 643
Table 6: The 10 most densely populated administrative units in the world.
Administrative unit Pers/km2
Huangpu District, Shanghai 126 542
St. Anthony Parish, Macao 98 776
Tondo District, Manila 64 796
St. Lazarus Parish, Macao 52 370
Distrito II, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat 51 658
Kwun Tong District, Hong Kong 51 104
St. Lawrence Parish, Macao 50 904
Our Lady Fatima Parish, Macao 47 000
Wong Tai Sin District, Hong Kong 46 197
Yau Tsim Mong District, Hong Kong 43 168
Source: Local censuses, 2000-2006
Source: www.unrwa.org, 2005 :
Note: In red and bold are camps with a density over
100,000 inhabitants per square kilometer.t In blue and
italics are unofficial camps in the Syrian Arab Republic.
Total camps’ inhabitants (including non-registered
refugees and non-refugees) can more than double the
density. However, to date no accurate estimate of the
total population is available.
Source: www.unrwa.org, 2005 :
Note: In red and bold are camps with a density over
100,000 inhabitants per square kilometer.t In blue and
italics are unofficial camps in the Syrian Arab Republic.
Total camps’ inhabitants (including non-registered
refugees and non-refugees) can more than double the
density. However, to date no accurate estimate of the
total population is available.

n 23 n
The residential sites of refugees (camps / non-camps) are unevenly distributed in most locations. The
percentages of refugees living outside official UNRWA camps are: 79 percent in Jordan, 67 percent in
the Syrian Arab Republic and 58 percent in Gaza (Figure. 1). More refugees in Lebanon live in camps, in
comparison to other locations. This is partly due to the Lebanese authorities restricting access to land
ownership by Palestine refugees (Halabi, 2004) (Suleiman, 2006). Halabi (2004) has also pointed out the
limited prospects outside camps for refugees in Lebanon due to discrimination in employment. As a
result, the informal sector within camps has become their main source of income, while unemployment
can be as high as 95 percent.
Table 7: Distribution of income groups by site and location (q51r, q33_totq) (%).
Lowest
Ratherlow
Middlegroup
Ratherhigh
Highest
Total
Na
Missing
Jordan
Non-camp 16 9 31 21 23 100 1 492***
120
Camp 30 14 28 19 9 100 388***
SAR
Non-camp 15 20 21 21 24 100 1 308***
44
Camp 20 25 19 19 16 100 648***
Lebanon
Non-camp 15 14 18 26 27 100 878***
166
Camp 22 21 24 19 14 100 956***
Gaza
Non-camp ns 1 117
54
Camp ns 829
West Bank
Non-camp 18 19 19 18 26 100 1 224***
182
Camp 20 23 19 21 17 100 594***
a
Significance (p value) based on chi-square *** = 1 ‰ ; ** = 1 % ; * = 5 % ; ns 5 %.
Table 7 shows a strong correlation between total household income and residential site: the proportion
of refugees’ residing outside camps gradually increases as household income increases (quintiles of
household income) and vice-versa. It confirms the intuitive assumptions that refugees seek higher
living standards outside camps when they can afford it (Destremeau, 1995), and that refugees living
outside camps have jobs which pay better.
Among refugees living outside camps, there is also an underprivileged group living in “gatherings”in
Lebanon. Their housing conditions are known to be extremely poor and deteriorating. They do not of
course represent the wealthier group considered in the former analysis. They are however a smaller
group of refugees.

n 24 n
8. Appliances owned
The number of appliances owned is an indicator of the living conditions of households in terms of
material comfort. Thus appliances may serve as a proxy for household income and living standards, as
the findings outlined below suggest. Since appliances are not essential, their presence in households
does not necessarily indicate that basic needs are being satisfied.
Electricity and light, necessary to operate most of the appliances, are available on average in 99 percent
(±1 percent) of households without distinction between camps and non-camps or locations. An index
was created to aggregate the number of appliances held by households (FAFO, 2001). Respondents
answered to a list of 18 appliances. Households scoring 10 possess all possible appliances, while those
scoring 1 have 0 to 1 appliance.
Figure 5: Distribution of appliances in households, by residential site and location (q62_scor) (%).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Proportionofhouseholdsholdingappliances
Cam p
Non cam p
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
appliances index (score)
Source: UNRWA-NEP, 2005
Note: 0 = 0 to 1 appliances; 1 = 2 to 3 appliances ... 10 = 15 appliances
N: Jordan: non-camp = 1,569, camps = 419; SAR: non-camps = 1,334, camps = 659; Lebanon: non-camps = 975, camps = 1,024;
Gaza: non-camps = 1,151, camps = 840; West Bank: non-camps = 1,326, camps = 643

n 25 n
Figure 5 shows that refugees in camps usually own fewer appliances than those living outside camps.
More refugees in camps scored from 0 to 3 than refugees living outside camps, and the trend was
reversedforscoresover4.Whiletable7confirmsthatthehighertheincomethegreateristhelikelihood
that households will be located outside camps, differences in income levels between camps and non-
camps appear to be wider in Lebanon and in the Syrian Arab Republic than in the West Bank and
Gaza.
For the sake of clarity, the 18 appliance items surveyed were divided into three groups: those related to
kitchen activities and laundry; those usually placed in the living room, including sewing machines and
water heaters; and those related to computing, communications and mobility, including a private car.
Figure 6: Proportion of households having the listed appliances (q62 a to f) by residential site and
location (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Jordan non camp
Jordan camp
SAR non camp
SAR camp
Lebanon non camp
Lebanon camp
Gaza non camp
Gaza camp
West Bank non camp
West Bank camp
Refrigerator Freezer
Gas /Electric oven /cooker Water filter
Dishwasher Washing machine
Source: UNRWA-NEP survey 2005.
N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,569, camps = 419 ; SAR: non-camps = 1,334, camps = 659; Lebanon: non- camps = 975, camps =
1,024; Gaza: non-camps = 1,151, camps = 840; West Bank: non-camps = 1,327, camps = 643.
Figure 6 shows that a large majority of households have refrigerators (94 percent on average) and
washing machines (92 percent on average), regardless of residence site or location. Fewer refugees in
camps (69 percent) own ovens and cookers operating on gas or electricity than outside the camps (78
percent). An analysis across fields reveals that refugees in Lebanon use more gas/electric ovens/stoves
(85 percent) than those in Jordan (61 percent) or the Syrian Arab Republic (64 percent). This suggests
that, at least in the two latter countries, another source of energy is used for cooking.
Freezers are available in only 10 percent of households, and households outside the camps in the
Syrian Arab Republic and Jordan have twice as many freezers as households within the camps. The
distribution of freezers between camps and non-camps in other locations is more even. Dishwashers
and water filters can be found in very few households.

n 26 n
Figure7:Proportionofhouseholdshavingthelistedappliances(q62gtom),byresidentialsiteandlocation(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Jordan non camp
Jordan camp
SAR non camp
SAR camp
Lebanon non camp
Lebanon camp
Gaza non camp
Gaza camp
West Bank non camp
West Bank camp
Sewing machine Water heater Air conditioner
Radio , tape recorder Video TV
Satellite antenna
N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,569, camps = 419; SAR: non-camps =1,334, camps = 659; Lebanon: non-camps = 975,
camps = 1,024; Gaza: non-camps =1,152, camps = 842 ; West Bank: non-camps = 1,327, camps = 643.
Figure 7 shows a large and even distribution of televisions among households, averaging 95 percent.
Gaza refugees are worse off with 5 percent fewer television owners than in other locations. There are a
lowerproportionofsatellitedishes(62percent)andtaperecorders/radios(64percent)thantelevisions;
although evenly distributed across all locations there is a significant unevenness between camps and
non-camps. Ownership of water heaters is much lower in theWest Bank (21 percent), Gaza (25 percent)
and Jordan (14 percent) than in the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon. There are lower proportions
of videos (18 percent) and air conditioners (7 percent) among households living outside camps than
in camps, and in the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon. Few sewing machines are to be found in any
households.
Figure 8: Proportion of households owning the listed appliances (q62n to r), by residential site and
location (%).
0
20
40
60
80
Jordan non camp
Jordan camp
SAR non camp
SAR camp
Lebanon non camp
Lebanon camp
Gaza non camp
Gaza camp
West Bank non camp
West Bank camp
Mobile phone Landline telephone Computer
Internet connection Private car
Source: UNRWA-NEP survey, 2005.
N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,569, camps = 419; SAR: non-camps = 1,334, camps = 659; Lebanon: non-camps = 975, camps =

n 27 n
Households owning private cars live mostly outside camps in Jordan (25 percent) and Lebanon (39
percent). Fewer refugees in the Syrian Arab Republic have private cars than those in the other locations
(8 percent of refugees living outside camps compared with 2 percent living in camps). Figure 8 further
showsthatonlyasmallproportionofhouseholds(anaverageof5percent)haveanInternetconnection,
althoughmorenon-camprefugeeshaveconnectionsthanthoseincamps.Computerownershipshows
the same distribution trend as Internet connections, although there are more computers. Refugees in
camps are slightly worse off compared to refugees outside the camps in terms of landline phones,
and more refugees in the Syrian Arab Republic have landline phones than those in any other location.
Refugees in Gaza and Jordan have more mobile phones than those in the other locations, while fewer
households living in camps have a mobile phone, regardless of the location. Figure 8 indicates that
there are larger discrepancies between the low- and high-income quintiles in terms of ownership of
appliances in the Syrian Arab Republic and smaller discrepancies in Lebanon. In general, households
in camps in Jordan and Lebanon have fewer appliances than other refugees.

n 28 n
Table 8: Distribution of appliances (q62a to r, q33_totq) by income level (q33_totq), by location and in
households who reported owning the appliances (%)
Total household monthly income in quintiles
Lowest
Rather
low
Middle
group
Rather
high Highest
N
checked
N
valid missing
Jordan
Refrigerator 17 10 31 21 21 1798***
1881 119
Freezer 9 6 23 25 37 232***
Gas/electric oven/cooker 14 9 30 22 25 1287***
Water filter devices 6 1 18 25 52 194***
Dishwasher ns 13
Washing machines 17 9 31 21 21 1790***
Sewing machine 13 6 25 24 32 313***
Water heater 6 3 24 26 41 331***
Air conditioner 7 5 18 26 44 82***
Radio, tape recorder 15 8 28 22 27 1077***
Video 5 4 19 26 46 298***
TV 18 10 31 21 20 1826***
Satellite antenna 10 7 28 26 29 1014***
Mobile telephone 10 8 31 24 28 1149***
Landline telephone 13 6 28 23 29 996***
Computer 5 3 19 29 44 464***
Internet connection 2 2 13 21 63 120***
Private car 5 3 21 26 46 397***
SAR
Refrigerator 15 22 21 21 22 1899***
1958 42
Freezer 5 9 11 24 51 254***
Dishwasher ns 14
Sewing machine 10 14 19 25 32 386***
Water heater 11 19 21 22 26 1291***
Video 7 12 18 25 37 559***
TV 15 22 21 21 22 1904***
Computer 3 8 12 24 53 358***
Private car 3 4 7 22 64 114***
Lebanon
Refrigerator 17 17 21 23 21 1752***
1835 165
Freezer ns 213
Dishwasher ns 12
Sewing machine 16 13 19 27 26 257*
Water heater 14 17 22 24 24 1025***
Video 10 10 18 25 37 460***
TV 18 17 21 23 21 1782***
Computer 5 9 14 27 45 310***
Private car 8 8 15 32 37 481***

n 29 n
Gaza Refrigerator 16 21 21 22 21 1778***
1949 51
Freezer 6 23 22 16 32 111***
Dishwasher ns 3
Sewing machine 11 16 21 23 29 203***
Water heater 11 12 17 25 35 469***
Video 8 6 12 21 54 121***
TV 16 21 20 22 21 1765***
Computer 7 11 12 26 43 421***
Private car 4 10 14 18 54 136***
WestBank
Refrigerator 18 20 19 19 24 1729***
1816 184
Freezer 8 13 13 20 46 59***
Dishwasher 13
Sewing machine 9 22 18 20 32 166**
Water heater 11 21 18 20 29 363***
Video 10 13 18 21 38 316***
TV 18 21 19 19 24 1736***
Computer 7 11 16 22 44 367***
Private car 5 10 15 23 47 226***
10% or less difference between the lowest and the highest quintiles is marked in green.
20% or less difference between the lowest and the highest quintiles is marked in orange.
More than 20% difference between the lowest and the highest quintiles is marked in red.
a
Significance based on chi-square: *** = 1‰ ; ** = 1% ; * = 5% ; ns 5%.
Figure 9: Differences between the lowest and highest household income quintiles in terms of appliances
in households by location (q62a to r, q33_totq) (%).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jordan SAR Lebanon Gaza W est Bank
More than 20% difference 10%– 20% Less than 10% difference
Significance as reported in previous table. Significant differences (P=5%) observed for all appliances except for dishwashers.

n 30 n
9. Structural defects, house types, tenure and construction material
Initially, shelters were built to satisfy immediate housing needs, while a durable structure was certainly
not a priority. Later, UNRWA engaged in rehabilitation programmes. Currently, managers of UNRWA
camps do not supervise extensions of houses, and limit their interventions to recommendations only.
Refugees may not always receive adequate guidance for construction, or they may be reluctant to
give up vertical extension of their houses, despite safety risks.
UNRWA ensures maintenance and
reconstruction of shelters for special hardship cases inside camps. Those living outside camps are
given financial assistance for repairs (FAFO, 2003b).
Structural defects in refugees’houses occur due to frequently improvised constructions and recurrent
vertical extensions to accommodate growing households. They may also result from the choice of
material and the type of dwelling, and are exacerbated in war-torn areas exposed to demolition and
shelling.
Figure 10: Proportion of reported structural defects in living rooms and bedrooms of dwellings, by
residential site and location (q57b) (%).
33
21
37
21
32
55
34
58
30
34
37
25
48
25
33
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Jordan
SAR
Lebanon
Gaza
West Bank
Non camp Camp Field
Source: UNRWA-NEP 2005.
N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,569, camps = 419; SAR: non-camps = 1,334, camps = 659, Lebanon: non-camps = 975, camps =
1,024; Gaza: non-camps = 1,150, camps = 835; West Bank: non-camps = 1,326, camps = 648 :
Figure 10 shows that the highest proportions of refugees reporting defects in the living rooms and
bedrooms of their houses are in Lebanon (48 percent) and Jordan (37 percent). It also shows large
difference in terms of defects reported between those living in camps and non-camps (58 percent and
37 percent in Lebanon, and 55 percent and 33 percent in Jordan respectively). Fewer refugees in the
Syrian Arab Republic and Gaza reported structural defects than those in the other locations.
The extent of self-help in shelters, the design of shelters and of materials used and their standards is discussed in detail in UNRWA,
Shelter Rehabilitation: A Comparative Study, 2006.

n 31 n
Figure 11: Distribution of refugees by tenure by residential site and location (q51r by q58) (%).
0
82
3
84
1
87
1
95
1
87
64
0
71
0
50
0
91
0
80
0
32
16
11
5
36
9
6
4
17
4
4
2
14
11
12
4
2
1
2
9
0 20 40 60 80 100
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
JordanSARLebanonGaza
West
Bank
Right of residence inside the camp (granted by UNRWA )
Owned (outside camp )
Rented (inside or outside camp )
Other
N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,531, camps = 413; SAR: non-camps = 1321, camps = 651 ; Lebanon: non-camps = 929,
camps = 1,008; Gaza: non-camps = 1,143, camps = 831; West Bank: non-camps = 1,319, camps = 638.
A higher proportion of refugees living outside camps in the Syrian Arab Republic, the West Bank and
Gaza own their dwellings compared with refugees in the other countries (figure 11). More refugees
living outside camps in Lebanon tend to rent their dwellings than those in the other locations (36
percent rented, 50 percent owned). Roughly one third of refugees in Jordan reported renting their
residence in camps (16 percent) and outside camps (32 percent).
Restrictions on obtaining citizenship and property may explain higher rentals in Lebanon. Ownership
of residence is nevertheless controversial. The land allocated to camps is not owned by UNRWA and
thus not owned by the refugees served by UNRWA in camps. However, an informal housing market
within camps may exist. Refugees may move elsewhere while keeping their residential rights within
the camp and“rent”or“sell”their dwellings. In Lebanon, the authorities regulate access of construction
materials into camps to control the sprawl of houses and the development of an informal real estate
market that is beyond their reach. Governments have also limited the allocation of land in order to
control the extension of camps. Consequently, a critical crowding situation has arisen from the absence
of construction projects to meet the needs of the growing population.
Figure 12 shows that, except for refugees living outside camps in Lebanon and Jordan, individual
houses are the main type of residence for refugees in all the locations. There is a lower proportion of
extended family houses in Lebanon outside camps (11 percent). Such houses are often more common
in camps while apartments are more common outside camps. Tents are no longer used to shelter
refugees.

n 32 n
Figure 12: Distribution of housing types by residential site and location (q51r by q54)(%).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Jordan Non Camp
Jordan Camp
Syria Non Camp
Syria Camp
Lebanon Non Camp
Lebanon Camp
Gaza Non Camp
Gaza Camp
West Bank Non Camp
West Bank Camp
Appartment in private /public building Extended family building
individual house Tent
Other
N: Jordan: 1,913; SAR: 1,977; Lebanon: 1,852; Gaza: 1,993; West Bank: 1,976.
A logistic regression with defects as the dependent variable was used. A value of 0 was given when
respondents reported no structural defects, while a value of 1 was given when structural defects were
reported. The effects of six independent variables were tested against defects. Income level (divided
into five categories in the survey) is expected to influence the quality of constructions. It has already
been demonstrated (figure 10) that the location of residence has an effect on building quality. In the
regression, location was tested against defects under the control of other variables. The variables,
roofing material, outside walls material, type of residence and tenure, were tested in the regression for
their expected effects.
The logistic regression (table 9) shows that the site of the residence (i.e. camp/non-camp) is the
explanatory variable with the highest effect on defects in Jordan and Lebanon. In other locations,
the effect of the residential site variable is attenuated by the stronger effect of other independent
variables. For example, the effect of the roofing material variable is the same as that of residential site in
the Syrian Arab Republic and Gaza. Roofing material has the strongest effect in the West Bank. Outside
wall material seems to have a limited effect (with a value close to 1). Surprisingly, income level has
less of a negative effect than expected, considering that those with greater financial resources should
be able to afford better housing quality. Likewise, the tenure variable, with a value close to 1, seems
to have a limited effect on defects. Renting, owning or residential rights granted by UNRWA does not
influence the occurrence of structural defects, and thus the efforts incurred in residence maintenance
according to tenure. The observed weakness of this variable can also be explained by the distribution
of attributes between residential sites. In fact, a large proportion of refugees own their houses outside
camps, while a large proportion of refugees have residential rights granted within camps (figure 12).
Theoretically, ownership within camps, and residential right granted by UNRWA outside camps is not
possible. In general, the Nagelkerke R-square shows that the model of the regression is weak in all
fields, meaning that there are other factors that can explain the occurrence of structural defects in
dwellings. Further investigation should enable a more accurate assessment of what causes structural
defects in refugees’dwellings.

n 33 n
Table 9: Logistic regression between defects as the dependent variable (0=no defects reported;
1=defects reported) and listed independent variables (q51r, q33_totq, q53ao, q53bo, q54, q58).
Independent variables Exp (B)
Nagelkerke
R-squarea N missing
Jordan
Camp/non-camp 2.706
.129*** 595 1 405
Income quintiles 0.790
Roofing material 1.150
Outside walls material 0.946
Type of residence 1.035
Tenure 1.166
Constant 0.618
SAR
Camp/non-camp 2.690
.090*** 245 1 755
Tenure 0.942
Constant 0.062
Lebanon
Camp/non-camp 2.458
.086*** 543 1457
Tenure 1.372
Constant 0.203
Gaza
Camp/no- camp 1.899
.066*** 404 1 596
Tenure 0.948
Constant 0.206
West Bank
Camp/non-camp 0.920
.046*** 869 1 311
Tenure 0.966
Constant 0.768
a
Significance based on chi-square: *** = 1‰ ; ** = 1%; * = 5% ; ns 5%
Figure 13: Proportion of main construction material used in respondents’houses for outside walls by
residential site and location Q51r, q53bo (%).
45
36
49
60
89
80
8
4
75
68
0
0
7
2
0
1
1
2
2
1
29
37
39
32
7
3
18
14
2
2
24
26
5
5
4
17
70
78
19
29
2
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
West
Bank
Concrete Clay Cement Brick Wood Other
Note: The construction material “cut stones”, available in the questionnaire was transformed into missing values for this
analysis, since such material is used as an embellishment and is not part of the building structure.
N: Jordan: non-camps = 527, camps = 154; SAR: non-camps = 161, camps = 97; Lebanon: non-camps = 192, camps = 449;
Gaza: non-camps = 237, camps = 186; West Bank: non-camps = 601, camps = 340.

n 34 n
Construction materials used for outside walls vary by location, but not much by residential site (i.e.
camps/non-camp) (figure 13). Concrete and cement seems to be widely used in Lebanon and theWest
Bank, while bricks are the main construction material elsewhere. Clay is not used or is marginally used.
Wood is not used anywhere due to its cost, scarcity and its lack of thermal inertia as to keep houses in
the Middle east cool in the summer and warm in the winter.

n 35 n
10. Neighbourhood public spaces, green spaces and recreation
High population density puts increasing pressure on the availability of public spaces and green areas,
and affects the width of streets. In camps more specifically, houses and private spaces have encroached
on public ones, resulting in narrower streets due to the lack of land for expansion of the camps, often
to the extent that in some streets two persons can barely pass each other. This situation also increases
the need for recreational areas, since narrow streets are neither suitable playgrounds for children, nor
do they allow people to meet and gather.The provision of green spaces also adds to the betterment of
landscapes in overbuilt neighbourhoods.
Figure 14: Level of satisfaction with privacy (distance between houses) in the neighbourhood, by
residential site and location (q51r, q63h) (%).
7
3
3
0
7
1
3
1
6
1
46
8
37
22
50
12
37
14
64
15
22
26
30
32
24
24
29
29
18
33
16
40
15
25
11
36
15
33
7
37
9
24
15
20
8
27
16
23
5
14
0 20 40 60 80 100
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
West
Bank
Very satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Very unsatisfactory Does not even exist
N: Jordan: non-camps = 1510, camps = 400; SAR: non-camps = 1,315, camps = 646; Lebanon: non-camps = 1,293, camps =
628; Gaza: non-camps = 1,106, camps = 824; West Bank: non-camps = 1,020, camps = 891.
Levels of satisfaction in terms of distance between houses differ greatly between refugees living in
camps and outside camps (figure 14). A large majority of refugees in camps expressed unsatisfactory
levels of privacy in terms of distances between houses. Only 11 percent of refugees living in camps
in Jordan were satisfied, while those in camps in other locations were just slightly more satisfied
(Syria 22 percent, Lebanon 13 percent, Gaza 15 percent West Bank 16 percent). In contrast, refugees
living outside the camps expressed greater satisfaction, though even they claimed there were privacy
problems (Jordan 52 percent, Syrian Arab Republic 40 percent, Lebanon 57 percent, Gaza 41 percent,
theWest Bank 70 percent).The contrast in levels of satisfaction between refugees in camps and outside
camps further demonstrates the critical level of population density within camps.

n 36 n
Figure 15: level of satisfaction with recreational facilities in neighbourhoods by residential site and
location (q63g) (%).
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
3
1
13
5
16
4
12
8
7
7
23
16
10
14
15
16
15
9
12
12
18
20
6
8
7
10
3
5
6
7
5
11
70
72
61
69
68
78
74
74
51
53
0 20 40 60 80 100
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
West
Bank
V ery satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
V ery unsatisfactory Does not even exist
N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,492, camps = 396; SAR: non-camps = 1,261, camps = 625; Lebanon: non-camps = 876, camps = 931;
Gaza: non-camps = 1,105, camps = 820; West Bank: non-camps = 1,244, camps = 613.
Survey results shown in figure 15 suggest that recreational facilities or social activity centres are
lacking for a large majority of refugees regardless of residence location and site. Refugees in the West
Bank reported higher levels of satisfaction than those in other locations. Though better off, more than
50 percent of refugees in the West Bank still reported that such facilities were non-existent in their
neighbourhoods.
Likewise, figure 16 shows that a large majority of refugees (up to 88 percent of those living in camps in
Lebanon) do not have green spaces in their neighbourhoods, regardless of site and residential location.
However, refugees living outside the camps appear to be slightly better off.
In general, the lack of extra space outside houses adds to the critical level of overcrowding described
previously. Palestine refugees expressed dissatisfaction in terms of lack of privacy between houses,
which is made worse by the absence of public spaces in terms of recreational areas, social centres and
green spaces.

n 37 n
Figure 16: Level of satisfaction with green areas in neighbourhoods, by residential site and location (q63f) (%).
2
1
3
1
3
0
2
1
3
0
13
4
17
5
23
4
17
6
28
10
10
14
12
15
14
5
10
8
16
14
4
6
5
10
3
4
5
3
5
6
71
75
63
69
57
88
67
83
48
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Non Camp
Camp
Non Camp
Camp
Non Camp
Camp
Non Camp
Camp
Non Camp
Camp
West
Bank
V ery satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
V ery unsatisfactory Does not even exist
N : Jordan: non-camps = 1,508, camps = 405; SAR: non-camps = 1,283, camps = 631; Lebanon: non-camps = 923, camps = 987;
Gaza: non-camps = 1,097, camps = 796; West Bank: non-camps = 1274, camps = 622.

n 38 n
11. Access, mobility, paved streets and transportation networks
Housing rights require that the location of a residence be close enough to services such as economic
centres,administrativefacilitiesandsupplies.Mobilityinfluencesaccesstoeducationandopportunities
for work, and is thus essential to sustain livelihoods.
Refugees’ status in host countries may ease or hinder mobility. Their mobility is generally disrupted
in war-torn areas and occupied territories. In the latter, there are increased risks in travelling and the
destination is often unreachable. In the West Bank and Gaza, for example, efficient transportation
networks and infrastructure exist, but the fencing and recurrent encircling of camps by the IDF can
put a stop to refugees’ mobility for undetermined lengths of time. Closures, curfews, check points,
imposed itineraries and roads or bypassed routes lengthen journeys and increase uncertainty about
reaching a destination.
Since 2001, Palestinians in the West Bank have not been allowed to commute between cities unless
they have permission from the Israeli authorities. Jobs or education are not considered valid reasons
for acquiring authorization. Under such conditions, some local populations and refugees are unable to
reach hospitals, universities and administrative services. Keeping a daily job, following an educational
programme, maintaining contacts with relatives, or any other activity under limited or uncertain
mobility is obviously difficult, if not impossible.
Several questions in the survey sought to obtain an indication of problems related to levels of
mobility. Transportation problems appeared to be marginal in the decision to drop out of educational
programmes.Indeed,lessthan1percentofrespondentsstatedthatthelackoftransportationmotivated
their decision to withdraw from their educational programme, while up to 20 percent evoked the need
to help at home as the main motive (consult variable q08). Furthermore, transportation problems
are not perceived as the main hindrance to seeking jobs. Indeed, less than 1 percent of respondents
reported difficulties in reaching their place of work as the main hindrance (consult variable q49f).
Unemployed respondents, who nevertheless were not seeking a job, evoked family objections and
social restrictions instead of difficulties in reaching employment areas as a main reason.
Also, few cited transportation problems as being the reason for their children’s lack of involvement
in extra-curricular activities (consult variable q17e). A lack of interest in those activities or the lack of
activities tended to be the main explanation (consult variable q17c).
Nevertheless, students do not in general endure excessive commuting times (figure 17). Twenty
percent of children living outside camps in Gaza take more than half an hour to reach their schools.
Except for the latter, close to 10 percent or less children take more than half an hour to commute to
schools. Children living in camps in all fields are slightly more to have shorter commuting times to their
schools.

n 39 n
Figure 17: Commuting time to school by residential site and location (q51r, q12e01 to 12) (%).
2
1
3
1
3
0
2
1
3
0
13
4
17
5
23
4
17
6
28
10
10
14
12
15
14
5
10
8
16
14
4
6
5
10
3
4
5
3
5
6
71
75
63
69
57
88
67
83
48
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Non Camp
Camp
Non Camp
Camp
Non Camp
Camp
Non Camp
Camp
Non Camp
Camp
West
Bank
N: Jordan: non-camps = 2,883, camps =803; SAR: non-camps = 1,700, camps = 1,011 ; Lebanon: non camps = 1,319, camps =
1,652 ; Gaza: non-camps = 3,018, camps = 2,311; West Bank: non-camps = 2,563, camps = 1,330. Number of people here are
respondents’children.
Refugees living in camps accorded comparatively less importance to transportation improvement
measures than those living in the same location but outside the camps (figure 18). In general, one
would expect refugees in camps to be fairly well served by UNRWA’s education mandate. Indeed, figure
16 shows that 68 percent of refugees (the highest rate) living in Gaza outside the camps considered
improvement in transportation to schools to be a very important measure that should be added to
UNRWA’s educational service. Likewise, the results show that fewer refugees in camps considered
transportation improvement as an important measure than those living outside camps.
Figure 18: Degree of importance given to improvement of transportation to UNRWA schools, by
residential site and location (q51r, q15i) (%).
52
38
33
17
56
34
68
55
37
24
35
32
29
21
30
28
24
26
51
38
11
20
29
46
12
27
7
15
11
27
2
10
9
16
2
11
1
5
1
11
0 20 40 60 80 100
non camp
camp
non camp
camp
non camp
camp
non camp
camp
non camp
camp
West
Bank
Very important Important Not important Not important at all
N : Jordan: non-camps = 1,309, camps 399; SAR: non-camps = 1,277, camps = 636, Lebanon: non-camps = 789, camps = 903 ;
Gaza: non-camps = 644, camps = 599; West Bank: non-camps = 596, camps = 492.

n 40 n
Figure 19 indicates that refugees outside camps, except for Gaza, benefit from better paved roads
than those living in camps. On average, 43 percent of households in camps do not have a fully paved
road/street to access their houses (except for Gaza where the trend is reversed). This figure falls to 28
percent for refugees living outside camps. Refugees within camps in Lebanon and Jordan as well as
those outside camps in Gaza are worse off.
Refugees living in camps in Lebanon expressed the highest level of dissatisfaction (36 percent) with
public transportation (figure 20). A large proportion of these refugees (16 percent) reported that public
transportation does not even exist. Refugees in Lebanon and Jordan living in the camps expressed
lower levels of satisfaction compared to refugees in other locations, while, unexpectedly, refugees in
the West Bank were the most satisfied (83 percent expressed satisfaction). Except for refugees living
in the camps in West Bank, at least 20 percent of refugees in all fields were dissatisfied with the public
transportation in their neighbourhoods.
Figure 19: Distribution of roads/street types leading to residence, by residential site and location (q51r,
q52) (%).
79
59
77
61
72
26
55
74
76
64
13
33
14
27
18
31
7
6
10
24
4
3
6
10
5
13
34
19
9
7
4
4
2
2
5
26
4
1
4
5
0
1
0
1
0
4
0
0
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
West
Bank
Paved street /road Partly paved road Unpaved road A gricultural road/path Other
Source UNRWA-NEP, 2005.
N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,562, camps 412; SAR: non-camps = 1,331, camps = 655; Lebanon: non-camps = 971, camps = 1,017;
Gaza: non-camps = 1,149, camps = 838; West Bank: non-camps = 1,331, camps = 648.

n 41 n
Figure 20: Level of satisfaction with availability of public transportation close to the residence, by
residential site and location (q51r, q63l) (%).
14
11
17
18
20
10
20
26
14
20
55
57
63
56
58
54
52
51
66
65
16
21
15
18
13
14
14
11
11
10
10
10
5
6
4
6
10
6
5
4
4
1
1
2
4
16
4
5
3
2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
Non camp
Camp
West
Bank
N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,552, camps = 417; SAR: non-camps = 1,325, camps = 652; Lebanon: non-camps = 960, camps =
1,006; Gaza: non-camps = 1,136, camps = 828; West Bank: non-camps = 1281, camps = 624.

n 42 n
12. Respiratory problems caused by the housing environment
Respiratory problems may occur when toxic fumes generated within the housing environment are
inhaled on a daily basis. Fuels such as coal, fuelwood and kerosene may cause severe respiratory
problems when ventilation or exhaust systems are inadequate.The availability of certain fuels depends
on the supply networks and on households’ resources to install a cooking/heating system (stove,
heater) and purchase the appropriate fuel supply. Underprivileged communities living in a designated
environment (refugee camps, their periphery, or poor neighbourhoods) may lack access to safe fuels
and leading to greater respiratory problems. Poor ventilation, not only impedes the release of toxic
fumes, it also increases humidity, which can be the cause of major respiratory problems such as asthma
due to allergic reactions to fungi that thrive in a humid environment.
We transformed respiratory data from the survey to create a dependent variable for analysis in a
logistic regression. A value of 1 was attributed if respiratory problems were observed in at least one
household member, and a value of 0 was attributed if no household member suffered from such
problems. We then retained six independent variables, and their effect on respiratory problems was
tested.The variable, no kitchen, was created on the assumption that households without kitchens may
lack appropriate exhausts, which may result in a greater risk of inhaling toxic fumes. The variable, no
stove, was created on the assumption that households that lack conventional gas or electric ovens or
stoves are more likely to burn biomass, which releases harmful fumes. The variable, toxic heating, was
created to test whether households using kerosene, fuelwood or coal as a source of heating may have
more respiratory problems than those using central heating, diesel, electricity or gas. Humidity, poor
ventilation and residential site (camp/non-camp) were other independent variables tested for their
effect on respiratory problems.
The regression (table 10) shows that the variables, humidity and no kitchen, were reported to have a
rather strongly adverse effect on respiratory problems. The variable, poor ventilation was also seen to
have a fairly strong effect in all sites and locations. The variable, toxic heating, was reported as having
a weak effect in all fields, except in the Syrian Arab Republic where it was reported to have a strong
negative effect. Residential site (camp/non-camp) and poor ventilation were reported to have the
strongest adverse effect in the Syrian Arab Republic and Lebanon, which are the two country locations
with the highest chi-square and highest significance. However, the model has no significance in Jordan
and Gaza (p0.05) and a low Nagelkerke R-square in all the locations, suggesting that the overall model
performs poorly, and thus any conclusions drawn should be tempered.

n 43 n
Table 10: Logistic regression between respiration problems using respir as a dependent variable
(0=none; 1=observed) and the listed independent variables.
Variables Exp (B)
Nagelkerke
R-squarea n Missing
Jordan
Camp/non-camp
ns 1 867 133
No stove
No kitchen
Toxic heating
Humidity
Poor ventilation
Constant
SAR
Camp/non-camp 1.586
0.044*** 1 967 33
No stove 0.643
No kitchen 1.474
Toxic heating 0
Humidity 1.448
Poor ventilation 1.383
Constant 0.050
Lebanon
Camp/non-camp 1.221
0.043*** 1 867 133
No stove 0.701
No kitchen 1.764
Toxic heating 1.155
Humidity 1.642
Constant 0.111
Gaza
Camp/non-camp
ns 1 891 109
No stove
No kitchen
Toxic heating
Humidity
Poor ventilation
Constant
West Bank
Camp/non-camp 1.049
0.030* 1 845 155
No stove 0.757
No kitchen 0.167
Toxic heating 1.032
Humidity 1.823
Constant 0.39
a
Based on chi-square: *** = 1‰ ; ** = 1% ; * = 5% ; ns 5%.
Table 11 suggests that fuelwood could be the cause of the higher rate of respiratory problems in
Lebanon. Although fuelwood is quite commonly used in the West Bank and Gaza, the milder winter
and thus shorter exposure to its fumes may explain the lower rates of respiratory problems there. The
large proportion of refugees in Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic who use kerosene and diesel
may indicate that central heating systems with adequate exhausts reduce the amount of respiratory
problems.
Table 11: Proportion of households in which at least one member has respiratory problems, and most
common source of heating (%).
Respiratory
problems observed
Most common source of
heating
Second most common
source of heating
Jordan 7 Kerosene – 64 Gas – 25
SAR 6 Diesel – 89
Gas - 4 and
electricity – 4
Lebanon 13 Gas – 31 Fuel wood – 23
Gaza 8 No heating device – 44
Electricity – 24 and
fuelwood – 24
West Bank 5 Gas - 40 Fuelwood – 24
N: Jordan: 1,868; SAR: 1,972; Lebanon: 1,867; Gaza: 1,908; West Bank: 1,883.

n 44 n
13. Gastro intestinal problems caused by the housing environment
The urban poor often lack access to community services such as undisrupted water supply, collection
and disposal of refuse, covered drains and sewerage networks. Human exposure to sewage poses risks
of water-borne diseases such as diarrhoea, gastro-enteritis, hepatitis A, dysentery, giardia, or, in more
extreme cases, cholera and polio. In addition to daily hygiene needs, low-income households depend
on water to earn their living from laundry, washing and other water-reliant jobs. When not supplied
regularly through the community service network, water is trucked from unregulated sources at high
cost. Hence, resorting to water of lower quality containing different levels of contamination is often
the only alternative to satisfy daily water consumption needs, while increasing the risks of contracting
gastrointestinal diseases.
Figure 21: Percentage of households reporting at least one member with gastrointestinal problems, by
residential site and location (q51r, q19_1_2i to q_19_8_2i) (%).
0 2 4 6 8 10
Non camp
camp
Non camp
camp
Non camp
camp
Non camp
camp
Non camp
camp
West
Bank
N: Jordan: non-camps = 1,569, camps = 419; SAR: non-camps = 1,333, camps = 658 ; Lebanon: non-camps = 975, camps =
Figure 21 shows that households in Lebanon reported higher levels of gastrointestinal problems
than elsewhere. Table 12 suggests that households outside camps in the West Bank and Gaza are the
worst off: 30 percent (the highest number) and 26 percent of them, respectively, complained of not
having a sewage connection to their homes. Likewise, 15 percent and 10 percent respectively (highest
figures) reported lack of a garbage collection service. It is worth noting that for sewage connection
and garbage collection, refugees in camps are far better served than outside camps, which contradicts
the main trend so far. Refugees in the Syrian Arab Republic (20 percent outside camps and 36 percent
in camps – highest figure) reported that their houses lacked access to drinking water.
A tentative logistic regression in which gastrointestinal problems was used as a dependent variable
and the variables in table 12 were independent, lacked significance, with p0.05. The effect of the
variables on the occurrence of gastrointestinal problems could thus not be tested. Nevertheless,
special attention should be directed to refugees who lack these services to ensure a healthy housing
environment.

n 45 n
Table 12: Absence of services and habitat variables contributing to gastrointestinal and water-borne
diseases in households, by residential site and location (q51r, q60a1, q55a03-04, q60a3, q60a4) (%).
Housedoesnot
haveatoilet
N
Missing
Housedoesnot
havedrinking
water(q60a1)
N
Missing
Housedoesnot
haveasewage
connection
(q60a3)
N
Missing
Garbageof
houseisnot
collected(q60a4)
N
Missing
Jordan
Non-camp 8 1 569
12
1 1 557
32
10 1 477
120
3 1 525
76
Camp 11 419 1 411 4 403 1 399
SAR
Non-camp 2 1 334
7
20 1314
32
3 1315
38
6 1 316
43
Camp 3 659 35 654 6 647 9 641
Lebanon
Non-camp 5 975
1
10 958
49
11 905
128
10 921
96
Camp 8 1 024 6 993 6 967 4 983
Gaza
Non-camp 4 1 150
15
1 1 124
47
25 1 120
55
15 1 119
64
Camp 5 835 1 829 12 825 9 817
West
Bank
Non-camp 11 1326
26
2 1305
59
29 1 275
97
10 1 289
75
Camp 6 648 1 643 7 628 5 636

n 46 n
14. Proposals for further investigation
The results highlighted in this report indicate the need for further research. It is suggested, that density
of urban camps be compared with that of cities in which camps have merged, such as the camp of
Wihdat in the city of Amman, Jordan. In addition to the identification of urban camps, the density of
cities to which they are attached should be determined and integrated in the database of the survey.
Running different types of analyses in this case would allow gauging the range of differences between
‘urban’camps adjacent or within larger cities.
Further investigation should help determine the type and level of gravity of structural defects in
refugees’dwellings, as well as the causes of these structural defects.
Climatic conditions for each region where UNRWA operates should be taken into account to sharpen
the analysis relating to housing comfort. The passive cooling and heating properties of construction
materials along with the design of houses can have a major effect on housing comfort, and, if adequate,
allow a reduction in the use of heating and cooling devices, thereby also diminishing the risks due to
inappropriate use of energies. The temperature within houses should be monitored throughout the
year.
A better understanding of the types of fuels used for heating and cooking, and of the fumes resulting
from their combustion should be further investigated to enable a better analysis of the health risks in
the housing environment.
Commuting time to job centres and administrations should be surveyed to identify the degree of
remoteness endured by refugees. Such a survey would help improve the standard of the housing
analysis.
An additional analysis should compare housing conditions of refugees with housing standards of their
host countries.
Finally, for equal services received, the level of satisfaction perceived by respondents in different
countries may vary given the overall living conditions. It is expected for example, that a respondent in
Lebanon, having harsh living conditions in general, may report that a specific issue related to his living
environment is satisfactory. A refugee responding on the same specific issue in another country may
report that he is unsatisfied with it. Surveys conducted across fields tend not to capture and correct
this effect.

n 47 n
15. References
BADIL (2006). Survey of Palestinian Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons 2004-2005, BADIL
Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights
Cohre (2005). The Pinheiro Principles, United Nations Principles on Housing and Property
Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons, Geneva: COHRE International secretariat
Destremau D (1995). Les camps de réfugiés palestiniens ou la double identité territoriale, le cas
d’Amman. Les Cahiers d’URBAMA, 11: 5-56.
FAFO (1997). Constructing order: Palestinian Adaptations to Refugee Life, report 236
FAFO (1998). Jordanian society: Living conditions in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Report
253, Oslo
FAFO (2001). Growing fast: the population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Report 353, Oslo
FAFO (2003a). Finding means: UNRWA’s financial crisis and refugee living conditions. Report 427,
vol. 1, Oslo
FAFO (2003b). Difficult past, uncertain future: Living conditions among Palestinian refugees in
camps and gatherings in Lebanon. Report 409, Oslo
FAFO(2004).Thematerialandsocialinfrastructure,andenvironmentalconditionsofrefugeecamps
and gatherings in Lebanon: Community development of Palestinian refugee camps. Analytical
support to Jordan’s preparations for the Geneva conference on Humanitarian Needs of Palestinian
Refugees, June 2004, Oslo
Halabi Z (2004). Exclusion and identity in Lebanon’s Palestinian refugee camps: a story of sustained
conflict (Chatila). Environment Urbanization, 6 (2): 39-48.
Leckie S (2000). Housing Rights. In: UNDP, Human Development Report 2000. New York, United
Nations.
Sayyigh R (2005). A house is not a home: insecurity of habitat for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon,
in Forced Migration Review (available online only: www.fmreview.org/pdf/sayyigh.pdf)
Suleiman J (2006). Marginalised community:The case of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Brighton,
Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, University of Sussex.
Takkenberg L and Mukhles H (2005). Neirab Rehabilitation Project. Forced Migration Review, 22,
January. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre, Queen Elisabeth House.
UNCHS (1996). An Urbanizing World – Global Report on Human Settlements. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
UNRWA (2003). Who are the refugees? Social, economic and legal conditions. Paper presented at
the Stocktaking Conference on Palestinian Refugee Research in Ottawa, Canada, June 17-20, 2003,
by Harish Parvathaneni, UNRWA HQ, Gaza.
UNRWA and SDC (2004). Community development and refugees: infrastructure, environment,
housing and social development. Working Group II of the Conference, Meeting the Humanitarian
Needs of the Palestine Refugees in the Near East: Building Partnerships in Support of UNRWA,
Geneva, 7-8 June 2004.
UNRWA (2005). Report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. 1 July 2004–30 June 2005.
UNRWA (2006). Shelter Rehabilitation: Comparative Study. Preliminary Report 2: Design,
Specification and Standards. Amman, Jordan: UNRWA HQ (in preparation)
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n

n 48 n
List of Tables
Table 1: World classification of average housing occupancy (per area and room),
by national income level.............................................................................................................................16
Table 2: Number of persons and number of rooms in house (bedrooms and living rooms)................17
Table 3: Logistic regression between overcrowding as a dependent variable
(0=normal; 1=crowded) and listed independent variables by location
(q55b01, q55b02, nhouse, q56a, q51r, q33_totq, q54, q65a)........................................................20
Table 4: Cross tabulation between overcrowding in houses (either by area or occupancy) and
household size by location (q55_ crow and nhouse) (%)...............................................................20
Table 5: Registered refugees: population densities in camps by location, as of 31 March 2005...........22
Table 6: The 10 most densely populated administrative units in the world.................................................22
Table 7: Distribution of income groups by site and location (q51r, q33_totq) (%).....................................23
Table 8: Distribution of appliances (q62a to r, q33_totq) by income level (q33_totq),
by location and in households who reported owning the appliances (%)..............................28
Table 9: Logistic regression between defects as the dependent variable (0=no defects reported;
1=defects reported) and listed independent variables (q51r, q33_
totq, q53ao, q53bo, q54, q58)...................................................................................................................33
Table 10: Logistic regression between respiration problems using respir as a dependent
variable (0=none; 1=observed) and the listed independent variables......................................43
Table 11: Proportion of households in which at least one member has respiratory
problems, and most common source of heating (%). .....................................................................43
Table 12: Absence of services and habitat variables contributing to gastrointestinal
and water-borne diseases in households, by residential site and location
(q51r, q60a1, q55a03-04, q60a3, q60a4) (%)........................................................................................45

Housing_UNRWA_HR

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Housing_UNRWA_HR

Similar to Housing_UNRWA_HR (20)

Housing_UNRWA_HR