Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal – Quantitative Survey: November 2019

Aid and Recovery in
Post-Earthquake Nepal
Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Phase 4
Qualitative Field Monitoring: April 2017

Aid and Recovery in
Post-Earthquake Nepal
Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Phase Five
Quantitative Survey: November 20195

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Aid andand Recovery
Recoveryinin
Aid
Post-Earthquake
Post-Earthquake Nepal
Nepal
Independent Impacts
Impactsand
andRecovery
RecoveryMonitoring
Monitoring
Phase
4
Independent
Phase
Five
Qualitative Field Monitoring: April 2017
Quantitative Survey: November 2019iQuantitative Survey

The Asia Foundation is a nonprofit international development organization committed to improving lives across a dynamic and developing
Asia. Informed by six decades of experience and deep local expertise, our work across the region addresses five overarching goals—
The
Asia Foundationa nonprofit
international
development
organizationcommitted toresilience,
improvingacrossastrengthen
governance, isempower
women,
expand economic
opportunity,
increase environmental
andlives
promoteregional
dynamic
anddeveloping
Asia.
Informedbysix
decadesofexperience
and
deep
local
expertise,
ourworkacrossthecooperation. Headquartered in San Francisco, The Asia Foundation works through a network of offices in 18 Asian countries and in
Washington,
DC. five overarching goals— strengthen governance, empower women, expand economic opportunity,
regionaddresses

increase environmental resilience, and promote international cooperation. Headquartered in San Francisco, The Asia
Foundation works through a network of offices in 18 Asian countries and in Washington, DC.

Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Phase Five
Independent Impacts
andNovember
Recovery Monitoring
Phase 4
Quantitative
Survey::2019

Qualitative Field Monitoring: April 2017

© The Asia Foundation© The Asia FoundationAllrights reserved.
reserved.No
Nopartpartofofthis
thisbook
bookmay
maybe
bereproduced
reproduced
All rights
without
writtenpermission
permissionfrom
fromThe
TheAsia
AsiaFoundation
Foundation
without written

456 California
Floor
456
CaliforniaStreet,
Street,99th
Floor
San Francisco, CA U.S.A. 94104
San
Francisco, CA U.S.A. 94104
www.asiafoundation.org
www.asiafoundation.org
th

The project is funded by UK aid through the UK government and the Swiss Development Cooperation.

The views
thisUK
reportnotthenecessarilyreflect theUKviews
or theexpressed
Swiss government’s official policies.
The
projectexpressed
is fundedinwith
aid dofrom
UK government.
The
in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the UK government.
Cover photo: Chiran Manandhar
Design: Deddeaw Laosinchai

Cover photo: Prabhat R Jha
Design: Creative Press Pvt. Ltd.

ii

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

PrefaceT

he publishing of this report marks the five-year anniversary of Nepal’s devastating 2015 earthquakes and the fifth round of this time-series monitoring research. Notably, this milestone
comes amidst the global Covid-19 pandemic . Many of Nepal’s most vulnerable communities
face disproportionate impacts of the pandemic consistent with those from the earthquakes: increased
unemployment, debt, and needs for immediate cash; limited livelihood alternatives, access to healthservices, and social safety nets; and suffering at the hands of systemic governance challenges.
Since 2015, the Asia Foundation has tracked how those affected by the earthquakes have recovered
through five rounds of research to date., using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The initialstudy highlighted just how destructive the earthquakes had been and the immense challenges thatwould lie ahead. The subsequent four rounds of research were conducted in the same areas, allowing
for a tracking of how recovery has been occurring. This report presents findings from the fifth in theseries, completed in late 2019, and highlights some of the longer-term impacts of the earthquakes,
as well as observed recovery patterns, including remaining needs and challenges. Specific additional
research questions were identified and incorporated through robust consultation with professionals
in Nepal who continue to tirelessly tackle the evolving needs and priorities of reconstruction and recovery. In particular, this round included an added focus on urban recovery, vulnerable populations,
coping strategies and related longer-term economic impacts.
The findings from this round of data collection show immense progress in housing reconstruction
since 2017. People in affected areas have now mostly moved back to their houses and very few remain in temporary shelters. We also see that the types of houses built are not entirely satisfying formany - they are too small to accommodate a household’s full spectrum of needs and often used formixed purposes alongside damaged homes. Longer-term safety of housing has likely improved as
most have rebuilt within the grant system and followed the building guidelines. Yet, future planned
expansions, and unsupervised repairs may not maintain the compliance ensured under the grants
system. The findings also highlight the pronounced differences between urban and rural areas, debt
trap trends, and possible longer-term lessons for future disaster responses at the local government
level. As in previous rounds, this report highlights the continued slow or stalled reconstruction andrecovery progress of those households with low incomes before the earthquakes (e.g., Dalits, thedisabled and widows). The earthquakes (and now the pandemic) appear to have exacerbated pre-existing inequalities. More needs to be done to help these vulnerable groups. The reports from the thisresearch round identify remaining challenges and opportunities for ongoing earthquake recovery, as
well as future disaster responses.
This research demonstrates the value of long-term social impacts monitoring in affected areas –from documenting local level perspectives and changing conditions on the ground. The lessons
identified here are relevant for all stakeholders involved in earthquake recovery and disaster risk
reduction and preparedness in Nepal.
We thank our research partners (Democracy Resource Center Nepal and Interdisciplinary Analysts),
our donor partner (UK Aid), and Nepali government officials in the National Reconstruction Authority for their support.

Meghan W.T. Nalbo
Country Representative - Nepal
The Asia Foundationiii

Quantitative Survey

Acknowledgements

Inter Disciplinary Analysts (IDA) and The Asia Foundation would like to thank the many individuals in earthquake-affected districts who took time to participate in the survey, as well as those
professionals who have supported and advised the research and participated in consultation
workshops to discuss the formation of the questionnaires.
This research was implemented by a team from Inter Disciplinary Analysts, led by Sudhindra Sharma. While Sudhindra Sharma provided overall guidance, Hiranya Baral coordinated the survey
fieldwork, Bal Krishna Khadka provided essential support in thinking through the implications of
the technical aspects of the survey methodology, Chandra Bahadur KC worked on the detailed sampling design for both the main sample and the booster sample and in getting the dataset in a form
ready for analysis, including generating tables and charts. Dinesh Dangol and Sandeep Thapa designed the software for data entry using Open Data Kit.
Preliminary analysis was done by Sudhindra Sharma, Pankaj Pokhrel, Akriti Rana, Bal Krishna
Khadka and Chandra Bahadur KC from IDA, who co-authored the report with Jui Shrestha, Lena
Michaels and Carolyn O’Donnell from The Asia Foundation-Nepal. A number of people provided
useful inputs at various stages. They include Meghan W.T. Nalbo and Srijana Nepal from The Asia
Foundation-Nepal, Sabine Loos from Stanford University, and David Lallemant from Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore. Kimberly Keeton edited the report.
The IRM research was directed by Lena Michaels in 2019/2020 with support from Meghan W.T.
Nalbo, Carolyn O’Donnell, Binayak Basnyat and Srijana Nepal from The Asia Foundation-Nepal.
Between 2015 and 2017, the IRM project was directed by Patrick Barron with assistance from Sasiwan Chingchit and Lena Michaels.
The project was funded by UK aid through the UK government. Craig Irwin served as the donorlead. Radha Verma, Craig Irwin, Amanda Duff, Kamala KC and Utsav Shakya have produced useful
inputs throughout the project’s fifth research round. The views here do not necessarily reflect the
UK government’s official policies.

iv

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Executive SummaryT

his report provides findings from a large-scale survey conducted in 11 earthquake-affecteddistricts in September and October 2019, four and a half years after two devastating
earthquakes hit Nepal in April and May 2015, killing almost 9,000 people and damaging close
to one million houses. The report was produced as part of the Independent Impacts and Recovery
Monitoring Project (IRM), which began five weeks after the first earthquake in May 2015 and has
conducted five research rounds to date. IRM is a longitudinal study that uses both quantitative
surveying and in-depth qualitative fieldwork. It is based on revisiting the same affected areas andpeople at regular intervals to assess current conditions and to gauge how they are changing. This
report provides data and analysis from the fifth round of surveying (referred to as IRM-5), conductedin September and October 2019. Throughout the report, IRM-5 findings are compared to findings
from previous rounds: IRM-1 (June 2015), IRM-2 (February-March 2016), IRM-3 (September2016); and IRM-4 (April 2017). This is published in parallel with a report outlining findings fromthe qualitative research component.1

Much has changed in the nearly five years since the earthquakes. In 2015, emergency relief was
widely provided, aiming to meet immediate and urgent needs, such as helping people find temporary
shelter, addressing food shortages, and ensuring disease did not spread. Later, the volume and formof aid changed, with housing grants disbursed and livelihoods support provided. By late-2019, study
findings confirmed much progress in the reconstruction of private houses, public infrastructure,and health facilities, although not everyone had rebuilt by that point. The survey further captured
perceptions on several issues, including national outlook and disaster preparedness. Suchinformation can help policy makers, development practitioners, and others better understand thecontext in which recovery is taking place.

Damages and current housing status
Eight in ten households in earthquake-affected areas reported housing damage. About half said that
their house was completely destroyed in the earthquake. On average, it took close to one year for
people in earthquake-affected areas to move out of temporary accommodation and back into theirhome. People in rural areas and in severely hit districts stayed in temporary accommodation longer
than those in urban areas or lesser hit districts.
Despite widespread damages, most people had moved back into their own homes by late-2019. Nearlyfive years after the earthquake, most people whose house sustained some level of damage had moved
back into their own house (92%) – an increase of 24 percentage points since the last survey roundin 2017 (IRM-4) and of 42 percentage points since 2015 (IRM-1). As people moved back into theirown house, the shares living in temporary shelters decreased significantly (from 45% in IRM-1, to
4% in IRM-5). While most people were in their own house, the type of housing they were in varied.
Most lived in fully recovered housing—either a fully rebuilt house (47%), a repaired house (22%),or a (second) undamaged house (6%). Yet, 15 percent said they lived in a partially rebuilt house orpartially repaired house (12%), or in a damaged unrepaired house (3%). Much smaller shares were inother types of housing, such as temporary shelters, renting, or friends’ or neighbors’ houses.

1

The Asia Foundation and Democracy Resource Center Nepal (2020). Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal: Independent Impacts andRecovery Monitoring Phase 5 – Qualitative Field Monitoring (November 2019). Kathmandu: The Asia Foundationv

Quantitative Survey

Few people were still in temporary shelters in IRM-5 (4% of people with housing damage), but their
outlook was pessimistic. Two in three people living in shelters were uncertain about their future.
They either wanted to leave but believed they would have to remain in shelters long-term, or theywanted to leave but were unsure of when they would be able to do so.

Reconstruction
There has been considerable progress in housing recovery, with over half of earthquake-affectedhouseholds (54%) having completed reconstruction and another 26 percent being in the processof conducting reconstruction work. People in more severely impacted districts, those who reported
that their house was completely destroyed, and people in rural and more remote areas were more
likely to have completed rebuilding/repairing their house. Most people began reconstruction one
or two years after the earthquake, and completed it two or three years after the quake. Some 21%
had not yet started to rebuild or repair their damaged house. These households tended to be in lessaffected districts and in less remote and urban areas and reported lower levels of damage. Dalits andNewars were more likely than other caste/ethnic groups to not have started reconstruction work.
Most reconstructed homes had three rooms or fewer. Of those who reported living in a fully rebuilt
house, 58% were in one- or two-room houses. Those who built new houses were in smaller houses
compared to those who had repaired their old house. People were largely satisfied with their new
houses and felt that reconstructed houses were safer than their old houses. Yet, half of those whoreported earthquake damage had not demolished their earthquake-damaged house. The main reason
for not demolishing a damaged house was that it was still in use. The top two uses for damaged
houses were for living/sleeping and for storage. Those who did demolish their house, reported thatthe earthquake had completely destroyed their house.
The average building costs given by those who completed reconstruction was NPR 1,196,887 (USD
10,069). The cost of materials used was much cheaper if they were locally available, for most items.
Costs were lower for more remote households than for less remote and urban households.
Cash and technical assistance were the top forms of assistance received by those who were in theprocess of, or had completed, reconstruction. Cash was also mentioned as the most useful form ofassistance received by those who got assistance. Additionally, those who were in the process or had
not started the reconstruction process said that cash would be the most needed form of assistance.
As in IRM-3 and IRM-4, family, friends, and neighbors were overwhelmingly the top sources for
information on reconstruction. A majority of respondents felt confident of being able to communicate
with NRA officials as well as technical officers/engineers and believed that the experience would be
good. People in more remote and rural areas were more likely to hold this view.

Housing reconstruction grants
Nearly everyone who said their house was completely damaged said a team visited, as did majoritiesof those who said their houses had major or minor damage, satisfaction with the damage assessment
increased compared to previous rounds, and official damage assessment matched self-reported
damage levels. People who said their houses were destroyed were likely to be eligible for the grant.
Nearly everyone who said their house was completely destroyed said they were declared eligible toreceive the GoN housing reconstruction grant. Those in severely hit districts, rural areas and more
remote areas tended to have been more likely to be declared eligible for the grant, gotten all tranchesof the grant and if unsatisfied with how they were classified in the damage assessment, to have filed agrievance. Inability to meet the demands of the grant was the main reason for not getting the grant,
despite being eligible for it. About three in ten people declared ineligible for the housing grant filed
an official grievance in order to be reconsidered for the beneficiary list, but only eight percent of
those who filed a grievance said their grievance was approved and they received the housing grant.
vi

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Forty-five percent said they did not know what happened to their grievance. People whose houses
were assessed as fully damaged were more likely to file a grievance. The role of local government
appeared prominent in the grievance filing process. Two in three among those who filed a grievancesaid their case was processed by local government and nearly four in ten said that a local government
official/representative helped them file the grievance.
The share saying they were ‘very satisfied’ with the housing damage assessment, those saying theyfound accessing the grant ‘very easy’ and those saying they were ‘very confident’ of receiving all threetranches of the housing grant increased markedly in IRM-5. Even on some of the more substantive
questions such as awareness of grant requirements and what share of reconstruction costs will
cover, responses were more positive compared to 2017. Awareness of the grant requirements washigh, with 85 percent saying they knew what the requirements were.
The housing grant also positively impacted the reconstruction process. Among those who fully
rebuilt/repaired their house, 69 percent had gotten all three tranches, 76 percent the second tranche,and 83 percent at least the first tranche. Much of the grant was disbursed in 2017/2018—mostly thesecond tranche, but also some of the first and third tranches. Difficulties getting the first tranche
were primarily related to not having an understanding of the rules or not having documentation,
while delays from the bank or local government office were mentioned as a reason for difficulty inaccessing the second and third tranches.
Among those declared eligible for the grant, three in four used or planned to use it to build a housefollowing GoN building guidelines. This was a marked change from previous IRM surveys where
fewer people mentioned using the grant money to build a house, and more people said they would
use it to repair or retrofit their house, or to support their livelihood. In 2019, more people thought
the housing grant would cover between 25-50 percent of total costs than they did in previous IRM
years. Far fewer said that the grant would cover less than 25 percent of the total costs.

Retrofitting
Around one-fifth (21%) of respondents were aware of the retrofitting grant. Awareness of the
NPR 100,000 (USD 854) retrofitting grant was higher in districts that were most impacted by theearthquake, among respondents with partially damaged houses, and in rural areas. The three mostcommonly cited sources of information for the retrofitting grant were family, friends, and neighbors(which accounted for 81% of those aware of the retrofitting grant), community or community groups(52%), and radio (47%).
Nearly three in ten (28%) respondents with housing damages were interested, or would havebeen interested, in repairing their houses with the retrofitting grant rather than having to rebuild
completely. People in urban areas were twice as likely as those in rural areas to express interest in
retrofitting. Residents of Syangja, Kathmandu, and Okhaldhunga were most likely to say they wereinterested in the retrofitting grant. Most of the 61 percent of respondents who were not interested
in retrofitting said their house was too badly damaged to be retrofitted. The second-most commonly
cited reason for not being interested in retrofitting was the respondents’ preference to stay in a newhouse rather than repairing an old house.
Out of respondents whose houses had suffered some level of damage (83%, or 4,834 respondents),
one-third (33%) reported that they were not declared eligible for the housing reconstruction grant.
Among those, eight percent (129 respondents) said they were declared eligible for the retrofitting
grant, instead. Overall, this accounts for two percent of the total respondents surveyed in IRM-5.
Not all those eligible for the retrofitting grant have received the money. At the time of the survey, 38
percent of eligible households received the first tranche, and five percent received the second tranche.
Of the respondents eligible for the retrofitting grant, a little more than four in ten (44%) stated thatthey had either rebuilt/repaired or plan to rebuild/repair their old houses with the retrofitting grant.

vii

Quantitative Survey

Coping strategies
Borrowing increased over time in the earthquake affected districts. In IRM-1 (June 2015), only 14
percent reported borrowing, whereas in IRM-4 (April 2017), 44 percent reported the same. By IRM5 (Sept-Oct 2019), 39 percent of respondents said they had borrowed in the past year. Those in
severely hit districts and those with higher levels of damage were more likely to have borrowed. The
likelihood of borrowing decreased with the rise in income and increased with remoteness. Hill Dalits
were the most likely to report borrowing in the last year across caste/ethnic groups by at least 10
percentage points.
At NPR 391,864 (USD 3,335) the average loan amount was highest in IRM-5 and has increased
threefold since IRM-1. The average amount has increased mostly due to urban loans in Kathmandu
and Bhaktapur. Although people in higher income brackets were less likely to borrow at all, theirloan amounts were larger. People who had done nothing toward reconstructing their houses had
smaller loans than those who had completed or were in the process of rebuilding their homes.
One-quarter of borrowers mentioned cooperatives as their loan source. Immediately after theearthquake, borrowing from friends and family was common, but in later years, taking loans fromcooperatives was most common. Similar shares mentioned borrowing from banks in all years.
Interest rates for all loan sources remained steady in the four-year period. In IRM-5, interest rates
charged by banks, cooperatives, and other financial institutions ranged from 1.2 to 1.7 percent.
Interest rates were slightly higher for informal lending sources; monthly interest rates ranged from
2.2 to 3.8 percent.
For the first time in IRM data collection, the main reason for borrowing was for reconstruction
costs, which also explains the increased amounts borrowed. In previous surveys, livelihood support
was the main reason for borrowing. Along with progress toward rebuilding, people were taking out
higher loan amounts for reconstruction purposes, suggesting that rebuilding has come at the cost oflarger debts.
Looking at future borrowing intentions, only 9 percent intended to borrow in the next three months,
mostly to provide livelihood support. Those with higher levels of housing damage and people living inseverely hit districts were more likely than others to say that they will borrow in the future. Similarly,
those with lower- and middle-level incomes were much more likely than people with high incomesto say that they will borrow.
Most said that overall debt stayed the same at the time of survey and before the earthquake. Looking
at year-on-year debt level comparisons, although the majority said their debt level stayed the same,
those who said it increased grew in IRM-5. After those who said debt stayed the same, more people
mentioned debt levels increasing than decreasing, compared to before the earthquake.
Less than 10 percent of respondents mentioned selling assets to deal with the effect of the earthquake
in all IRM surveys. Asset sales took place in areas that were most affected by the earthquake. Thosewith higher levels of earthquake damage and those who said they had completed their reconstruction
work were most likely to have sold assets. Land and livestock were the most commonly sold assets,
and the share who sold land increased compared to previous surveys. Urban residents were more
likely to sell land than rural residents. Compared to previous rounds, people sold less of their land;
most said they sold less than 25 percent of the land they owned.
The share of respondents who said remittances were a main income source remained similar across
IRM surveys. A similar share of respondents reported having a migrant in the family in all IRM
surveys. People with higher incomes tended to say remittances were a major income source andwere more likely to have a migrant in the family. In contrast to earlier IRM surveys, households with
migrants said that a single adult migrated, compared to surveys right after the earthquake whenviii

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

entire families had migrated. The main reason for migration remains unchanged: people tended
to migrate in search of work. However, in IRM-5, slightly higher shares mentioned education andlack of housing as reasons for migrating. Migration to destinations abroad was more common thanto destinations within the country. Most people said that the migrant in their family had moved
temporarily.
As with previous survey rounds, most people said that their year-on-year consumption remained
more or less the same. Compared to previous survey rounds, a higher share of people said their foodconsumption had increased over the past year.

Livelihoods
At the time of the earthquake, the majority of households in earthquake-affected areas generated
income by farming their own land (59%) or through their own businesses (32%). Farming was cited
most frequently as a main income source across all five survey rounds. Yet, over time, there has
been a decline in the number of households generating income through farming (by 10 percentage
points between 2015 and 2019) and from livestock (by seven percentage points between 2015 and2019), as well as a simultaneous increase in households earning income from daily wages and fromtheir own businesses. Those whose main household income came from their own business (76%),
rent (52%), or daily wage work (43%) were most likely to say their income source was affected by
the earthquake. People in government service (6%) and those who got remittances (16%) were theleast likely to say so. Around one-third (33%) of those farming their own land said their household
livelihood was affected.
Among those households whose source of income was affected by the earthquake, more than half
said their house was completely destroyed. This confirms that housing damage has had an impact on
income sources. Overall, 84 percent of respondents faced the double burden of having their income
affected and having to repair or rebuild their damaged house. Only 16 percent of people with no
housing damage said their income source was affected.
Nearly five years after the earthquakes, livelihoods have largely recovered. Some 75 to 88 percent ofrespondents reported improvements to affected sources of income for all types of income sources.
Only five percent said they had to change livelihood since the earthquake, but changes seem
inconclusive as most households remained in the same sectors: either agriculture or business.
Incomes seem to have remained stable when comparing income levels in late-2019 to those before
the earthquake. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) said their household income has stayed the same as
before the earthquake. Twenty-one percent said their income has increased (20% slightly increased,
1% increased a lot) and 14 percent said it decreased (12% slightly decreased, 2% decreased a lot).
Two in 10 respondents (18%) received some type of livelihood assistance after the earthquake. People
who received livelihood support overwhelmingly said it was useful (97%), but fewer people (77%)
found the livelihood support they received to be helpful specifically for earthquake recovery. Cashgrants were the main livelihood support that people wanted now, with 58 percent of respondents
mentioning it. A total of 47 percent said they needed some form of agricultural support (training,
livestock, seeds, general support, land, or irrigation) while a total of 22 percent said they needed
support for their business (business development or training). People with housing damage werecomparatively more likely to say they required cash grants as a form of livelihood support thanthose with no damage at all. People with low incomes were almost twice as likely as those with highincomes to say they needed cash support.

ix

Quantitative Survey

Aid and remaining needs
Nearly five years after the earthquake, nine percent of respondents in earthquake-affected areas hadreceived some form of aid within the past year – a much smaller share than in previous IRM researchrounds. Households who reported some level of housing damage were more likely to have received
aid than those without damages. Looking at types of aid received, seven percent reported getting
cash; fewer people mentioned tents and tarps, food items, blankets and warm clothing – items
that were more important during the relief phase. A majority of respondents from IRM-2 throughIRM-5 believed that everyone was able to access assistance according to their needs, regardless of
their background. The group most commonly seen to receive less assistance or to face difficulties
accessing assistance was the so-called ‘low caste’ group.
The most commonly cited current and future need was cash, followed by employment support.
Households with housing damage, and those in rural areas, were more likely to mention the need for
cash, employment support, and road access/better roads. They were also much less likely to say they
did not need any support than those without damage and those in urban areas. Cash has been the
top current and future need since June 2015. However, the need for cash has decreased since IRM-4(from 69 percent in IRM-4, to 52 percent in IRM-5), likely reflecting progress in the distributions ofhousing grants.

Public services
Since April 2017 (IRM-4), access to public services – electricity, drinking water, medical facilities,
school, and motorable roads – improved according to respondents. Most noticeably, the share withaccess to drinking water increased from 65 percent in IRM-1, to 91 percent in IRM-5. Respondents’satisfaction with public services also increased. They were most satisfied with electricity (96%),
followed by schools (90%), and medical facilities (81%). Satisfaction with drinking water (70%) andmotorable roads (72%) was comparatively lower.

Security, trust and social cohesion
The majority of respondents said that they felt safe (96%) in their community, while four percent
said they felt unsafe. Respondents in rural areas were more likely to state that they feel safe. Eight
percent reported violent incidents in their community in the past year – a small share, but a noticeable
increase compared to previous rounds. Respondents residing in urban areas, particularly in the districtof Kathmandu, were more likely to say that a violent incident had occurred in the community.
The most trusted institutions were the media (92%), Community Based Organizations (CBOs)(85%), and the Nepal Army (83%). The most trusted individuals among political and elected leaders
were ward chairpersons (70%). Almost three-fourths of respondents (72%) said they trusted thepeople they know, one-third (32%) reported trusting people from a different area, a little over half(51%) said they trust people from a different caste, and slightly less than half (48%) said they trust
people belonging to a different religion. Residents of rural areas were generally more likely to trust
people than those residing in urban areas. Compared to previous survey rounds, IRM-3 (September2016) and IRM-4 (April 2017), a smaller number of people said that their relations with neighbors
had improved or become better since the earthquake. Most respondents (85%) reported that theirrelations with neighbors had remained the same since the earthquake. Residents of rural areas weremore likely than those in urban areas to report that relations with neighbors had improved.
Since IRM-4 (April 2017), similar shares of respondents reported that they would be very likely
or likely to conserve food or water in the community in case of an emergency when requested bypublic officials (87% in IRM-5). The share of respondents who were either very unlikely or unlikely
to cooperate to save food and water in an emergency was relatively higher in crisis-hit and in urban
areas, especially in Kathmandu.

xAid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Illness and psychological effects
Nine percent of respondents reported that their family members had fallen sick during the 2019
monsoon due to problems with their shelter – although most of those reporting illness were now
living in their new house. The most common illness was fever or flu. In IRM-5 (Sept-Oct 2019), six
percent of respondents reported that someone in their family was still suffering from psychologicaleffects of the earthquake – a lower share than in previous years. Respondents who said that theirhouses were damaged by the earthquake were more likely than those with lesser or no damage tosay they had a family member who still suffered psychological effects from the earthquake. Extreme
fear was the most common psychological effect, followed by nervousness. While those residing inurban areas were more likely to say their family member had fallen ill due to problems with housing/shelter conditions, those residing in rural areas were more inclined to say that someone in theirfamily was suffering psychological effects from the earthquake.

Disaster preparedness
Six in ten say they feel prepared for future natural disasters, about one-third say they do not feel
prepared1. Respondents in the low income bracket, with no formal education, residing in severely
hit districts, and in rural areas were comparatively more likely to feel prepared if a disaster struck
again in their community. Building houses on safe land and constructing earthquake-resilient
houses, based on government guidelines, were the main factors influencing whether or not people
feel prepared for future disasters. These are also the top two recommendations people in earthquakeaffected areas give to people elsewhere in the country and to the government for future preparedness.
However, while these individual measures were cited most frequently, many also said government
measurements, such as prevention, information-sharing, and forming rescue and relief teams, werealso important.

Perceptions of the reconstruction process
When assessing the reconstruction process, people were most positive about the ability to reconstruct
houses according to building standards for earthquake-resilient houses: Around one in three said
they found this aspect to be most positive about earthquake reconstruction. A similar share said
they found nothing positive about the reconstruction process. More than twice as many people inurban areas said there was nothing positive about the reconstruction process, pointing to the list ofchallenges they faced with reconstruction in urban areas, where progress has been slower.

Future outlook of the country
Slightly more than half (52%) of people in earthquake-affected districts said things in Nepal are
moving in the right direction, but four in ten (43%) believe the country is moving in the wrong
direction. People in the urban districts of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur were more negative about thedirection of the country than those in the other districts. People had a more optimistic outlook about
their own locality than the nation. Nearly seven in ten (69%) said conditions in the place they live
and work in are improving, and three in ten (28%) said things are getting worse. Similar patterns
emerged across demographic groups when comparing results for their outlook on the nation andtheir own locality. Optimism was highest among the youngest group, and declined with increases
in income and education. People in rural areas were optimistic, while those in urban areas werepessimistic.

xi

Quantitative Survey

List of Acronyms

xii

BCM			

Brick and Cement Mortar

CBS			

Central Bureau of Statistics 			

CDO			

Chief District Officer

CGA			Cash Grant Agreements

CGI			

Corrugated Galvanized Iron

CLPIU			Central Level Project Implementation Unit

DFID			UK Department for International Development

DLPIU			District Level Project Implementation Unit

DRCN			

Democracy Resource Center Nepal

DUDBC			Department of Urban Development and Building Construction

GMALI			Grant Management and Local Infrastructure

GoN			

Government of Nepal

HRRP			

Housing Recovery and Reconstruction Platform

INGO			

International non-governmental organization

IRM			

Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring project

JICA			

Japan International Cooperation Agency

MoFAGA		

Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration

MoUD			

Ministry of Urban Development

NGO			

Non-governmental organization

NPR			

Nepali Rupees

NRA			

National Reconstruction Authority

PDNA			

Post-Disaster Needs Assessment

PDRF			

Post Disaster Recovery Framework

PPS 			

Probability Proportional to Size

RCC			

Reinforced Cement and Concrete

RHRP			

Rural Housing Reconstruction Program

SDC			

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SMM 			

Stone and Mud Mortar

UK			

United Kingdom

USD 			

United States Dollar

VDC			

Village Development Committee

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table of Contents
PrefaceAcknowledgements
Executive Summary
List of Acronyms

iii
iv
v
xii

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1
Background1.2
Methodology and approach

1
1
3

Chapter 2: Housing Status2.1
Housing damage
2.2 Time spent in temporary housing
2.3 Current housing
2.4 Temporary and semi-temporary shelters

9
10
12
15
17

Chapter 3: Housing reconstruction
3.1
Progress in Reconstruction
3.2 Newly built houses
3.3 Old houses
3.4 Reconstruction Costs and Materials Used
3.5 Assistance received for reconstruction
3.6 Access to information on reconstruction

21
22
28
32
33
36
39

Chapter 4: Administration of the housing reconstruction grant
4.1
Damage Assessments
4.2 Eligibility for the housing reconstruction grant
4.3 Receipt of grant tranches
4.4 Awareness of grant requirements
4.5 Use of/planned use of the grant
4.6 Grievances

43
46
51
55
63
65
66

Chapter 5: Retrofitting
5.1
Awareness of retrofitting
5.2 Interest in retrofitting
5.3 Retrofitting grant

69
70
73
76

Chapter 6: Coping Strategies
6.1
Borrowing
6.2 Debt
6.3 Assets Sales
6.4 Remittances
6.5 Migration
6.6 Food consumption

81
83
95
98
101
103
107

xiii

Quantitative Survey

xiv

Chapter 7: Livelihoods
7.1
Impacts on incomes sources
7.2
Livelihood assistance
7.3
Livelihood needs

109
111
118
121

Chapter 8: Aid, needs and services
8.1
Aid received
8.2 Needs
8.3 Fairness of aid distribution
8.4 Public services

125
126
130
137
142

Chapter 9: Security, Social Relations, and Illness
9.1
Security and protection
9.2 Social cohesion
9.3 Illness and psychological effects

147
148
154
161

Chapter 10: Future Outlook and Disaster Preparedness
10.1 Perceptions of disaster preparedness
10.2 Perceptions of post-earthquake reconstruction process
10.3 Future outlook

167
168
175
176

Annex A: Methodology

179

Annex B: Demography

183

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

List of Tables
Table 1.1:

Districts surveyed (IRM-5)

5

Table 2.1:

IRM housing damage categories – reported damage vs. official damage
assessment
Reported housing damage – by district, district impact, urban/rural(IRM-5, base=5,857, weighted)
Temporary housing before return to own house – by district impact,
district, urban/rural (for main types of temporary housing, those who
were living in own partially or fully repaired/rebuilt house, IRM-5, weighted,
base=4,173)
Type of housing – by district impact, district, urban/rural (those self-reportingsome level of housing damage, IRM-5, weighted, base=4,832)

10

Status of housing recovery – by district impact, district, urban/rural,and remoteness (among those who reported housing damage, IRM-5,
weighted, base=4,832)
Size of house – by district, impact, remoteness, rural/urban, income(those who have completed rebuilding/repairing or are in the processof rebuilding/repairing, IRM-5, weighted, base=3,786)
Average cost of housing recovery – by status of housing recovery, numberof rooms, and use of available materials (those who reported housing
damages and had started or completed to rebuild/repair, IRM-5,
weighted, base=4,301)
Costs of local materials used in reconstruction (among those who reported
housing damage and had started or completed to rebuild/repair, IRM-5,
weighted, base=4,301)
Costs of non-local materials used in reconstruction (among those whoreported housing damage and had started or completed to rebuild/repair,IRM-5, weighted, base=4,301)
Cost comparison between locally available and locally unavailable resourcesin NPR (among those who reported housing damage and had started orcompleted to rebuild/repair, IRM-5, weighted, base=4,301)
Types of assistance considered most useful for housing recovery – by
district impact, rural/urban, remoteness, and income (among those who
had rebuilt/repaired house and had received assistance, IRM-5,
weighted, base=2,558)
Ease of communication with NRA officials – by district impact, district,urban/rural, remoteness (IRM-5, weighted, base-5,857)

26

Table 2.2:
Table 2.3:

Table 2.4:
Table 3.1
Table 3.2:
Table 3.3:

Table 3.4:
Table 3.5:
Table 3.6:
Table 3.7:

Table 3.9:
Table 4.1:
Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:
Table 4.4:
Table 4.5:

Shares of people whose house was assessed in the official damage
assessment – by impact, district, remoteness, rural/urban (IRM-5,
weighted, base=5,857)
Results of official damage assessment – by district impact, district,
rural/urban and remoteness (IRM-5, weighted, base=4,369)
Comparison between official assessment and self-assessment of housing
damages (IRM-5, weighted, base=4,369)
Grant eligibility among those who were assessed by impact, district,urban/rural, remoteness, self-reported damage level, official damage
assessment (IRM-5, weighted, base=4,369)
Share of people who thought they should have been declared eligible forthe housing reconstruction grant – by district impact, district, rural/urban,
remoteness, caste/ethnicity (among those who were assessed but
declared ineligible, IRM-5, weighted, base=1,604)

12
14

17

30
34

35
35
36
38

42
47
49
50
52
54

xv

Quantitative Survey

Table 4.6:
Table 4.7:
Table 4.8:

Table 6.1:
Table 6.2:
Table 6.3:
Table 6.4:
Table 6.5:
Table 6.6:
Table 6.7:
Table 6.8:
Table 6.9:
Table 6.10:
Table 6.11:
Table 6.12:
Table 6.13:
Table 6.14:
Table 6.15:

Table 7.1:
Table 7.2:

Table 7.3:
Table 7.4:

xvi

Receipt of grant tranches – by district impact, district, remoteness,
urban/rural (for those declared eligible for grant, IRM-5, base=3,114,
weighted)
Awareness of grant requirements – by district impact, district, rural/urban,
remoteness, education, gender, official damage assessment (among thoseeligible for the grant, IRM-5, weighted, base=3,114)
Share of people who filed a grievance among those declared ineligible for the
housing reconstruction grant – by district impact, district, and official damage
assessment (IRM-5, weighted, base=1,604)

56
64
67

Share of people who borrowed – by district impact and district
84(IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4
base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Rate of change in amounts borrowed (IRM-1 base=342, IRM-2 base=1,859,
86
IRM-3 base=1,554, IRM-4 base=2,125, IRM-5 base=2,285, weighted
Average borrowing in NPR – by district impact, district and rural/urban
86(IRM-5, base=2,285, weighted)
Average borrowing in NPR – by status of housing recovery and income
87(IRM-5, base=2,285, weighted)
Sources of borrowing among those who borrowed (IRM-1 base=342,
88
IRM-2 base=1,859, IRM-3 base=1,554, IRM-4 base=2,125, IRM-5
base=2,285, weighted)
Average borrowing in NPR – by sources (IRM-1 base=342, IRM-2 base=1,859, 88
IRM-3 base=1,554, IRM-4 base=2,125, IRM-5 base=2,285, weighted)
Mean reported interest rates – by district impact, district, and rural/urban
90(IRM-5, base=2,285, weighted)
Collateral by sources of lending (IRM-3 base=1,554, IRM-4 base=2,125,91
IRM-5 base=2,285, weighted)
Intention to borrow in the next three months – by district impact, district,94
rural/urban and remoteness (IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Average household debt in NPR – by district impact, district, rural/urban,
95
remoteness, (IRM-5, base=5,857, weighted)
Average household debt in NPR – by reported housing damages, status of96
housing recovery, and income (IRM-5, base=5,857, weighted)
Sale of assets to cope with effects of earthquake – by reported damage,98
status of housing recovery, income (IRM-5, base=5,857, weighted,
multiple answers possible)
Sale of assets to cope with effects of earthquake – by district impact,
99
district, remoteness, and urban/rural (IRM-5, base=5,857, weighted,
multiple answers possible)
Quantity of assets sold (IRM-2 base=302, IRM-3 base-164, IRM-4
101
base=302, IRM-5 base=439, weighted)
Share of people who say someone in their household migrated after the105
earthquake – by district impact, district, urban/rural (IRM-2 base=4,850,
IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Sources of income at the time of the earthquake – by district impact, district,and rural/urban (household income sources, multiple answers possible,
IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Shares reporting improvements to income sources – by district impact,
district, and rural/urban (among those who said the income source waseither completely or somewhat affected by the earthquake, IRM-5,
weighted, base=varies by income source)
Change in income level since the earthquake – by district impact, district,
rural/urban, and remoteness (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Share of people who received livelihood support since the earthquake –by district impact, district, rural/urban, and remoteness (IRM-5, weighted,
base=5,857)

112
116

117
119

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 7.5:
Table 7.6:
Table 7.7:
Table 8.1:
Table 8.2:
Table 8.3:
Table 8.4:
Table 8.5:
Table 8.6:

Table 9.1:

Table 9.2:
Table 9.3:
Table 9.4:

Table 9.5:
Table 10.1:

Share of people who received livelihood support – by education,
caste/ethnicity, income, and status of the housing recovery (IRM-5,
weighted, base=5,857)
Main livelihood needs – by district impact, district, rural/urban,
remoteness (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Main livelihood needs – by income, caste/ethnicity, and education(IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)

120

Share of people receiving any type of aid in the past year – by district
impact (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855,
IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Most mentioned current needs – overall, and by district impact,
district (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Most mentioned current needs – by where people are living, eligibility for
housing grant, and self-assessed housing damages (IRM-5, weighted, base=5857)
Top anticipated needs in one year – by district impact, district, rural/urban,
remoteness, and income (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Top anticipated needs in one year – by eligibility for housing grant, status
of housing recovery, and self-reported housing damages (IRM-5, weighted,
base=5,857)
Changes in current and anticipated needs (IRM-1 base= 2,980,
IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5
base=5,857, weighted)

127

Share of people saying there was a violent incident in the community in thepast year - by district impact, district, IRM-1 to IRM-5 (IRM-1 base= 2,980,
IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5
base=5,857, weighted)
Trust in institutions (IRM-5, base=5857, weighted)
Share trusting different groups of people – by districts impact, district
and rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Share saying people in their community would be very likely to conserve
food or water if asked by the government in case of an emergency –by district impact and district (IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854,
IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Relations with neighbors after the earthquake – by district impact,
district and rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted, Base= 5,857)

123
124

132
133
135
136
137

151

155
157
159

161

Feeling of preparedness for future natural disasters – by district impact,
district, and rural-urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Feeling of preparedness for future natural disasters – by education, income,gender (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Positive aspects of the reconstruction process – by district imact, district,and rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted, base= 5,857)
Conditions at the national level – by district impact, district, and rural/
urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Conditions at the local level – by district impact, district, and rural/urban(IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)

169

Table A.1:
Table A.2:

Distribution of sample by impact districts
Attrition rate of IRM surveys

180
181

Table B.1:
Table B.2:
Table B.3:
Table B.4:
Table B.5:
Table B.6:
Table B.7:

Gender of the respondents (%)
Age group of respondents (%)
Educational status of respondents (%)
Ethnicity of respondents (%)
Religion of respondents (%)
Marital status of respondents (%)
Occupation of respondents (%)

183
183
184
184
185
185
187

Table 10.2:
Table 10.3:
Table 10.4:
Table 10.5:

170
176
177
178

xvii

Quantitative Survey

List of Figures
Figure 2.1:
Figure 2.2:
Figure 2.3:
Figure 2.4:
Figure 2.5:
Figure 2.6:
Figure 2.7:

Figure 3.1:

Figure 3.2:

Figure 3.3:
Figure 3.4:
Figure 3.5:
Figure 3.6:
Figure 3.7:

Figure 3.8:
Figure 3.9:
Figure 3.10:
Figure 3.11:

Figure 3.12:
Figure 3.13:

Figure 4.1:
Figure 4.2:

xviii

Self-reported housing damage (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850,
IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Time spent in temporary housing – by district impact, district,urban/rural (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Temporary housing before return to own house (those who were living in
own partially or fully repaired/rebuilt house, IRM-5, weighted, base=4,173)
Housing status 2015-2019 (IRM-1 base=2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3
base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Type of housing (those self-reporting some level of housing damage,IRM-5, base=4,832, weighted)
Share of people in temporary shelters – by district impact, district,
rural/urban (IRM-5, base=219, weighted)
Outlook on leaving temporary shelter (those still living in shelters,
IRM-5, base=219, weighted)
Progress in reconstruction (those who reported housing damage,IRM-1 base=2,413, IRM-2 base=3,880, IRM-3 base=3,835, IRM-4
base=3,931, and IRM-5 base=4,832, weighted)
Start date and completion date of reconstruction (those self-reportingsome housing damages and who have started reconstruction;
base=3,820 for start, 3,786 for end)
Status of housing recovery – by caste/ethnicity (among those whoreported housing damage, IRM-5, weighted, base=4,832)
Status of housing recovery – by reported housing damage (among
those who reported damages, IRM-5, weighted, base=4,832)
Size of house (those who have completed rebuilding/repairing or
are in the process of rebuilding/repairing; base=3787)
Size of house (those living in a fully rebuilt house; base=2285)
Size of house – rebuilt houses vs repaired houses (among those whoreported housing damages and were living in a fully rebuilt house ora fully repaired house, IRM-5, weighted, base=3,787)
Satisfaction with new or repaired houses – by where people were
living (IRM-5, weighted, base=3,786)
Demolishing of house – by damage levels
Types of assistance received for housing recovery (IRM-5, weighted,
base=3,820)
Types of assistance that would help people to finish housing recovery(for those who have not yet completed rebuilding/repairing, IRM-5,
weighted, base=570)
Sources of information on reconstruction (IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4
base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Top sources of information on reconstruction among those withhousing damages (IRM-5, weighted, base=4,832)
Results of official damage assessment (IRM-2 base=4,468, IRM-3
base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=4,369, weighted)
Satisfaction with official damage assessment (IRM2 base=3,177, IRM-3
base=3,106, IRM-4 base=3,883, IRM-5 base=4,369, weighted)

11
13
14
15
16
18
19

23

24

27
27
28
28
29

31
32
37
39

40
41

48
50

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 4.3:
Figure 4.4:

Figure 4.5:
Figure 4.6:

Figure 4.7:
Figure 4.8:
Figure 4.9:

Figure 4.10:

Figure 4.11:

Figure 4.12:
Figure 4.13:

Figure 4.14:
Figure 4.15:
Figure 4.16:

Figure 5.1:
Figure 5.2:
Figure 5.3:
Figure 5.4:
Figure 5.5:
Figure 5.6:
Figure 5.7:

Figure 5.8:

Grant eligibility among those who were assessed – by reported damagelevel and official damage assessment (IRM-5, weighted, base=4,369)
Share of people who thought they should have been declared eligible forthe housing reconstruction grant – by reported damage and official
damage assessment (among those who were assessed but declaredineligible, IRM-5, weighted, base=1,604)
Receipt of grant tranches – by income (for those declared eligible for grant,
IRM-5, base=3,114, weighted)
Receipt of grant tranches – by official damage assessment and reported
housing damage (for those declared eligible for grant, IRM-5,
base=3,114, weighted)
Timing of grant receipt (IRM-5, weighted, base=3,114)
Reasons for not getting grant despite being eligible for it (IRM-5, weighted,
1st tranche base=338, 2nd tranche base=494, 3rd tranche base=284)
Ease of getting various tranches of the grant-among those who got the
grant (IRM-5,weighted, 1st tranche base=2,775, 2nd tranche
base=2,282, 3rd tranche base=1,998)
Problems faced in accessing grant tranches (among those who got atleast one tranche, IRM-5,weighted, 1st tranche base=2,775, 2nd tranche
base=2,282, 3rd tranche base=1,998)
Who provided assistance to access the grant (-among those who got atleast one tranche, IRM-5,weighted, 1st tranche base=2,775, 2nd tranche
base=2,282, 3rd tranche base=1,998)
Confidence in receiving all three grant tranches (-among those who got
first, or first and second tranches, IRM-4 base=3,494, IRM-5 base=5,057)
Confidence in receiving all three grant tranches – by awareness ofrequirements, and by ease of getting first tranche and second
tranche (IRM-5, weighted, base=3,114)
Use/planned use of grant money (among those declared eligible,
IRM-3 base=3,107, IRM-4 base=3,883, IRM-5, base=3114 )Proportion of total reconstruction cost that the housing grant will
cover (IRM-3 base=3,107, IRM-4 base=3,883, IRM-5, base=3114 )Status of grievance (among those who had filed a grievance, IRM-5,
weighted, base=1,604)
Awareness of retrofitting grant - by reported housing damage levels[IRM-5, weighted, base=5857]
Awareness of retrofitting grant – by district and district impact level[IRM-5, weighted, base=5857]
Awareness of the retrofitting grant – by education level [IRM-5,
weighted, base=5857]
Sources of information on the retrofitting grant [among those who
had heard about this grant, IRM-5, weighted, base=1234]
Interest in retrofitting – overall and by reported housing damage levels[among those with housing damages, IRM-5, weighted, base=4834]
Interest in retrofitting – by district and district impact level [among
those with housing damages, IRM-5, weighted, base=4834]
Reasons for not being interested in retrofitting [among those withhousing damage who said they were not interested in the retrofitting
grant, IRM-5, weighted, base=2971]
Share of people declared eligible for the retrofitting grant – by district,
district impact level, rural-urban and remoteness [among those
self-reporting damage, but ineligible for the housing grant], IRM-5,
weighted, base=1604]

53
55

56
57

58
59
60

61

61

62
63

65
66
68

71
71
72
73
74
74
75

76

xix

Quantitative Survey

Figure 5.9:
Figure 5.10:
Figure 5.11:

Figure 6.1:
Figure 6.2:
Figure 6.3:
Figure 6.4:

Figure 6.5:
Figure 6.6:
Figure 6.7:
Figure 6.8:
Figure 6.9:
Figure 6.10:

Figure 6.11:
Figure 6.12:
Figure 6.13:
Figure 6.14:
Figure 6.15:
Figure 6.16:
Figure 6.17:

Figure 7.1:
Figure 7.2:

Figure 7.3:
Figure 7.4:

Figure 7.5:xx

Levels of damage among those eligible for the retrofitting grant(reported damages, IRM-5, weighted, base=129)
Progress in housing recovery among those eligible for the retrofitting
grant [IRM-5, Weighted, base=129]
Uses of the retrofitting grants [intended or actual use, IRM-5, weighted,
base=129, multiple responses possible]
Share of people who borrowed (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850,
IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Share of people who borrowed – by urban/rural and remoteness(IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Share of people who borrowed money in the past year – by housing
damage (IRM-5, base=5,857)
Changes in monthly interest rates from different sources(IRM-1 base=342, IRM-2 base=1,859, IRM-3 base=1,554, IRM-4
base=2,125, IRM-5 base=2,285, weighted)
Collateral provided for loans taken (IRM-5, base=2647, weighted)
Reasons for borrowing (IRM-2 base = 1,859, IRM-3 base=1,554, IRM-4
base = 2,125, IRM-5 base = 2,285, weighted)
Reasons for borrowing – by reported housing damages (IRM-5
base=2,285, weighted)
Changes in debt over the past year (IRM-2 base = 1,859, IRM-3
base=1,554, IRM-4 base = 2,125, IRM-5 base = 2,285, weighted
Changes in debt compared to before the earthquake – by reported
housing damages (IRM-5, base=5,857, weighted)
Types of assets sold to cope with earthquake impacts (IRM-2 base=302,
IRM-3 base-164, IRM-4 base=302, IRM-5 base=439, weighted,
multiple answers possible)
Share of people who received remittance (IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3
base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Share of people who ever received remittances – by income(IRM-5, weighted)
Changes to remittances received since the earthquake (IRM-2 base=1,019,
IRM-3 base=922, IRM-4 base=1,165, IRM-5 base=1,006, weighted)
Change in migration in the community compared to before theearthquake (IRM-4 base-4,854, IRM-5 5,857, weighted)
Who in the family migrated (IRM-2 base=186, IRM-3 base=158, IRM-4
base=127, IRV-5 base=417, weighted)
Reasons for migrating (IRM-2 base=186, IRM-3 base=158, IRM-4
base=127, IRM-5 base=417, weighted)
Changes in food consumption in the last year (IRM-2 base=4,853,
IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, and IRM-5 base=5,857)
Current main profession of respondents [IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857]
Top income sources for households from 2015-2019 (IRM-1 base=2,980,
IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5
base=5,857, weighted, multiple answers possible)
Effect on sources of income (household income sources at the timeof the earthquake, IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Reported housing damage for people whose livelihoods were either
somewhat or completely affected by the earthquake (IRM-5, weighted,
base=3,092)
Shares reporting improvements to affected income sources since theearthquake (among those who said their household income source waseither completely or somewhat affected by the earthquake, IRM-5,
weighted, base=varies by income source)

77
78
78

83
85
85
89

90
92
92
96
97
100

102
102
103
104
106
106
107

111
113

114
115

115

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 7.6:
Figure 7.7:
Figure 7.8:
Figure 7.9:

Figure 8.1:

Figure 8.2:
Figure 8.3:

Figure 8.4:
Figure 8.5:
Figure 8.6:

Figure 8.7:
Figure 8.8:
Figure 8.9:

Figure 8.10:
Figure 8.11:

Figure 8.12:
Figure 8.13:
Figure 8.14:

Figure 8.15:

Figure 9.1:
Figure 9.2:

Figure 9.3:
Figure 9.4:

Current livelihood source among those who changed their sourceof livelihood after the earthquake (IRM-5, weighted, base=301)
Types of livelihoods support received (IRM-5, weighted, base=1,041)
Usefulness of livelihood support and helpfulness for earthquake recovery(IRM-5, weighted, base=1,041)
Main livelihood needs (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857, multiple
answers allowed)
Main types of aid received (multiple answers allowed, (IRM-1 base= 2,980,
IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5
base=5,857, weighted)
Share receiving non-government cash grants – overall (IRM-2 base=4,850,
IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Share receiving non-government cash assistance – by reported damagelevels (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4,855,
IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Current needs – overall and those reporting housing damage (IRM-5,
weighted, base=5,857)
Top anticipated needs in one year – overall (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Opinions on whether all can get aid equally according to their needs(IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5
base=5,857, weighted)
Opinions on whether all can get aid equally according to their needs –by district impact, district and rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Opinions on whether all can get aid equally according to their needs –by caste/ethnicity (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Groups that people think tend to get less aid among those who say not
everyone is able to get aid equally (IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4,855,
IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857; weighted)
Groups that people think tend to get less aid among those who say not
everyone is able to get aid equally – by caste (IRM-5, base=1,430, weighted)
Share saying they have access to the services provided by ruralmunicipalities/municipalities (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850,
IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Satisfaction with public services (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850,
IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Dissatisfaction with public services – by district impact and rural/urban(IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Changes to public services: Electricity, drinking water and medical
facilities (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855,
IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Changes to the public services: Schools and motorable roads(IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4
base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Perception of security (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3
base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Share feeling unsafe (either very or somewhat unsafe) in their community –by gender (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855,
IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Perceptions of security – by district impact, district and rural/urban(IRM-5, weighted, base=5857)
Share of people saying there was a violent incident in the community inthe past year – by gender (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850,
IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

118
120
121
122

128

129
130

131
134

139
140
141

141
142

143
144
145

146

149
149

150
152

xxi

Quantitative Survey

Figure 9.5:

Figure 9.6:
Figure 9.7:
Figure 9.8:
Figure 9.9:

Figure 9.10:

Figure 9.11:

Figure 9.12:

Figure 9.13:
Figure 9.14:
Figure 9.15:
Figure 9.16:
Figure 9.17:

Figure 10.1:
Figure 10.2:
Figure 10.3:
Figure 10.4:
Figure 10.5:
Figure 10.6:

Figure B.1:
Figure B.2:

xxii

Change of crime rate in the community since the earthquake(IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855,
IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Change of crime rate in the community since the earthquake – by
district impact, district and rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5857)
Share trusting/distrusting other people (IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4
base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Share trusting different groups of people (IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4
base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Likelihood of people in the community conserving food or water if asked
by the government in case of an emergency (IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4
base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Likelihood of people in the community conserving food or water if
asked by the government in case of an emergency – by rural/urban(IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Likelihood of people in the community conserving food or water if
asked by the government in case of an emergency – by income andgender (IRM-5, weighted, Base=5,857)
Changes in relationships with neighbors after the earthquake –IRM-3 to IRM-5 (IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5
base=5,857, weighted)
Share of people who said someone in their family got sick due to shelter
issues (IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Current living situation of those who said someone in their family got
sick due to shelter issues (IRM-5, weighted, base=531)
Illness prevalence amongst those whose family member(s) got ill(IRM-5, weighted, base=531)
Share of people reporting psychological effects from the earthquake(IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Type of psychological effects (IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854,
IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Reasons for feeling prepared for future natural disasters (IRM-5, weighted,
Base=3,506, asked to those who feel prepared, multiple choice)Reasons for feeling unprepared for future disasters (IRM-5, weighted,
base=2,016, asked to those who feel unprepared, multiple choice)Measures people elsewhere in the country should take to prepare fordisasters (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857, multiple choice)Measures people elsewhere in the country should take to prepare fordisasters – by rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857, multiple choice)Measures the government should take during future disasters – overall
and by rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857, multiple answers)
Most positive thing about the reconstruction process – by reported
housing damages [IRM-5, weighted, base=5857]
Status of monthly income (%)
Income of respondents (%)

153

154
155
156
158

158

160

160

162
162
163
164
165

171
172
173
173
174
175

186
186

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Chapter 1

Introduction

Photo: Dewan Rai (Okhaldhunga)

1.1 Background
This report provides findings from a large-scale survey conducted in 11 earthquake-affected districts in September and October 2019, four and a half years after two devastating earthquakes hit
Nepal in April and May 2015, killing almost 9000 people and damaging houses close to one million
homes. The report was produced as part of the Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Project (IRM), which began five weeks after the first earthquake in May 2015 and has conducted fiveresearch rounds to date. IRM involves revisiting affected areas and people at regular intervals toassess current conditions and to gauge how they are changing. Since data collection and research is
conducted in the same areas in each round, with many of the same people interviewed, IRM allows
for an assessment of how conditions and needs are changing over time and of the roles that aid andassistance are playing— both positive and negative—in shaping recovery and reconstruction patterns.
IRM is a longitudinal study that uses both quantitative surveying and in-depth qualitative fieldwork.
This report provides quantitative findings from the fifth round of surveying (referred to as IRM-5).
It is published in parallel with a report outlining findings from the qualitative research component.1
The report primarily provides data and analysis on the situation as of September and October 2019.
It compares data collected in September and October 2019 with that gathered in the four previous
rounds: IRM-1, conducted in June 2015; IRM-2, conducted in February-March 2016; IRM-3 conducted in September 2016; and IRM-4 conducted in April 2017.
Much has changed in the nearly five years since the earthquakes. In 2015, emergency relief was
widely provided, aiming to meet immediate and urgent needs, such as helping people find temporary shelter, addressing food shortages, and ensuring disease did not spread. Later, the volume andform of aid changed, with housing grants disbursed and livelihoods support provided. By late-2019,
1

The Asia Foundation and Democracy Resource Center Nepal (2020). Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal: Independent Impacts andRecovery Monitoring Phase 5 – Qualitative Field Monitoring (November 2019). Kathmandu: The Asia Foundation

1

Introduction

study findings confirmed much progress in the reconstruction of private houses, public infrastructure, and health facilities, although not everyone had rebuilt by that point.
This survey report documents the nature of the changing needs and the degree to which people—ofdifferent demographic groups, suffering from different degrees of impact from the earthquakes, living in different areas—are recovering. It looks at a range of issues, including where people are living,
the extent to which they are rebuilding, how their livelihoods are recovering, how reconstructionis addressing the challenges people face in building earthquake-resistant houses, and the coping
strategies people are using. It also looks at secondary earthquake impacts on, as well as broader
changes to, social relations, health and psychological wellbeing, politics, access to services, and trust
institutions. The survey further captured perceptions on several issues, including national outlook
and disaster preparedness. Such information can help policy-makers, development practitioners,
and others better understand the context in which recovery is taking place.

Focus areas
The report focuses on a number of areas, both in terms of the current situation as well as changes
since the earthquakes. The focus areas are as follows:•

Housing damage and condition – damage caused by the earthquakes, and where and how
people lived at the time of the survey (Chapter 2);•

Reconstruction – progress in reconstruction, conditions, and uses of newly built and repaired
houses, reconstruction costs and materials, reconstruction assistance received, and access to
information on reconstruction (Chapter 3);•

Assessments and housing reconstruction grants – how people’s houses were assessed, theirsatisfaction with the assessment, access to and use of housing reconstruction grants, and thestatus of grievances (Chapter 4);•

Retrofitting - people’s awareness of and interest in retrofitting, and access to retrofitting
grants (Chapter 5);•

Coping strategies –coping mechanisms people have been using (including borrowing, accessto credit, sale of assets, and changes in remittances) (Chapter 6);•

Livelihoods – impacts on incomes and livelihoods, and the nature of livelihoods assistance(Chapter 7);•

Access to aid, current and anticipated needs, and access to services – changes to levels of aid
and access to services since the earthquakes, fairness of aid distribution, and needs of earthquake-affected people (Chapter 8);•

Security and well-being – perceptions of safety, social cohesion, and trust in institutions, howliving conditions affected health in the past year, psychological effects from the earthquakes,
other changes (Chapter 9); and•Future outlook in earthquake-affected areas - general perception of the country’s overall direction, perceptions of disaster preparedness, and views on lessons learned from the earthquakes (Chapter 10).

Annexes provide more details on the methodology employed. The analysis contained in this reportis that of the authors, rather than the funders of IRM.

2

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

1.2 Methodology and approach
SampleThe IRM-5 survey involved face-to-face interviews with 5,857 respondents. The households for
IRM-5 were selected from the same 11 districts as previous rounds of IRM surveys.2 To the extent
possible, the same respondents who were interviewed in previous rounds were also interviewed inIRM-5. About 73 percent of respondents (3,554 respondents) were retained between IRM-2 andIRM-53; the remaining households sampled in IRM-5 (about 2,303 households) were from the same
area, but were new respondents to the survey. Respondents were selected from 345 wards in the 11
districts using probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling.

Map 1.1 Districts surveyed

In the IRM-5 survey, an additional sample of 1,000 respondents were allocated as a booster4 sample
to allow for an added focus on two issues: urban recovery and retrofitting. This additional sample
was added in two rural municipalities (Champadevi Rural Municipality of Okhaldhunga district,and Jwalamukhi Rural Municipality of Dhading district) and two urban municipalities (Kathmandu
Metropolitan of Kathmandu district, and Bhaktapur Municipality of Bhaktapur district).

2
3
4

The IRM-1 survey was conducted in 14 districts. Three of these districts – Manang, Khotang, and Dang – were dropped in subsequent survey
rounds as they had not been included in the PDNA’s list of affected districts. IRM-1 was conducted before the government released the PDNA,
and selection of districts for IRM-1 was made from the 26 districts initially deemed affected by the government.
See Annex A for an overview of attrition rates.
While designing the sample, the main sample has been further supplemented by booster samples in certain rural/urban municipalities of Kathmandu, Bhaktapur, Dhading, and Okhaldhunga. Although the sampling design for the booster sample is purposive in nature in that the list
had been provided to The Asia Foundation and IDA, the processes of selecting the households and respondents below the cluster are based on
probability. Thus, below the clusters, the sampling procedures for the main sample and the booster sample has been the same. For the booster
sample, The Asia Foundation provided IDA the list of sample clusters of the concerned Palikas in Okhaldhunga and Dhading where the retrofitting activities are very likely to take place. Similarly, the clusters of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur districts where a large number of households weredamaged by the earthquake have also been added as the booster.

3

Introduction

A full discussion of the methodology is included in Annex A. However, two aspects of the approachare especially important.

Representative data
The data are representative of all people in the 11 districts studied. A careful sampling strategy—atthe erstwhile Village Development Committee (VDC), ward, tole/settlement, household and individual levels— was employed. Respondents were selected using PPS sampling using weights. The margin of error at the aggregate level is +/- 1.3% at a 95 percent confidence level. Therefore, estimatesin this report contain a high degree of confidence that likely hold true for the wider population livingin earthquake-affected districts. In most cases, when making comparisons across the four surveys,
results are based on full surveys in 11 districts. The large sample size allows for more accurate estimates, and the margins of error are smaller compared to most surveys, in Nepal and beyond. The
larger samples from urban areas further represent those living in urban areas with a similar level ofconfidence, such that differences between people residing in urban and rural areas can be interpreted as representative of both urban and rural dwellers.

Tracking changes over time
Starting from IRM-2 (February-March 2016), IRM was set up as a panel survey – where possible,
the same people were interviewed in each round (referred to as the household panel dataset). Sincemany of the survey respondents were the same people, changes in survey answers tended to relate
to changes on the ground, rather than to changes in the make-up of the sample. Attrition, instances
when respondents from earlier survey dropped out due to various reasons in a subsequent survey,
also occurred. The attrition rate from IRM-2 to IRM-5 (which covers a period of 3 years between
September 2016 and September-October 2019) was about 27 percent.
The sample sizes for IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3, and IRM-4 were 2,380, 4,853, and 4,855, and 4,854, respectively. As much as possible, the same households surveyed in previous IRM surveys were identified for interviews in IRM-5 (about 86% of IRM-4 respondents were interviewed in IRM-5).5 The
remaining households in each enumeration area who had not been interviewed earlier were selectedusing the same protocols as in earlier survey rounds. Wherever possible, the same respondents who
were surveyed in IRM-4 were selected for IRM-5. Previous survey rounds obtained the names andmobile phone numbers of interviewees. This was used to identify the respondent in the household to
be interviewed for subsequent surveys.

Analysis
The survey data are used in a number of ways throughout this report.
First, for many analyses, the full data of IRM-1 to IRM-5 were compared at the aggregate level,
allowing for an assessment of changes over time. The IRM-5 survey was deliberately designed tomirror previous IRM instruments, with many of the questions remaining the same. This allowed for
direct assessments to be made of changes over time. Some adjustments were made between eachsurvey to capture particularly important events, such as the fuel crisis, cash grant distribution, and,in this round, the status of retrofitting. The first survey tracked attitudes, perceptions, and experiences two months after the disaster and changes since the earthquakes. Most of the IRM-2 questions
5

4

See Annex A for an overview of attrition rates.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

recorded information on what had happened between then and February 2016 when the second
survey was conducted, with the beginning of the 2015 monsoon period (June 2015) used as the time
marker. The IRM-3 survey, conducted towards the end of the monsoon, recorded changes sinceIRM-2 at a time when the third official damage assessment was being, or had recently been, conducted. The IRM-4 survey was conducted during April 2017 when the housing reconstruction grant
was increased from NPR 200,000 (USD 1,700) to NPR 300,000 (USD 2,550), the government announced the provision of a NPR 100,000 (USD 850) retrofitting grant for those whose houses werecategorized as partially damaged, and two weeks before the first polling of the first local elections in
20 years. Since IRM-4 was conducted in April 2017, local and provincial elections had successfully
been completed, local and provincial level representatives have been elected, and the country wastransitioning to a federal system.
As many people who were interviewed in IRM-5 were also interviewed in past rounds, the survey
was able to assess with more rigor how individuals’ perceptions and experiences had changed overtime. Some assessments included only those interviewed in all four rounds, or in the past two or
three rounds (the household panel datasets). Since most respondents were interviewed in IRM-2
to IRM-5, with fewer also interviewed in IRM-1, the study made more use of the IRM-2 to IRM-5
dataset, except where it was particularly important to examine changes across all five rounds. Manyof the analyses and data breakdowns compare aggregate responses from each of the Post-Disaster
Needs Assessment (PDNA) district impact categories: severely hit districts; crisis hit districts; hitwith heavy losses districts; and hit districts (margin of error 1.8 to 5.2%). These analyses provide a
broad picture of the differences (and similarities) between districts with varying degrees of earthquake impact.

Table 1.1: Districts surveyed (IRM-5)
Severely hit

Crisis hit

District

Sample size,
and margin Districtof error (%)

Samplesize, andmargin oferror (%)

Ramechhap

600(+/-4%)

Kathmandu

Gorkha600(+/-4%)

Sindhupalchowk

602(+/-4%)

Nuwakot

350(+/-5.2%)

Dhading681(+/-3.8%)

Hit with heavy losses

Hit

District

Sample size
and margin of District
error

Samplesize, andmargin oferror (%)

502(+/-4.4%)

Solukhumbu

350(+/-5.2%)

351(+/-5.2%)

Bhaktapur

612(+/-3.9%)

Lamjung351(+/-5.2%)

Okhaldhunga

858(+/-3.3%)

Syangja

Most of the analyses were also broken down by individual districts (margin of error 3.3 to 5.2%).
Each district had experienced the earthquakes, and the subsequent aid response, differently. These
granular analyses allow for an exploration of how districts vary, say, in aid received, in coping strategies employed, and in attitudes towards local leaders. This level of disaggregation means that, attimes, the report provides a detailed analysis of the situation in specific districts. Such analyses will
be most useful for those working in particular districts.

5Introduction

Analysis of the data were broken down by a host of demographic and geographic variables. Different
groups of the population (men/women; people of different caste; people with different incomes;etc.) will likely have experienced the earthquakes in different ways. Disaggregating analyses by all
demographic variables allows for a much finer assessment of differing patterns of impacts and recovery. The analyses provide information on which groups of people are more vulnerable and may
require particular attention.

Variables
Most of the variables used in the analyses in this report are self-explanatory. The following are descriptions for those variables which may be less clear.

6•

Caste/ethnicity: A total of eight nominal measures of caste are included in the study: Hill
castes, Hill ethnic groups, Hill Dalits, Newar, Madhesi castes, Madhesi ethnic groups, Madhesi Dalit, and Muslim. Hill castes include Hill Chettris, Brahmins, Thakuris and Sanyasis. Hill
ethnic group refers to indigenous communities residing in the hills like Gurung, Magar, Tamang, Rai, Limbu, Sherpa, Sunuwar, etc. Some communities that make the Hill Dalit category
are Kami, Sarki, Damai, Badi, etc. Newar includes all the sub-castes/groups within the Newar
ethnic group category. Findings are primarily presented for Hill castes, Hill ethnic groups,
Hill Dalits, and Newars for which the sample sizes are high enough for separate analyses.
Sample sizes for other groups were very small.

•

Income: Respondents in this study are categorized into three levels of self-reported income
estimates: low-income, medium-income and high-income. The monthly income of those in
the low-income group is up to NPR 9,999 (USD 84.92); the monthly income of those in themedium-income group ranges from NPR 10,000 (USD 84.93) to NPR 19,999 (USD 169.86);
the monthly income of those in the high-income group is above NPR 20,000 (USD 169.87).
In most cases, analyses are based on self-reported pre-earthquake income, but in some cases,
the report looks at differences in outcomes by current income, using the same categories.

•

Disability: Respondents were asked six questions on disability, drawing on guidance from the
Washington Group on Disability Statistics. Where respondents said they have a lot of difficulty or cannot do any one or more of the following, they were coded as having a disability (Ifthey mentioned having no or some difficulty, then they were coded as not having a disability.):
1. seeing, even if wearing glasses; 2. Hearing, even if using a hearing aid; 3. Walking or climbing steps; 4. Remembering or concentrating; 5. Self-care such as washing or dressing; and 6.
Difficulty communicating.

•

Remoteness: Remoteness has three categories based on how far the ward is from the district headquarters. If the ward is less than one hour from the district headquarters, using thequickest means of transportation, then it is coded as “less remote.” If the ward is 1-6 hours
from the district headquarters, it is coded as “remote”. Finally, if the ward is located morethan 6 hours from the district headquarters, it is coded as “more remote.”•

Urban/rural: Analysis of the urban/rural variable was based on the old local level structureof Village Development Committees (VDC) and municipalities. As per the old government
structure, there were 3,157 VDCs and 217 municipalities. The areas classified under VDCs
have been referred to as rural areas, and the areas classified under municipalities have beenreferred to as urban areas. Despite local body restructuring in 2017, when the previous VDCs
and municipalities were restructured in rural and urban municipalities, the previous categorization was maintained, as it more accurately represents the difference between urban andrural areas. (For example, under the new demarcations, the larger urban municipalities also
include surrounding rural areas and therefore, do not adequately represent findings specificto urban recovery.)Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Limitations
The survey data presented here are a result of a careful and methodical sampling design. The results
are representative of the full population of the 11 surveyed districts. The survey was piloted to ensurethat respondents understood questions, and adjustments were made where necessary. Lessons fromthe effectiveness of the questions in previous surveys also helped to improve the IRM-5 tools. The
large sample size selected through PPS sampling leads to a smaller margin of error, which meansthat estimates presented in the report are fairly accurate, with a strong degree of confidence that thefindings are true to reality.
However, as with all surveys, caution should be taken when interpreting findings. The error marginand confidence level must be taken into account when interpreting findings. This is especially true
for district-level findings, which are based on higher error margins. The booster samples from urban
areas were useful when examining differences between rural and urban living conditions; however,there are times when the urban population skews the overall results, and should be accounted for
carefully examining the distinction between urban and rural settings. For example, the inclusion of
the two urban districts of Bhaktapur and Kathmandu in the ‘crisis hit’ district impact category often
skewed findings for ’crisis hit’ districts.
Surveys provide useful information on the situation of a large number of people, selected such thatfindings can be generalized across the broader population in affected areas. However, bivariate results presented in this study do not sufficiently explain the underlying factors that determine different situations and attitudes – for example, why people feel safe or have not received aid.
Information provided throughout the report is based on self-reported accounts. Results related tofactual events may not have been captured well by the survey. For instance, many respondents may
not have had full knowledge of the situation (e.g. who provided aid or whether an official assessment
team had visited their wards). With regards to reporting the amount required for reconstruction andrepairing, the respondents might not be able to recall the exact amount they incurred to purchasematerials. Some respondents may also have incentives to over- or under-report the level of impact
they experienced, whether or not they received aid, and so on. While results still tend to represent
the general perception among the population, it is important to bear in mind that these are self-reported accounts.
Finally, some questions, such as whether violence had occurred, are sensitive and some respondents
may prefer not to answer them or to under-report them.

7

Introduction

Photo:8
Prabhat R Jha (Suryabinayak, Bhaktapur)

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Chapter 2

Housing Status

Photo: Manasi Prasai (Gorkha)This chapter presents findings on housing damages and the time people have spent in temporary
accommodation before moving back into permanent housing. The chapter also discusses the housing status of people in earthquake-affected areas at the time of research, highlighting the movementfrom shelters into repaired or rebuilt houses over time, and the type of housing people were in. Finally, the chapter looks at the small share of people still in temporary shelters nearly five years after
the earthquake and their outlook on leaving the shelter for better housing.

Key Findings
Damage and time spent in temporary accommodation•

Eight in ten households in earthquake-affected areas reported housing damage. About half
said that their house was completely destroyed in the earthquake.

•On average, it took close to one year for people in earthquake-affected areas to move out of
temporary accommodation and back into their home. People in rural areas and in severely
hit districts stayed in temporary accommodation longer than those in urban areas or lesser
hit districts. Nearly all respondents stayed in a self-constructed shelter before moving back totheir own home.

Current housing•

Nearly five years after the earthquake, most people whose housesustained some level of damage had moved back into their own house (92%) – an increase of 24 percentage points since
the last survey round in 2017 (IRM-4) and of 42 percentage points since 2015 (IRM-1). As
people moved back into their own house, the shares living in temporary shelters decreased
significantly (from 45% in IRM-1, to 4% in IRM-5).
9

Housing Status•

While most people were in their own house, the type of housing they were in varied. Most lived
in fully recovered housing—either a fully rebuilt house (47%), a repaired house (22%), or a(second) undamaged house (6%). Yet, 15 percent said they lived in a partially rebuilt house orpartially repaired house (12%), or in a damaged unrepaired house (3%). Much smaller shareswere in other types of housing, such as temporary shelters, renting, or friends’ or neighbors’houses.

Temporary shelters•

Few people were still in temporary shelters in IRM-5 (4% of people with housing damage),
but their outlook was pessimistic. Two in three people living in shelters were uncertain about
their future. They either wanted to leave but believed they would have to remain in shelters
long-term, or they wanted to leave but were unsure of when they would be able to do so.

2.1 Housing damage
The IRM surveys asked respondents how their house was officially classified in the Government of
Nepal (GoN)’s damage assessment (‘official damage assessment’) as well as how they, themselves,assessed their housing damage (‘reported housing damage’) (Table 2.1). Findings on official housing
damage are discussed in Chapter 4.1. This chapter looks at self-reported earthquake damage, which
provides a point of comparison over time of all respondents, and not just subset of the respondents
whose houses were assessed.

Table 2.1: IRM housing damage categories – reported damage vs. official damage assessment1
Reported housing damage

Official damage assessment

Completely destroyed

Fully damaged

Badly damaged (major repairs needed)

Partially damaged

Habitable (minor repairs needed)

Not damaged

Not damaged

In each round of the IRM survey, respondents in the 11 earthquake-affected districts surveyed wereasked to self-assess the level of damage to their house caused by the earthquake. Half of surveyed
households in the three most recent survey rounds (IRM-3, IRM-4, and IRM-5) said their house
was completely destroyed in the earthquake. The share who reported complete destruction of theirhouse increased ten points between IRM-2 (Feb/Mar 2016) and IRM-3 (Sep 2016). In the same timespan, the share who said their house was habitable but needed minor repairs decreased (Figure 2.1).
One explanation could be that, with various assessments being done in 2016, respondents’ views ondamage solidified around this time.

1

10

The damage grades of ‘fully damage’, ‘partially damaged’ and ‘not damaged’ do not correspond to damage categorization employed by the CBSteams during the assessment. This survey uses these categorizations which were used by earlier rapid damage assessments (which used themwith corresponding red, yellow and green labels) as people have widely continued using them when explaining how their house was assessed.
Very few people were aware of official damage grades and verifying this would have involved checking their housing grant documents. Yet, people
were generally aware whether their house was declared ‘fully damaged’ (eligible for the NPR 300,000 housing reconstruction grant), ‘partiallydamaged’ (eligible for the NPR 100,000 retrofitting grant), or ‘not damaged’ (not eligible for any support).

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 2.1: Self-reported housing damage (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855,
IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

Levels of self-reported damage corresponded with the district impact categories outlined in the GoN
Post-Disaster Needs Assessment.2 More than eight in 10 residents of ‘severely hit’ districts (the most
severely impacted districts) said their house was completely destroyed by the earthquake, whereas
fewer people in ‘crisis hit,’ ‘hit with heavy losses,’ or ‘hit’ districts said the same (Table 2.2). Those inrural areas (65%) were far more likely than those in urban areas (26%) to say that their house wascompletely destroyed.

2

Affected districts were categorized into five categories based on number of houses destroyed or damaged: ‘Severely hit’, ‘crisis hit’, ‘hit with heavy
losses’, ‘hit’ and ‘slightly affected’: https://www.npc.gov.np/images/category/PDNA_volume_BFinalVersion.pdf (p.XI)

11

Housing Status

Table 2.2: Reported housing damage – by district, district impact, urban/rural(IRM-5, base=5,857, weighted)

Overall

Rural/urban

Badly damaged(major repairsneeded)HabitableNot(minor repairs
damagedneeded)

%

%

%

%

51

11

20

17

89

6

4

1

Dhading

85

9

5

0

Gorkha

85

7

6

3

Severely hit

District impact anddistrict

Completely
destroyed

Nuwakot

97

1

3

0

Ramechhap

83

10

6

1

Sindhupalchowk

94

4

2

0

Crisis hit

36

12

25

28

Bhaktapur

51

12

15

23

Kathmandu

31

11

27

30

Okhaldhunga

71

12

16

2

Hit with heavy losses

36

21

22

21

Lamjung

22

21

28

29

Solukhumbu

59

23

9

8

Hit

14

13

60

12

Syangja

14

13

60

12

Rural

65

9

17

9

Urban

26

13

28

33

2.2 Time spent in temporary housing
The IRM surveys looked at how long people stayed in temporary accommodation before moving
back into their own home. On average, people in earthquake-affected areas spent just under one year
(351 days) in temporary accommodation (mostly shelters or other people’s homes – see below) before returning to their house. People with high incomes were able to return back to their own homes
much faster (132 days) than those with middle or low incomes (333 days and 513 days, respectively).3
Those with completely destroyed houses had to stay elsewhere the longest (599 days) followed bythose with major damages (209 days); yet, even people with minor damages (61 days) and no damages (46 days) stayed elsewhere for nearly two months, possibly as a result of safety concerns due torecurring aftershocks.
People in rural areas spent more than twice as long in temporary housing (457 days) than those inurban areas (149 days). People in severely hit districts spent much longer outside their homes (705days) than people in lesser hit districts (61-208 days in other district impact categories) (Figure 2.2).
Across districts, people in Sindhupalchowk (880 days) and Nuwakot (828 days) reported the highest
number of days living in shelters or other people’s homes – between two and two-and-a-half years.

3

12

The monthly income of those in the low-income group is up to NPR 9,999 (USD 84.92); the monthly income of those in the medium-income
group ranges from NPR 10,000 (USD 84.93) to NPR 19,999 (USD 169.86); the monthly income of those in the high-income group is above NPR
20,000 (USD 169.87). See Chapter 1 for definitions and explanations of income levels as well as of other variables.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 2.2: Time spent in temporary housing – by district impact, district, urban/rural (IRM-5, weighted,
base=5,857)

Where did people stay until they could return to permanent housing?
As described below (Section 2.3), the large majority had returned to their own houses (partially or
fully rebuilt or repaired or unrepaired) by IRM-5. Those who reported living in their own houses,
were asked where they had stayed until their own houses became livable again. Most had stayed inself-constructed shelters (87%)—on their own land (64%), on public land (13%) or on other people’sland (10%). Very few stayed in shelters constructed by donors (0.5%) or community shelters (1%)– although several of those who stayed in self-constructed shelters have likely built those with aid
provided by donors such as tarps or corrugated iron sheets.44Previous IRM survey findings showed that many people received aid in the first year after the earthquake, such as tarps or tents, or cash, and used
this to build temporary shelters.

13

Housing Status

Figure 2.3: Temporary housing before return to own house (those who were living in own partially or fully
repaired/rebuilt house, IRM-5, weighted, base=4,173)

Most people in rural areas stayed in self-constructed shelters on their own land (78%) while thosein urban areas were more likely to have stayed in constructed shelters on public land (Table 2.3).
Across districts with varying earthquake impacts, most people said they stayed in self-constructed
shelters on their own land. Those in Lamjung were noticeably more likely than people in other districts to have lived in their own damaged house (45%).

Table 2.3: Temporary housing before return to own house – by district impact, district, urban/rural (for maintypes of temporary housing, those who were living in own partially or fully repaired/rebuilt house, IRM-5,
weighted, base=4,173)

14

Self-constructed
shelter on own land

Self-constructed shelter onother people’s land

Self-constructed shelter on public land

Own damaged
house

%

%

%

%

Overall

64

13

10

6

Severely hit

84

9

4

2

Dhading

88

6

4

0

Gorkha

76

7

9

4

Nuwakot

89

9

1

0

Ramechhap

92

2

2

3

Sindhupalchowk

76

18

2

2

Crisis hit

54

6

5

26

Bhaktapur

42

14

18

5

Kathmandu

40

14

29

7

Okhaldhunga

84

2

2

11

Hit with heavy losses

45

13

24

8

Lamjung

36

8

5

45

Solukhumbu

80

3

6

1

Hit

75

0

8

5

Syangja

75

0

8

5

Rural

78

8

5

5

Urban

22

15

37

11

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

2.3 Current housing
The IRM survey looked at where people lived during each survey round, and at progress in reconstruction (i.e. what they had done to rebuild/repair their house). The latter is discussed in Chapter
3.1. This section describes the housing status of households in earthquake-affected areas from 2015
to 2019. This reveals where people were living at the time of the survey, not whether they were also
in the process of rebuilding or repairing/retrofitting their house, which is discussed in Chapter 3.

Housing status
Nearly five years after the earthquake, most people had moved back into their own house5 (92%) –an increase of 24 percentage points since IRM-4 (April 2017). Compared to immediately after theearthquake in June 2015 (IRM-1), the share who lived in their own home had almost doubled (from50% in IRM-1, to 92% in IRM-5). During the same time period, the share of people who lived in temporary shelters6 decreased by 41 percentage points (45% in IRM-1, to 4% in IRM-5). The movementfrom shelters to own homes did not appear to be one-directional. Between IRM-1 and IRM-2, there
was movement from own homes into shelters (in IRM-2), and subsequently back into own homes
beginning in IRM-3 (Sept 2016), showing that there was some uncertainty in the early years after theearthquake when people had to move between their own homes and shelters due to safety concerns
or to demolish and rebuild their house. During the last three rounds of IRM data collection (IRM-3 toIRM-5), there was a steady increase in people moving out of shelters and into their own house (from
64% to 92%), or to the houses of friends/neighbors or rented accommodation (from 1% to 5%).

Figure 2.4: Housing status 2015-2019 (IRM-1 base=2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

5
6‘Own house’ means either a fully or partially rebuilt/repaired house, a house not damaged by the earthquake, or an old house damaged by theearthquake and not yet rebuilt/repaired.
‘Temporary shelter’ means either a self-constructed shelter, a community shelter, or a shelter constructed by an individual or institutional donor.

15

Housing Status

Of those who had sustained housing damages, very similar shares had moved back into their own
houses by IRM-5: 92 percent of those reporting earthquake damages to their house were back intheir own house – whether repaired, rebuilt, unrepaired or undamaged – while four percent were intemporary shelters and the remaining shares in other types of housing.

Type of housing
Although most people whose house had sustained earthquake damage were living in their own
house by IRM-5 (Sept-Oct 2019), the type of housing they lived in varied considerably.7 Overall, bylate 2019, three-quarters (75%) of households with housing damage lived in a rebuilt or repaired
house, or another house not damaged by the earthquake. Most lived in a fully rebuilt (47%) or repaired (22%) house. A small share (6%) reported living in a (second) house which was not damagedby the earthquake.8
Fifteen percent said they lived in a partially rebuilt or partially repaired house (12%), or in a damaged, unrepaired house (3%) – likely a potentially unsafe accommodation. The remaining shareswere in other types of housing, such as temporary shelters, renting, or friends’ or neighbors’ houses.9

Figure 2.5: Type of housing (those self-reporting some level of housing damage, IRM-5, base=4,832,
weighted)

7

8
9

16

The options were read out to the respondents. In an attempt to get an insight into as many particularities as possible, respondents were allowed
to choose from the following options: 1) Completely reconstructed own house, 2) Completely repaired own house, 3) Own house not damaged byearthquake, 4) neighbor’s house, 5)friend’s house, 6) shelter constructed by donor (not self-constructed) on own land, 7) partially reconstructed
own house, 8) partially repaired own house, 9) self-constructed shelter on own land, 10) self-constructed shelter on other people’s land, 11)self-constructed shelter on public land, 12) shelter constructed by outside donor on public land, 13) own house damaged by earthquake but not
yet repaired or reconstructed, 14) community shelter, 15) both, old damaged house as well as new house (new house partially or completely
rebuilt), 16) both, old damaged house as well as shelter, and 17) House constructed by donor
Even though this analysis only looks at those respondents who reported some level of housing damages, 6% said they lived in a house not damaged by the earthquake – most likely a second house that was undamaged.
This data does not adequately represent mixed housing solutions. Only 2% said they lived in both, a pre-earthquake house and a rebuilt house, ora shelter and a pre-earthquake house. Other data (see Chapter 3.3) and qualitative research conducted alongside this survey suggest that larger
shares live in both new and old houses. Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal: Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Phase 5 –Qualitative Field Monitoring (November 2019). Kathmandu: The Asia Foundation

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

There was little variation in the type of housing people lived in by Sep/Oct 2019 (IRM-5) in the different areas. Most people across all 11 districts said that they lived in their completely reconstructed
own house. However, fewer people in urban areas were living in a rebuilt house than in rural areas(Table 2.4).

Table 2.4: Type of housing – by district impact, district, urban/rural (those self-reporting some level of housing damage, IRM-5, weighted, base=4,832)
Fully
Neighbor/
Fully
Partially
Partially
Own house
Own
repairedfriend'sreconstructreconstructed repaired not damaged damaged
Shelter Combinationownhouse ored own houseown house own house by earthquake house
house
rent
%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Overall

47

22

2

10

6

3

5

4

2

Severely hit

75

8

2

3

1

2

1

6

2

Dhading

66

12

0

5

3

3

0

5

6

Gorkha

77

11

1

2

1

1

1

5

1

Nuwakot

84

4

6

1

0

1

2

3

1

Ramechhap

76

5

0

6

2

6

1

3

1

Sindhupalchowk

76

4

2

1

1

1

1

14

0

Hit with heavy
losses

42

31

1

7

2

14

1

1

1

Bhaktapur

31

32

5

9

10

2

6

5

1

Kathmandu

27

29

1

16

12

1

10

2

2

Okhaldhunga

60

19

1

7

3

8

1

1

0

Crisis hit

30

28

2

14

11

2

9

3

2

Lamjung

57

37

0

1

4

0

1

0

1

Solukhumbu

32

27

2

12

1

24

0

2

0

Hit

13

49

2

24

1

8

2

0

1

Syangja

13

49

2

24

1

8

2

0

1

Rural

58

15

1

9

4

4

3

4

2

Urban

20

40

2

14

12

2

8

3

0

2.4 Temporary and semi-temporary shelters
In the first IRM survey conducted two months after the earthquake, 39 percent of all respondents(45% of respondents with housing damages – see above) lived in temporary shelters. Since then,there was a steady decline in the share of people living in temporary shelters. In the two-and-ahalf-year gap between IRM-4 and IRM-5, there was a massive decrease in the share of people who
lived in temporary shelters, with just four percent saying they lived in shelters by IRM-5. People inshelters were primarily in self-constructed shelters on their own land (few mentioned building themon other people’s or public land, or being in community shelters).

17Housing Status

Of the four percent of respondents still in temporary shelters (219 people), 83 percent were in rural
areas and 17 percent in urban areas. Most of those in shelters were in severely hit districts (64%) or
crisis hit districts (32%). Sindhupalchowk (30%) and Kathmandu (22%) had the highest share ofpeople living in shelters in IRM-5.

Figure 2.6: Share of people in temporary shelters – by district impact, district, rural/urban (IRM-5,
base=219, weighted)

Type of shelter: As in previous IRM survey rounds, almost all of those e in shelters lived either
in corrugated iron (CGI) shelters (69%) or shelters made from a combination of CGI and wood orbamboo (21%).
Satisfaction and issues with shelters: Just over four in ten people who lived in temporary shelters were dissatisfied (44%) with conditions in their current shelter; about three in ten were either
neutral (27%) or satisfied (28%). Those still staying in shelters were also asked about the main issues
they faced in the shelter during the last monsoon. Leaking roof/walls (43%) continued to be the top
issue for people still living in shelters, followed by cold temperatures (41%). However, the share who
mentioned leaks declined since IRM-3 and IRM-4. There was a slight increase in the share of people
who mentioned poor sanitation facilities as an issue in shelters (15%) compared to previous surveys.
One in three people still in shelters (35%) did not report any issues with their shelter during the lastmonsoon.

18

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Prospect of leaving temporary shelters
People who lived in temporary shelters were also asked about their future housing plans. Two in
three respondents living in temporary shelters were pessimistic about moving out of temporary
shelters, 36 percent said they wanted to move but believed they would stay in the shelter long-term,and 32 percent said they would leave as soon as they can but did not have an idea when that might
be. Twenty-six percent of respondents said they wanted to move and were optimistic that they would
leave soon. Only 6 percent said they did not want to move and that they would stay in the shelter
long-term.

Figure 2.7: Outlook on leaving temporary shelter (those still living in shelters, IRM-5, base=219, weighted)

19

Housing Status

Photo:20
Prabhat R Jha (Sindhupalchowk)

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Chapter 3

Housing reconstruction

Photo: Manasi Prasai (Tanglichok, Gorkha)This chapter looks at progress in housing recovery over time by examining what people have done torebuild/repair their houses (information on damages and current housing is presented in Chapter2). It also presents findings on the timelines of when people began and completed the reconstruction
or repair of their houses. Findings on the size and use of newly built houses and the demolishing ofolder damaged houses are discussed. Further, the chapter includes information on reconstruction
costs and access to construction materials as well as the types of assistance and information people
have received for reconstruction purposes.

Key Findings
Progress in reconstruction•

There has been considerable progress in housing recovery, with over half of earthquake-affected households having completed reconstruction work, and another 21 percent having
started reconstruction/repair work. People in more severely impacted districts and those whoreported that their house was completely destroyed were more likely to have completed repairing/rebuilding their house. People in more remote and rural areas were more likely tohave completed reconstruction than those in urban or less remote areas.

•

Most people with some level of earthquake damage began reconstruction one or two years
after the earthquake and completed it two or three years after the earthquake.

•

Most respondents who reported having earthquake damage were currently living in fully orcompletely repaired/rebuilt houses. Two in ten earthquake-affected households said they had
not started reconstruction work. These households tended to be in less affected districts andin less remote and urban areas, and reported lower levels of damage.

21

Housing reconstruction•

Most reconstructed homes had three rooms or fewer. Those who built new homes were insmaller houses compared to those who just had to repair their old home. People felt that theirreconstructed house was safer than their old house and were satisfied with their house.

•

Half of those who reported earthquake damage had not demolished their earthquake-damaged house. Most of the people who demolished the damaged house reported that the earthquake had completely destroyed their house. The main reason for not demolishing a damaged
house was that it was still in use. The top two uses for damaged houses were for living/sleeping and for storage.

Rebuilding costs•

The average building costs given by those who completed reconstruction was NPR 1,196,887(USD 10,069). The cost of materials used was much cheaper if they were locally available, formost items. Costs appeared to be lower for more remote households than for less remote andurban households.

Reconstruction assistance•Cash and technical assistance were the top forms of assistance received by those who were in
the process of, or had completed, reconstruction. Cash was also mentioned as the most usefulform of assistance received by those who got assistance. Additionally, those who were in theprocess or had not started the reconstruction process said that cash would be the most needed
form of assistance.

Access to information•

As in IRM-3 and IRM-4, family, friends, and neighbors were overwhelmingly the top sources
for information on reconstruction.

•

A majority of respondents felt confident of being able to communicate with NRA officials aswell as technical officers/engineers and believed that the experience would be good. People inmore remote and rural areas were more likely to hold this view. Opinions were similar among
those who got the first, second, or all three tranches of the NRA grant.

3.1 Progress in Reconstruction
Progress in rebuilding/repairing houses over time
In addition to tracking what housing people were living at the time of each survey round (Chapter2), the IRM surveys also tracked what people had done toward rebuilding/repairing homes if theyexperienced any level of damage due to the 2015 earthquake. While findings for where people were
living showed that there had been considerable progress in people moving out of shelters and backinto their houses, findings for rebuilding/repairing progress confirmed that there had been good
progress in reconstruction between early 2017 (IRM-4) and late 2019 (IRM-5). By IRM-5, half ofhouseholds with earthquake housing damage had completely finished rebuilding or repairing their

22

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

house and were living in the house. In IRM 3, only 15 percent of households were at this stage ofreconstruction, and 24 percent in IRM-4. The share of households who had started to repair/rebuild
and were also staying in the house during the repairs/rebuilding was less than five percent in IRM4, but increased substantially to 21 percent by IRM-5. Since 2016, between two and four percent ofrespondents said that they had built a new house, but did not live in it; and a similar share (3-8%)
said they had started to rebuild/build a new house, but did not live in it. In IRM-5, 21 percent said
they had done nothing to rebuild/repair their house, a significant decrease from 56 percent in IRM4, and 72 percent in IRM-3.

Figure 3.1: Progress in reconstruction (those who reported housing damage, IRM-1 base=2,413, IRM-2
base=3,880, IRM-3 base=3,835, IRM-4 base=3,931, and IRM-5 base=4,832, weighted)

When did people begin rebuilding/repairing their house?
Rebuilding or repairing houses began either one year (28% in 2016/17) or two years (29% in 2017/18)
after the earthquake, for most earthquake-affected people. Only nine percent of respondents began
rebuilding/repairing a few months after the earthquake in 2015/16 and 15 percent towards the endof that year. The rest began rebuilding/repairing three or four years after the earthquake (16% in
2018/19 and 3% in 2019/2020).1 There were some notable differences across districts. A majorityof respondents in Syangja (55%), classified as “hit” by the earthquake, started reconstruction work
sooner than the average, just a few months after the earthquake. Reconstruction work began sooner
in Kathmandu, too: nearly 60 percent started work towards the end of 2015/16 (29%) or 2016/17(29%). In contrast, most residents (59%) with damaged houses in Lamjung started reconstruction
much later, in 2018-19.
Individuals who experienced higher levels of damage started their rebuilding/repair work later thanthose with lesser damage. People with houses classified as fully damaged had mostly started repairing/rebuilding one year after the earthquake (2016/17, 30%) or two years later(2017/18, 36%);
and 20 percent started three years later (2018/19, 20%). Among those whose houses were classified as partially damaged, similar shares began repairing/rebuilding towards early 2016 (27%) or in
1

Nepali dates were used when asking this question. The Nepali year (Bikram Sambat=BS) runs from April to April: : 2072 BS=2015/16 AD (April
2015 to April 2016), 2073 BS=2016/17 AD, 2074 BS=2017/18 AD, 2075 BS=2018/19 AD, 2076 BS=2019/2020.

23

Housing reconstruction

2016/17 (30%), and 17 percent began work in 2017/18. Respondents whose houses were classified
as normal/not damaged began repairing/rebuilding within the year the earthquake occurred, eithera few months after the earthquake (28%), or towards the end of the year (36%). By 2016/17, another18 percent had started work and 10 percent had done so in 2017/18.
Level of income did not largely affect when people could start repairing or rebuilding their homes.
However, those with higher incomes were slightly more likely to have begun work towards early2016. People in urban areas and those living less than an hour away from the district headquarters
also tended to have begun repairing/rebuilding their houses towards early 2016.

Figure 3.2: Start date and completion date of reconstruction (those self-reporting some housing damages
and who have started reconstruction; base=3,820 for start, 3,786 for end)

When did people complete rebuilding/repairing their house?
Most people with housing damages completed rebuilding/repairing their house either two (24%)
or three (25%) years after the earthquake. Few people had completed work within the year of theearthquake (14% by early 2016) and even a year later (17% in 2016/17). Just seven percent said theyfinished work in 2019 (Figure 3.2).
Across districts, Syangja was the only district where a majority finished the work by early 2016, 37
percent had completed work within the first few months after the earthquake, and another 22 percent did so by the end of that year. Other districts completed the work by either 2017/18 or 2018/19.
People with houses classified as fully damaged said they completed rebuilding or repairing in either
2017/18 or 2018/19; few said work was completed by early 2016 or by 2016/17. Those with higher
incomes were slightly more likely to say they completed work by early 2016 or by 2016/17; howeverhigh earners were not more likely than others to have completed work right after the earthquake.

24

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Who had completed rebuilding/repairing their house after five years?
Fifty-four percent of respondents who reported some earthquake damage said they had fully repaired/rebuilt their house after the earthquake (Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1). People living in severely
hit districts were more likely to have fully repaired/rebuilt their house compared to other districts.
At least seven in ten respondents in severely hit districts said they had fully repaired/rebuilt theirhouse, compared to less than half of respondents in districts classified with lower levels of earthquake damage (except Okhaldhunga where 64% of respondents had completed their house). Similarly, respondents whose house was officially classified as fully damaged (74%) were far more likely
than those classified as partially damaged (24%) or normal/not damaged (18%) to have completed
rebuilding/repairing. Likewise, the proportion of respondents who reported that they fully rebuilt/
repaired their house were twice as likely to be in rural areas (63%) than in urban areas (30%). Similarly, residents of remote areas were more likely to report they had fully repaired/rebuilt their housethan those who were in less remote areas (Table 3.1).

Who was still rebuilding/repairing the house after five years?
A quarter of respondents who reported some earthquake damage said they were in the process of
rebuilding/repairing their house in IRM-5. The share of respondents who were still rebuilding/repairing their house was relatively higher in crisis hit districts (35%) and hit districts (32%). They alsotended to have been classified as partially damaged in the official assessment. People in urban areas(35%) were more likely than those in rural areas (21%) to still have been rebuilding/repairing theirhouse at the time of IRM-5 (Table 3.1).

Who had not yet started to rebuild/repair?
Two in ten households (21%) said that they had not yet started to rebuild/repair their house in IRM5. Residents of the districts that suffered comparatively less damage were more likely to report thatthey had not started to repair or rebuild their house. Residents in Lamjung (59%), a district hit withheavy losses, were the most likely to have not yet started to rebuild/repair their house. Similarly,
residents of Syangja (32%), a hit district, mentioned that they had not done anything to rebuild/repair their house. People in urban areas (35%) were twice as likely as those in rural areas (16%) toreport not having started to rebuild/repair (Table 3.1).

25

Housing reconstruction

Table 3.1 Status of housing recovery – by district impact, district, urban/rural, and remoteness (among those
who reported housing damage, IRM-5, weighted, base=4,832)

Overall

District impact anddistricts

Rural/urban

RemotenessNot yet started torebuild/repair

Fully rebuilt/repaired house

Started to rebuild/repair house

(%)

(%)

(%)

21

54

25

Severely Hit

8

78

14

Dhading

14

70

16

Gorkha6

80

13

Nuwakot3

83

13

Ramechhap

13

80

7

Sindhupalchowk

3

81

16

Crisis Hit

28

38

35

Bhaktapur

20

37

43

Kathmandu

30

35

35

Okhaldhunga

22

64

13

Hit with heavy losses

39

43

18

Solukhumbu

11

53

35

Lamjung

59

36

5

Hit

32

35

32

Syangja

32

35

32

Rural

16

63

21

Urban

35

30

35

Less than 1 hour away

29

37

34

More than 1 but lessthan 3 hours away

18

57

25

More than 3 hours but
less than 6 hours

15

70

15

More than 6 hours

13

78

8

Among caste/ethnic groups, Hill Dalits (30%) and Newars (27%) were more likely than people ofother caste-ethnic groups to say they had done nothing to rebuild/repair their home.

26

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 3.3: Status of housing recovery – by caste/ethnicity (among those who reported housing damage,IRM-5, weighted, base=4,832)

People who reported lower levels of damage were also more likely to not have started reconstruction(30% badly damaged, 40% habitable, 13% completely destroyed house).

Figure 3.4: Status of housing recovery – by reported housing damage (among those who reported damages, IRM-5, weighted, base=4,832)

27

Housing reconstruction

3.2 Newly built houses
About eight in ten households who reported earthquake damage had done something towards repairing/rebuilding their home. Earthquake-affected households which had started and/or completed reconstruction/repairs of their house were asked a series of questions on the location, size, usage,
safety, and satisfaction with the new home.

Size of new houses
Earthquake-affected households who had completed rebuilding/repairing, or were in the processof doing so, were asked about the number of rooms in their new house. Overall, 45 percent said thehouses has or will have four or more rooms, 10 percent said three rooms, 34 percent said two rooms,
and 10 percent said one room (Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.5: Size of house (those who have completed rebuilding/repairing or are in the process of rebuilding/repairing; base=3787)

Looking at only those who had rebuilt a new house and were living in it, larger shares (58%) lived inhouses with one or two rooms (45% in two-room houses and 13% in one-room houses), while fewer
lived in houses with three or more rooms (Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.6: Size of house (those living in a fully rebuilt house; base=2285)

28

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Future expansion of homes: Eight in ten respondents (79%) who fully rebuilt or were in theprocess of doing so said that they did not plan on adding more rooms to the house in the future; but
one in five (21%) planned to add more rooms.

Size of new houses compared to size of repaired houses
Newly built houses were smaller compared to repaired houses. While newly rebuilt homes tended to
be ones with two rooms or less, a majority of fully repaired houses had four or more rooms.

Figure 3.7: Size of house – rebuilt houses vs repaired houses (among those who reported housing damages
and were living in a fully rebuilt house or a fully repaired house, IRM-5, weighted, base=3,787)

There were important variations in the number of rooms in the new house across districts and areaof settlement. Residents of Kathmandu (82%), Bhaktapur (82%), and Syangja (64%) were the most
likely to report that their house had four rooms. Residents in Dhading were most likely to say theirhouse had one room (30%). A large majority of Okhaldhunga (85%) and Ramechhap (80%) residents said their reconstructed house had two rooms. People in urban areas were far more likely thanthose in rural areas to say their house was/will be a four-room house (78% to 36%). Similarly, thosein more remote locations were more likely to have one- or two-room houses (82%) than those inother places (53% in remote, 19% in less remote).
Income level also had a bearing on the number of rooms people had. For instance, 67 percent of respondents belonging to the high-income bracket said that had four or more rooms, while 31 percent
of medium-income respondents, and 18 percent of low-income respondents had houses with fouror more rooms.

29

Housing reconstruction

Table 3.2: Size of house – by district, impact, remoteness, rural/urban, income (those who have completed
rebuilding/repairing or are in the process of rebuilding/repairing, IRM-5, weighted, base=3,786)
1 room2 rooms

3 rooms

4 or more
rooms

10

34

10

45

OverallSeverely hit

20

55

9

16

Dhading

30

47

9

13

Gorkha

24

50

10

16

Nuwakot

22

52

8

18

Ramechhap

5

80

9

6

Sindhupalchowk

12

56

11

21

Crisis hit

1

15

9

75

District impact and district Bhaktapur

1

4

13

82

Kathmandu

1

8

8

82

Rural/urban

Remoteness

IncomeOkhaldhunga

4

85

5

5

Hit with heavy losses

4

41

23

31

Solukhumbu

7

35

29

28

Lamjung

0

50

13

37

Hit

2

17

17

64

Syangja

2

17

17

64

Rural

12

42

10

36

Urban

2

10

10

78

Less remote

4

15

10

71

Remote

12

41

10

36

More remote

21

61

9

9

Low

18

55

9

18

Medium

13

45

11

31

High

4

18

10

67

Satisfaction with new houses
Most respondents (85%)2 said that they were satisfied with their newly built house, whereas a small
number of respondents said that they were dissatisfied (7%3) or neutral. Those in a completely or
partially reconstructed house were more likely to express satisfaction compared to those living in apartially or completely repaired home (Figure 3.8).

2
3

30

Combinations of very satisfied (50%) and somewhat satisfied (35%).
Combinations of very dissatisfied (3%) and somewhat dissatisfied (4%)

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 3.8: Satisfaction with new or repaired houses – by where people were living (IRM-5, weighted,
base=3,786)

Safety of reconstructed houses
Respondents who said they had fully built/repaired their house were further asked how safe theyfelt in their new or repaired house compared to the old house. The majority of respondents (81%)
felt safer in their new or repaired house than their old house; 18 percent felt the new house was not
safer than the old one.
Nearly everyone in a fully reconstructed house (97%) felt safer in the new house, as do high shares ofpeople in a partially reconstructed house (89%), whereas 48 percent in a completely repaired house
expressed the same opinion. Just 25 percent of those living in a partially repaired house felt safe inthat home.

Use of reconstructed houses
Overall, 50 percent of people with earthquake-damaged houses had fully rebuilt/repaired theirhouse and were living in it. Among the few respondents who mentioned that they had started orcompleted repairing/rebuilding their house but did not live in it (407 respondents), a vast majority(75%) said they were not using the house for any purpose at the time of the survey. Other uses included storage of grains or household items (19%), rent (3%), and keeping livestock (2%). Looking
at the completion date of the new house, most people who said they were not using their new housefor anything had completed the house only recently in 2019-20, so it seems likely that they had completed the house and were preparing to move in there to live in it soon.

31Housing reconstruction

Where did people rebuild?
A vast majority (80%) of those who had started or completed rebuilding their house had rebuilt on
the original land. Responses suggested that people were unlikely to rebuild in other locations within
the rural municipality/municipality or district (1% of respondents), but about two in ten respondents (19%) said they had rebuilt on their own land located elsewhere in the same ward. Those who
did not build on the original land (769 respondents) were asked reasons for not rebuilding there.
The most common reasons were because the original land was unsafe (51%), wanting to be closer tothe road (45%), livelihood-related reasons (17%), and to be closer to relatives (12%).4

3.3 Old houses
Demolishing of earthquake-damaged houses
Among people who reported damage to their house, half said they had demolished their old house(50%) and the other half had not (50%).
Demolishing by damage levels: Among those who said their house was completely destroyed,
76 percent had demolished their old house, whereas nearly all who had sustained major or minor
damages had not demolished the house. This shows that those with partial damage were much lesslikely to demolish their house.

Figure 3.9: Demolishing of house – by damage levels

Demolishing by status of housing recovery: Of the people who had finished reconstructing
their house, 79 percent had demolished their old house. Out of those who were in the process of reconstructing their house, 72 percent had demolished their old houses. About 15 percent of those who
said they had not yet started repairing or rebuilding their house had demolished their old house.

4

32

Multiple answers possible

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Reasons for not demolishing
The main reason given for not demolishing a damaged house was that the house was still in use(55%). Three in ten mentioned high costs (32%). Few said that the house was only partially damaged (6%) and some had moved elsewhere (6%). Compared to others, higher shares of respondents
in Syangja (77%), Lamjung (71%), and Gorkha (72%) mentioned that their house was still in use.
Likewise, residents of Bhaktapur (49%), Kathmandu (37%), and Sindhupalchowk (40%) were more
likely to say that they had not destroyed their damaged house because the demolishing costs were
too high. People in urban areas were slightly more likely than those in rural areas to mention costs
as a reason for not demolishing a damaged house (39% to 28%). On the other hand, more residents
in rural areas said they were still using the damaged house, so did not demolish it (59% to 49%).

Use of old house
When asked further about use of the old house, for those who said they had not demolished it because it was still in use (2141 respondents), a vast majority said they were still using it to live/sleepin (85%) or were storing grains and household items (66%). Others mentioned using the damaged
house for livestock (11%), as a shop (5%), or a kitchen (2%). Respondents whose houses were completely destroyed were more likely to use their old house for storage (73%), while those with major(92%) or minor damages (99%) were using the old house to live/sleep in.

3.4 Reconstruction Costs and Materials Used
All respondents who had completed reconstruction of their house or were in the process of repairing/rebuilding the damaged house were asked about the cost required for it.

Cost of Housing Reconstruction
For those who had already completed rebuilding or repairing, the average cost reported was NPR
1,196,887 (USD 10,069). For those respondents who said they were in the process of repairing/rebuilding, the average cost so far was NPR 1,036,324 (USD 8,718). Those who had not yet started
to rebuild/repair thought that it would cost an average of NPR 1,448,025 (USD 12,181) to rebuild/repair their house.
The average cost of repairing/rebuilding increased with the number of rooms in the house. The average cost of repairing/rebuilding a one-room house was NPR 450,513 (USD 3,790), whereas the average cost of repairing/rebuilding a house with four rooms or more was NPR 1,756,055 (USD 14,773).
Those who had used locally available resources for rebuilding/repairing reported lower costs (NPR
904,410/USD 7,608) compared to those who had not used locally available resources/materials(NPR 1,570,159/USD 13,209).

33

Housing reconstruction

Table 3.3: Average cost of housing recovery – by status of housing recovery, number of rooms, and use ofavailable materials (those who reported housing damages and had started or completed to rebuild/repair,IRM-5, weighted, base=4,301)
Average cost in NPR
Status of housing recovery

Number of rooms

Not yet started to rebuild/repair

1,448,025

Fully rebuilt/repaired house

1,196,887Started to rebuild/repair house

1,036,324

1 room

450,013

2 rooms

688,209

3 rooms

951,5144 or more rooms

1,756,055

Use of locally available resources/materials

Yes904,410No

1,570,159

Use of resources/materials not available
locallyYes

1,164,482

No

976,616

The reported average cost of repairing/rebuilding also differed by district and areas of settlement.

Residents of Kathmandu, Bhaktapur, and urban areas reported comparatively higher costs thanother places. The average cost of repairing/rebuilding decreased with remoteness of respondents’
residence. Those who were in less remote areas (remoteness of the ward from district headquarters)
were more likely to report higher costs than those who were in more remote areas (NRs.1,681,158/
USD 14,143 for less remote vs. NRs. 734,675/ USD 6,180 for more remote areas). One reason could
be greater availability of local materials in more remote areas, as 86 percent of those who rebuilt/
repaired their houses in more remote areas said they used locally available resources, compared tojust 40 percent in less remote areas.

Materials used in reconstruction
Those who had repaired/rebuilt or were in the process of doing so were asked about the type ofresources they used and whether they were locally available materials (Table 3.3). They were also
asked about the costs of these materials. Respondents were asked to estimate costs if some materials
were not brought directly from the market or if they could not remember particular costs.
Six in ten respondents (60%) said they used locally available resources for repairing/rebuilding,whereas three in four (77%) said that they used resources not locally available.
The most commonly used local resources were stone/sand (80%), wood/timber (72%), and labor(72%). Other locally available resources mentioned were mud (38%), bricks (16%), and bamboo(14%).

34

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 3.4: Costs of local materials used in reconstruction (among those who reported housing damage andhad started or completed to rebuild/repair, IRM-5, weighted, base=4,301)
Types of locally available resources

Shares who used these materials %Average costs in NPR

Wood/timber

72

98,266

Mud

38

28,372

Bamboo14

19,604

Stone/Sand80

126,969

Bricks16278,321Labor

72

201,171

Respondents who reported they had used locally available resources for repairing/ rebuilding wereasked about the source of the local resources. The sources could be themselves, local governments,
I/NGOs, their community, community forest, or user groups. For most materials, the respondents
themselves had obtained the building materials; in the case of wood/timber, a very small share(12%) said they got it from a community forest.
The most commonly used non-local products for repairing/rebuilding were cement (94%), rods(74%), and nails (65%). CGI/galvanized sheets (56%), stone/sand (45%), bricks (40%), and labor(39%) were other materials mentioned. The average cost of these materials is shown below (Table
3.5).

Table 3.5: Costs of non-local materials used in reconstruction (among those who reported housing
damage and had started or completed to rebuild/repair, IRM-5, weighted, base=4,301)
Types of materials not available locally

Shares who used these materials %Average costs in NPR

Wood/timber

13

266,695

Mud

1

86,657

Bamboo4

39,074

Stone/Sand45

188,654

Bricks40

238,670Labor

39

256,790

Cement94

158,971Rod

74

181,044

Nails

65

18,333

CGI/galvanized sheet

56

53,111

As with locally available materials, respondents mentioned that they themselves had sourced materials that were not available locally.
Generally, the costs for the same material was cheaper if it was locally available. Wood/timber, mud,and bamboo were particularly cheaper when locally available. Bricks were slightly cheaper whenlocally unavailable.

35

Housing reconstruction

Table 3.6: Cost comparison between locally available and locally unavailable resources in NPR (among
those who reported housing damage and had started or completed to rebuild/repair, IRM-5, weighted,
base=4,301)
Types of resources

Locally available

Locally unavailable

Wood/timber

98,266

266,695

Mud

28,37286,657

Bamboo19,60439,074

Stone/sand

126,969

188,654

Bricks278,321238,670Labor

201,171

256,790

3.5 Assistance received for reconstruction
This section presents information pertaining to types of assistance people received in the process ofreconstruction as well as the sources of support and people’s satisfaction with this assistance.

Types of assistance received for housing reconstruction
Respondents who said they had either fully rebuilt/repaired, or were in the process of rebuilding/repairing their house were further asked what types of assistance they had received. Multiple responses were allowed. Among those who were in the process of or had completed rebuilding/repairing, 61 percent said they had received cash support5, 47 percent had received technical assistance, 15
percent got information on rebuilding/repairing, and two percent got labor or materials. Some 33
percent said they received no reconstruction support (Figure 3.10).
Of those who received cash support, 95% got the housing reconstruction grant, while seven percent
received other forms of cash support. Of those receiving technical assistance, 99% received help in
the form of engineers, 11% received masonry training, nine percent accessed social mobilizers, eightpercent accessed technical support centres or community reconstruction centres, and two percent
accessed mobile technical support. Those who accessed information, primarily received information on the housing grant reconstruction process (92%), on access to the government housing granttranches (60%), and information on approved housing designs. Only two percent received information on retrofitting options and the retrofitting grant. People received labor or material support in
the form of masons or other labor (68%), labor sharing (53%), local construction materials (29%),or provision of non-local construction materials (14%).

5

36

See Chapter 4 for more information on access to the housing reconstruction grant and Chapter 5 for information on the retrofitting grant.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 3.10: Types of assistance received for housing recovery (IRM-5, weighted, base=3,820)

Respondents who mentioned receiving these types of assistance were further asked who they had received the assistance from. Multiple responses were allowed. Among those who received cash, most
said they got it from the local (50%) or federal (43%) government. Those who got technical support
got it from the local government (45%), engineers, and the federal government (30% each). People
received information from community/neighbors (53%), engineers (49%), local government (41%),and family and friends (33%).

Usefulness of assistance to rebuild or repair the house
Those who said they received assistance in the process of repairing/rebuilding their house were further asked what types of assistance were most useful and crucial to them in their effort to rebuild/repair. Most thought that cash support (84%) was the most useful assistance, followed by technicalsupport (57%). Fewer mentioned information (14%) or labor and materials (5%) as useful in thereconstruction process. Technical support was cited less by those residing in districts that had lessearthquake damages. Those with lower incomes were less likely than those with higher incomesto find cash support useful. Those with lower incomes felt information and technical support weremore useful forms of assistance.

37

Housing reconstruction

Table 3.7: Types of assistance considered most useful for housing recovery – by district impact, rural/
urban, remoteness, and income (among those who had rebuilt/repaired house and had received
assistance, IRM-5, weighted, base=2,558)
Technical
assistance
Overall

District impact

Rural/urban

Remoteness

IncomeProvision oflabor or ma- Cash support
terials

Information

%

%

%

%

57

5

84

14

Severely hit

68

7

81

18

Crisis hit

34

2

92

4

Hit with heavy losses

67

2

85

4

Hit

11

5

64

30

Rural

60

5

83

14

Urban

33

3

90

8

Less remote

40

3

86

12

Remote

60

6

84

13

More remote

69

5

76

18

Low

66

6

77

20

Medium

59

6

86

13

High

48

4

87

9

Assistance needs of those who have not yet completed housing recovery
Respondents who said they had not rebuilt or had partially rebuilt their house were asked what typesof assistance they needed now to help them finish rebuilding their house. Multiple responses wereallowed.
The majority of respondents (82%) who had not started rebuilding or were in the process of rebuilding said that they needed cash support to finish/start rebuilding. Similarly, technical support(33%), provision of labor or materials (27%), and information (4%) were other forms of assistancethat respondents said they needed to finish/start rebuilding their house. There was little variation in
responses across different demographic or geographical parameters.

38

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 3.11: Types of assistance that would help people to finish housing recovery (for those who have
not yet completed rebuilding/repairing, IRM-5, weighted, base=570)

3.6 Access to information on reconstruction
All of the respondents were asked from where they got their information on reconstruction. Respondents were allowed to mention more than one response.
Respondents overwhelmingly said family, friends, and neighbors (78%) were their first source of information on reconstruction. Other common sources of information included community/community groups (51%), radio (38%), and television (35%). Fewer respondents mentioned government,
either the local (20%) or central level (2%), or newspapers (13%) and pamphlets/posters/public
notices (4%) (Figure 3.12).
Family, friends, and neighbors were the top information source since IRM-3, when this question
was asked for the first time. VDC secretary was the second most common source of information onreconstruction in previous surveys (about 4 in 10 mentioned it), but fewer mentioned the equivalent local government/local representatives in IRM-5. The share who mentioned television had
increased the most in IRM-5, up from just eight percent in IRM-4 to 35 percent in IRM-5. The
share who mentioned radio had increased over time (30% to 38%). Community/community groups
were not commonly mentioned, but instead, Ward Citizens’ Forum used to be a top five information
source.

39

Housing reconstruction

Figure 3.12: Sources of information on reconstruction (IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5
base=5,857, weighted)6

Findings on most common information sources were similar among those with some housing
damage. Eight in 10 said they got information on reconstruction from family, friends, and neighbors(82%), half from community/community groups (54%), four in 10 from the radio (39%), and onethird from TV (33%). Few mentioned local government/representative (22%), technical support
officers (17%), the newspaper (10%), or community reconstruction center (8%).

640In IRM-3 and IRM-4 question was worded as source of information on aid, in IRM-5 question was worded as source of information on reconstruction to accurately reflect the stage of recovery

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 3.13: Top sources of information on reconstruction among those with housing damages (IRM-5,
weighted, base=4,832)

Enumerators asked respondents a hypothetical question about their perceived ability to communicate with the NRA to obtain information or make a complaint, if needed. More than half (55%) of
respondents said that communication with an NRA official would be good if they had to approach
them, 29 percent said it would be okay, whereas 14 percent said that communication with an NRA
official would be difficult. Those in more remote and rural areas were more likely to believe that
communication with NRA officials would be good, compared to people in less remote and urban
areas.

41

Housing reconstruction

Table 3.9: Ease of communication with NRA officials – by district impact, district, urban/rural, remoteness(IRM-5, weighted, base-5,857)

Rural/urban

RemotenessCommunication
would be okay

Communication
would be bad

%

%

%

55

29

14

Severely hit

57

27

14

Overall

District impact anddistrict

Communication
would be good

Dhading

49

36

12

Gorkha57

25

16

Nuwakot

73

17

10

Ramechhap

68

21

9

Sindhupalchowk

44

34

22

Crisis hit

47

31

17

Bhaktapur

62

34

3

Kathmandu

43

32

19

Okhaldhunga

71

15

13

Hit with heavy losses

46

31

19

Solukhumbu

23

31

36

Lamjung

59

31

10

Hit

13

77

9

Syangja

13

77

9

Rural

52

33

13

Urban

39

33

21

Less remote

42

34

18

Remote5134

13More remote

61

16

22

Respondents in the low-income bracket and those with lower levels of education were slightly more
likely to say that communicating with NRA officials would be difficult. There was almost no variationin responses across respondents who reported having received first, second, or third tranches of the
NRA grant.
Respondents were also asked if they felt they could communicate with technical officers/engineers
to receive information or make a complaint. Similar to approaching NRA officials, most of respondents responded that if they were to approach technical officers or engineers to receive some information or to file a complaint, communication would be smooth: 54 percent said that communication
with technical officers/engineers would be good, 32 percent said it would be okay, and 12 percent
said it would be bad.
Those with lower levels of education were more likely to say it would be difficult to communicate
with technical officers or engineers. Again, those in rural areas were more likely than people in urban
areas to believe that communicating with technical officers and engineers would be easy and thatthe communication would be good. Responses were similar among those who received the various
tranches of the NRA reconstruction grant.

42

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Chapter 4

Administration of the
housing reconstruction grant

Photo: Manasi Prasai (Barpak, Gorkha)This chapter focuses on the NPR 300,000 housing reconstruction grants which have been the primary form of support provided to earthquake-affected households that suffered major housing damages.1 Chapter 5 discusses the NPR 100,000 housing retrofitting grant provided to those with partial
damages. Most people enlisted in the housing grants scheme have been declared eligible for the
housing reconstruction grant, while fewer are eligible for retrofitting support.2
This chapter first examines the official damage assessments conducted to assess housing damages
and enlist eligible beneficiaries for the housing grant scheme. It then looks at eligibility for and easeof access to the housing reconstruction grant, as well as at reasons why some people have not received it or struggled to access the grant which is disbursed in three installments (tranches), conditional upon rebuilding progress according to approved building guidelines for earthquake-resilient
housing.3 The chapter concludes with a discussion of the grievance process put in place to allow
those wrongly missed out from the housing grant scheme to file a complaint and go through a review
and reassessment process.

Key findings
Official damage assessment•

Three in four people in earthquake affected areas were aware of the official damage assessment team visiting their house. People in severely affected districts, rural areas, and more
remote areas were the most likely to say a damage assessment team visited. Nearly everyone
who said their house was completely damaged said a team visited, as did majorities of those
who said their houses had major or minor damage.

1

The grants are provided by the Nepal government with donor support through the Nepal Earthquake Housing Reconstruction Program: https://www.nepalhousingreconstruction.org/ The National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) administers the grants: http://www.nra.gov.np/en
As of October 2020, 834,011 households were eligible for the housing reconstruction grant, while 77,325 were eligible for the retrofitting
grant. http://www.nra.gov.np/en (accessed on 14 October 2020).
First tranche: NPR 50,000. Second tranche: NPR 150,000. And third tranche: NPR 100,000.

2
3

43

Administration of the housing reconstruction grant•

Satisfaction with the damage assessment was higher than in previous surveys.

•

Official damage assessment matched self-reported damage levels. Nearly all respondents who
said their house was completely destroyed said their house was officially categorized as being
fully damaged. Responses for other damage categories also matched.

Distribution of the grant•

Nearly everyone who said their house was completely destroyed said they were declared eligible to receive the GoN housing reconstruction grant. Out of the 33 percent of the assessedhouseholds declared ineligible for the grant, 68 percent thought they should have been eligible for the grant.

•

The housing grant positively impacted the reconstruction process. Among those who fully
rebuilt/repaired their house, 69 percent had gotten all three tranches, 76 percent the second
tranche, and 83 percent at least the first tranche.

•

Those who received the housing grant rated the process as being easy. The share who said theprocess was ‘very easy’ increased with each subsequent tranche. Compared to previous survey
rounds, the share who were ‘very confident’ in receiving all three tranches of the housing grant
was highest in IRM-5.

•

Similar shares across various areas had received the first tranche of the housing reconstruction grant, but some groups were more likely to have received the second and third tranches.
People who got the final two tranches of the grant were more likely to be from severely hit
districts and reside in rural and more remote areas. Their houses were also assessed as being
fully damaged.

•

Much of the grant was disbursed in 2017/2018—mostly the second tranche, but also some of
the first and third tranches.

Use of the grant•

Among those declared eligible for the grant, three in four used or planned to use it to build ahouse following GoN building guidelines. This was a marked change from previous IRM surveys where fewer people mentioned using the grant money to build a house, and more people
said they would use it to repair or retrofit their house, or to support their livelihood.

•

In 2019, more people thought the housing grant would cover between 25-50 percent of total
costs than they did in previous IRM years. Far fewer said that the grant would cover less than
25 percent of the total costs.

Obstacles to accessing the grant•

44

Inability to meet the demands of the grant was the main reason for not getting the grant,
despite being eligible for it. While not being able to meet the grant demands was given as thereason for not getting any of the three tranches, it was more of an issue for getting the second
tranche. Awareness of the grant requirements was very high, with 85 percent saying theyknew what the requirements were.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal•

Problems related to individuals made getting the first tranche difficult, while issues accessing the second and third tranches were more system related. Delays from the bank or local
government office were mentioned as a reason for difficulty in accessing the second and third
tranches. Not having an understanding of the rules or not having documentation was more of
an issue related to the first tranche.

Grievances•

About three in ten people declared ineligible for the housing grant filed an official grievancein order to be reconsidered for the beneficiary list, but only eight percent of those who filed agrievance said their grievance was approved and they received the housing grant. Forty-five
percent said they did not know what happened to their grievance. People whose houses wereassessed as fully damaged were more likely to file a grievance.

•

The role of local government appeared prominent in the grievance filing process. Two in threeamong those who filed a grievance said their case was processed by local government andnearly four in ten said that a local government official/representative helped them file thegrievance.

45

Administration of the housing reconstruction grant

4.1 Damage Assessments
The National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) collected damage estimates to identify reconstruction grant beneficiaries. The damage assessment was conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics(CBS). The assessment team consisted of engineers and enumerators who surveyed earthquake affected areas to collect information on demographics and housing damage between November 2015
and June 2016. They later re-surveyed to re-verify beneficiaries—a process that was still ongoing at
the time of research.4 The NRA used the data to determine and disburse cash grants that were to aideither rebuilding or retrofitting, depending upon the severity of damage.

Who did the damage assessment team visit?
In IRM-5, three in four respondents said that a technical team had visited their house to officiallyassess damage; a quarter said no official assessment had been done. The share who reported thatthey had a damage assessment increased by 20 points since IRM-4 was conducted two years before.
Households with the most damage were the most likely to have reported a damage team assessment—92 percent of those who said their house was completely destroyed, 88 percent of those who
said they had major damage, 62 percent of those who had minor damage, and 32 percent of thosewith no damage said that a technical team came to assess damage to their house. Nearly everyonein the severely hit district said a damage assessment team visited (92%). Fewer said so in the case oflesser impacted areas—62 percent in crisis hit districts, 81 percent in districts hit with heavy losses,
and 59 percent in hit districts.
A higher than average share of respondents from Kathmandu (43%) and Syangja (36%) said that
an official damage assessment team had not visited their house. Those in rural areas (85%) were far
more likely than people in urban areas (55%) to say that an assessment team had visited. The likelihood of a damage assistance team having visited increased with remoteness.

4

46

The first phase of the assessment took place from November 2015 to March 2016 covering eleven earthquake districts. The second phase
took place from April 2016 to June 2016 and covered the Kathmandu valley. The final phase involved random verification and addressing
grievances (ongoing at the time of research). The assessment team visited all households in the severely hit districts as designated in the
Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA). In less affected areas, the teams verified damage levels in households that were identified previously by local bodies to have been earthquake affected.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 4.1: Shares of people whose house was assessed in the official damage assessment – by impact,
district, remoteness, rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)5
Yes

No

(%)

(%)

75

25

Severely hit

97

3

Dhading93

6

Gorkha97

2

Nuwakot982

Ramechhap99

1Sindhupalchowk

98

2

Crisis hit

6237

Overall

District impact and district

Rural/urban

Remoteness

Bhaktapur

81

19

Kathmandu

57

43

Okhaldhunga

95

4

Hit with heavy losses

81

18

Solukhumbu

93

7

Lamjung

74

25

Hit

59

36

Syangja

59

36

Rural

85

14

Urban

55

45

Less remote59

41

Remote8415More remote92

7

Results of the damage assessment
Among respondents who were assessed, 66 percent said their house was assessed as being ‘fully
damaged,’ 14 percent as ‘partially damaged,’ and 18 percent as ‘not damaged’ in IRM-5.6 Between late
2016 and early 2017, the share who said their house was assessed as fully damaged had increased,
while those who said their house was assessed as not damaged had decreased – likely a result of
increased awareness of and access to the housing grant scheme during this period. Changes in sharesof houses in each damage category were likely due to the fact that households were continuously
added or re-categorized over time as the result of the grievance process and re-assessments.

5
6

Answers are based on people’s recollection of a damage assessment team visiting and assessing their house. Remaining shares were unsure
or refused to answer.
The damage grades of ‘fully damage’, ‘partially damaged’ and ‘not damaged’ do not correspond to damage categorization employed by
the CBS teams. Nevertheless, this survey continued to use these categorizations which were used by earlier rapid damage assessments(which used them with corresponding red, yellow and green labels) as people have widely continued using them when explaining how theirhouse was assessed. Very few were aware of the official damage grade and verifying this would have involved checking their housing grant
documents. Yet, people were generally aware whether their house was declared ‘fully damaged’ (meaning eligible for the NPR 300,000
housing reconstruction grant), ‘partially damaged’ (meaning eligible for the NPR 100,000 retrofitting grant), or ‘not damaged’ (meaning
not eligible for any support).

47

Administration of the housing reconstruction grant

Figure 4.1: Results of official damage assessment (IRM-2 base=4,468, IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4
base=4,854, IRM-5 base=4,369, weighted)7

As expected, higher shares of houses were assessed as being fully damaged in the severely hit districts. Nearly everyone in severely hit districts were classified as having fully damaged houses (91%),
compared to about half of those who were assessed in the crisis hit and hit with heavy losses district,and two in ten in the hit districts. Those in rural and more remote areas were more likely to havebeen classified as having fully damaged houses.

7

48

ibid

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 4.2: Results of official damage assessment – by district impact, district, rural/urban and remoteness(IRM-5, weighted, base=4,369)
Fully damaged

Urban/rural

RemotenessNot damaged

%

%

%

66

14

18

Severely hit

92

4

3

Dhading89

92

Gorkha91

5

4

Nuwakot97

1

3Overall

District impact and district

Partially damaged

Ramechhap

89

6

5

Sindhupalchowk

96

2

1

Crisis hit

51

22

27

Bhaktapur

66

15

19

Kathmandu

44

24

31

Okhaldhunga

73

21

6

Hit with heavy
losses51

23

20

Solukhumbu

58

31

10

Lamjung

46

18

27

Hit

21

14

62

Syangja

21

14

62

Rural

75

10

13

Urban

40

26

32

Less remote

49

22

28

Remote731214More remote

83

7

9

Results of official damage assessment compared to self-reported damage levels
The results of the official damage assessment matched how people self-categorized their own house’s
damage. This was consistent in past IRM surveys as well. Among those who self-assessed their houseas completely damaged, 97 percent were officially assessed as being fully damaged. Likewise, 91
percent of those who said their house was not damaged were assessed as having an undamaged
house. Among those who said their house was badly damaged, 63 percent were officially classified as
partially damaged and 29 percent as fully damaged. Among those who said their house would needminor repairs, 27 percent were assessed as partially damaged and 60 percent as not damaged.

49

Administration of the housing reconstruction grant

Table 4.3: Comparison between official assessment and self-assessment of housing damages (IRM-5,
weighted, base=4,369)
Official damage assessment

Reported housing
damageFully damaged

Partially damaged

Not damaged

Completely damaged

97%

2%

1%

Badly damaged (major
repairs needed)

29%

63%

6%

Habitable (minor repairsneeded)

8%

27%

60%

Not damaged

2%

6%

91%

Satisfaction with official damage assessment
Among those who said their house was assessed by the official damage assessment team, 85 percent
were satisfied (57% very, 28% somewhat) and 14 percent were not satisfied (8% very, 6% somewhat)with the assessment. Across all IRM surveys, the share who said they were ‘very satisfied’ was highest in IRM-5. While people always expressed satisfaction with the assessment, the degree to which
they were satisfied had grown by IRM-5.

Figure 4.2: Satisfaction with official damage assessment (IRM2 base=3,177, IRM-3 base=3,106, IRM-4
base=3,883, IRM-5 base=4,369, weighted)

50

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

4.2 Eligibility for the housing reconstruction grant
Housing reconstruction grants of NPR 300,000 (USD 2,561) were the primary form of support
provided to earthquake-affected households that suffered significant housing damage.8 This cash
assistance was intended to boost ‘owner-driven reconstruction’ and was tied to the use of specificbuilding codes in order to make homes earthquake safe. The objective was to ensure that houses destroyed in the most-affected districts of the country would be rebuilt using earthquake-safe building
techniques through grants and technical assistance to eligible households from the GoN.

Who was declared eligible
Respondents who reported at least some level of housing damage and whose houses were officiallyassessed were asked whether they were declared eligible for the NPR. 300,000 housing reconstruction grant. Just over six in ten respondents whose houses were assessed said they were declared
eligible to receive the grant. This was an increase from previous IRM rounds.
Eligibility by geography: More than double the share of respondents residing in urban areas(55%) than rural areas (25%) reported that they were not considered eligible for the housing reconstruction grant. The share declared eligible for the NPR 300,000 housing grant was relatively higher
in severely hit districts (92%) compared to hit with heavy losses districts (59%) and crisis hit (50%)
and hit (17%) districts. The proportion of people who said they were declared eligible was higher in
Nuwakot (97%), Sindhupalchowk (96%), Ramechhap (90%), and Gorkha (90%). The proportion of
those who reported damages and were officially declared eligible for the grant was relatively lower inSyangja (17%), Kathmandu (43%), and Lamjung (54%).

8

The grants are provided by the Nepal government with donor support through the Nepal Earthquake Housing Reconstruction Program:
https://www.nepalhousingreconstruction.org/ The National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) administers the grants: http://www.nra.
gov.np/en51Administration of the housing reconstruction grant

Table 4.4: Grant eligibility among those who were assessed by impact, district, urban/rural, remoteness,
self-reported damage level, official damage assessment (IRM-5, weighted, base=4,369)9
EligibleNot eligible

Don’t know/can't
say

%

%

%

64

33

2

92

8

1

Dhading86

122

Gorkha90

91

Nuwakot97

30OverallSeverely hit

District impact and district

Rural/urban

Ramechhap

90

10

0

Sindhupalchowk

96

3

1

Crisis hit

50

46

2

Bhaktapur

78

20

2

Kathmandu

43

53

3

Okhaldhunga

71

29

1

Hit with heavy
losses59

35

6

Solukhumbu

67

33

1

Lamjung

54

36

11

Hit

17

82

1

Syangja

17

82

1

Rural

73

25

2

Urban

43

55

1

Eligibility by damage: Those with higher damage were more likely to be declared eligible. Basedon self-assessed damage, 92 percent of those who said their house was completely damaged reported that they were declared eligible for the grant. Alternatively, 42 percent of respondents who said
their house was badly damaged and required major repairs to be habitable, said that they were considered eligible. Around six percent of respondents who said their house was habitable, but needed minor repairs were declared eligible for the housing reconstruction grant. Based on the official
damage assessment by the government, 96 percent of respondents whose houses were classified as
fully damaged said they were declared eligible for the grant. Of those whose house was classified as
partially damaged, 22 percent said they were considered eligible for the reconstruction grant – butmany in this category were declared eligible for the retrofitting grant (see Chapter 5).

952

Remaining shares refused to answer.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 4.3: Grant eligibility among those who were assessed – by reported damage level and official damage assessment (IRM-5, weighted, base=4,369)10

Who thought they were wrongly declared ineligible?
Those who were declared ineligible for the housing grant were asked if they believed they shouldhave been eligible. Sixty-eight percent said they should have been eligible. This is an increase fromprevious rounds (IRM-4) when just 34 percent thought they should have been eligible. Those withlower incomes, widows, and Dalits were comparatively more likely to think they should have been
eligible for the grant.
Ineligibility by geography: Eight in ten respondents in rural areas who were declared ineligible
thought they should have been eligible, compared to only half in urban areas. Nine in ten respondents from severely hit districts who said they were not declared eligible believed they should havebeen. The proportion of people who said they were not declared eligible, but thought they shouldhave been was low in Bhaktapur (37%) and Kathmandu (59%) districts compared to the other districts (Table 4.5).

10 Asked only to those who reported some level of damages and whose house was assessed. Remaining shares refused to answer.

53

Administration of the housing reconstruction grant

Table 4.5: Share of people who thought they should have been declared eligible for the housing reconstruction grant – by district impact, district, rural/urban, remoteness, caste/ethnicity (among those who wereassessed but declared ineligible, IRM-5, weighted, base=1,604)

Overall

District impact and district

District impact

Rural/urban

Caste/ethnic group

Yes

No

Don't know/
can't say

Overall68

31

1

Severely hit

92

7

1

Dhading93

70

Gorkha87

9

4

Nuwakot10000Sindhupalchowk

90

10

0

Ramechhap

91

7

2

Crisis hit

59

39

1

Bhaktapur

37

58

5

Kathmandu

59

40

1

Okhaldhunga

82

17

1

Hit with heavy losses

86

12

3

Solukhumbu

80

17

3

Lamjung

89

8

3

Hit

81

19

1

Syangja

81

19

1

Rural

82

17

1

Urban

51

47

1

Hill castes

71

28

1

Hill ethnic groups

77

22

2

Hill Dalit

87

11

2

Newar

54

44

1

Ineligibility by damage: Nearly all of those with higher housing damage (both self-reported andofficial assessment) believed they should have been eligible, but large shares with partial or no damages also thought they were wrongly declared ineligible.

54

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 4.4: Share of people who thought they should have been declared eligible for the housing reconstruction grant – by reported damage and official damage assessment (among those who were assessedbut declared ineligible, IRM-5, weighted, base=1,604)11

4.3 Receipt of grant tranches
The housing reconstruction grant was disbursed in three instalments (tranches) totaling NPR
300,000. Building regulations for each stage were stipulated, which had to be met to get each subsequent tranche of the housing grant. At the time of IRM-5, among those who were declared eligible toget the housing reconstruction grant, 89 percent had gotten the first tranche, 73 percent the second
trance, and 64 percent the third tranche.
Eligible people in severely hit districts were the most likely to have received any of the three tranchesof the housing grant. While majorities of eligible people in both rural and urban areas got the firsttranche, those in rural areas were far more likely to have gotten the second and third installments.
The same pattern was seen when looking at remoteness; higher shares of people in more remoteareas received the three grant tranches compared to less remote areas (Table 4.6). The likelihood ofreceiving the second and third tranches also decreased with rise in income levels (Figure 4.5).

11

Asked only to those who reported some level of damages and whose house was assessed. Remaining shares were unsure or refused toanswer.

55

Administration of the housing reconstruction grant

Table 4.6: Receipt of grant tranches – by district impact, district, remoteness, urban/rural (for those declared
eligible for grant, IRM-5, base=3,114, weighted)
First tranche

Rural/urban

Remoteness

Third tranche

%

%

%

89

73

64

Severely hit

97

94

84

Dhading

96

90

81

Overall

District impact and district

Second tranche

Gorkha96

93

87

Nuwakot

98

96

82

Sindhupalchowk

98

97

86

Ramechhap

95

91

85

Crisis hit

79

46

41

Bhaktapur

90

42

39

Kathmandu

73

40

34

Okhaldhunga

93

88

81

Hit with heavy losses

85

66

44

Solukhumbu

90

80

52

Lamjung

81

53

36

Hit

82

36

4

Syangja

82

36

4

Rural

93

81

72

Urban

73

38

31

Less remote

82

49

44

Remote928171More remote

96

91

82

Figure 4.5: Receipt of grant tranches – by income (for those declared eligible for grant, IRM-5, base=3,114,
weighted)

56

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Damage: Nearly all who were assessed as having fully damaged houses got the first tranche (91%),
and uptake was high for the second and third tranches as well. Among those who were assessed ashaving partially damaged or undamaged houses, half got the first tranche and about two in ten each
got the second and third tranches (Figure 4.6). Similarly, those who self-reported having completely
damaged houses were more likely to have received the first, second and third tranches than those
who reported partial damages (badly damaged house or habitable house with minor damages)(Figure 4.6).
Progress in reconstruction: Receiving the NRA housing reconstruction grant positively impacted
the reconstruction process. Among those who fully rebuilt/repaired their house, 69 percent had
gotten all three tranches, 76 percent the second tranche, and 83 percent at least the first tranche.
Among those who were in the process of rebuilding/repairing, 15 percent got all three tranches, 23
percent got the second, and 34 percent got the first tranche. In contrast, among those who had done
nothing, only two percent got the third and second tranches, and just 22 percent said they got thefirst tranche.

Figure 4.6: Receipt of grant tranches – by official damage assessment and reported housing damage (forthose declared eligible for grant, IRM-5, base=3,114, weighted)

Timing of tranche receipt
Grant recipients were asked when they got the various tranches. The busiest years for grant disbursement were 2017/1812 with a majority of second tranches received then, and two in ten recipients of thefirst and third tranche saying they got it in then as well. For the first tranche, people started getting
it in 2015/16, but a majority of those who got the first tranche received it either in 2016/17 (53%) or
12

Nepali dates were used when asking this question. The Nepali year (Bikram Sambat=BS) runs from April to April: 2072 BS=2015/16 AD(April 2015 to April 2016), 2073 BS=2016/17 AD, 2074 BS=2017/18 AD, 2075 BS=2018/19 AD, 2076 BS=2019/2020.

57

Administration of the housing reconstruction grant2017/18 AD (22%). Recipients started getting the second tranche in 2016/17 (12%), though most ofthem got it in either 2017/18 (51%) or in 2018/19 (29%). For the third tranche, just over two in ten
got it in 2017/18 (23%), six in ten in 2018/19 (60%), and a few in 2019-20 (13%). The timing of grant
receipt also tracks with when people started and completed reconstruction work, an indication that the
grants did have an impact on when people started reconstruction (See Chapter 3).

Figure 4.7: Timing of grant receipt (IRM-5, weighted, base=3,114)13

Reasons for not receiving any tranches, despite eligibility
People who were declared eligible, but did not get the first tranche were asked for the reasons they
did not get the grant. Similarly, those who got the first tranche, but no subsequent tranche, and those
who got the first and second tranches, but not the third tranche were also asked why they did not
get the tranches. The main reason cited by respondents was the inability to meet demands required
to get the grants. This held true when asked separately about the first (30%), second (43%), or thethird (26%) tranche.
The biggest barriers for getting the first tranche were inability to access technical assistance, suchas technical officers/engineers (19%), inability to receive a progress certificate/no official visited toassess progress (18%), and not understanding the rules (17%). When it came to getting the second
tranche, which was after certain degree of construction had already begun; the biggest barrier was
the inability to meet the demands of the grant. Additionally, not having the necessary funds was
an issue in getting the second tranche (18%)--more so than at any other point in the grant receipt
process.
Reasons other than not meeting grant criteria for not receiving the third grant included the inability
to get a progress certificate/no one came to assess (19%) and delays from the local office (16%). Oncepeople started to get the second tranche, they most likely pursued the final tranche—very few people
said that they did not try at all to get the third tranche.

13

58

Dates presented are Nepali dates as Nepali dates were used in asking the questions. The equivalent years in AD are as follows (April to
April): 2073 BS-2016/17 AD, 2074 BS-2017/18 AD, 2075 BS-2018/19 AD

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 4.8: Reasons for not getting grant despite being eligible for it (IRM-5, weighted, 1st tranche
base=338, 2nd tranche base=494, 3rd tranche base=284)

Ease of grant receipt
Those who received the various housing grant tranches were asked to rate the ease of getting eachparticular tranche. Nearly everyone (96%) said that it was easy to get grant tranches. However, theease of getting the tranche increased for each subsequent tranche (Figure 4.9). It appears that overtime and with experience with the grant process, it became easier for recipients to get grant installments. A very small share, particularly residents in Kathmandu, were more likely than others to find
it difficult to get any of the grant tranches.

59

Administration of the housing reconstruction grant

Figure 4.9: Ease of getting various tranches of the grant-among those who got the grant (IRM-5,weighted,
1st tranche base=2,775, 2nd tranche base=2,282, 3rd tranche base=1,998)

Problems faced when accessing the housing reconstruction grant
Grant recipients who were declared eligible, but found it difficult to receive the housing reconstruction grant were asked about the specific difficulties faced when getting each of the three grants. The
most commonly cited difficulty was not understanding the rules (39%) and not having documentation (35%) to get the first tranche, followed closely by delays from the bank (34%) and delays fromthe VDC/local government office14 (32%) to get the third tranche (Figure 4.10).
Issues related to individuals became less of a problem as people started getting subsequent tranches,but issues related to grant administration worsened. Difficulty in understanding the grant rules wasa major issue in getting the first tranche, but decreased sharply when it came to getting the second(10 points) and third (21 points) tranches. A similar trend was seen for not having documentationand for people mentioning remoteness and distance as major issues.
The share who mentioned delays from the bank or the VDC/local government office for the third
tranche was more than double the share who mentioned these difficulties for the first or second
tranche. Similarly, the inability to obtain a progress certificate or have a technical officer visit toaccess progress was mentioned twice as often for the third tranche compared to the first or second
tranche. Inability to meet grant conditions was more of an issue in getting the first and third tranche.
Expenses incurred by accessing the grant (such as travel to banks) were mentioned at similar levels
for all three tranches.

14

60

At the time distribution happened via VDCs, VDC’s helped with documentation and therefore delays in VDC/local government office processing could mean delays in receiving the grant.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 4.10: Problems faced in accessing grant tranches (among those who got at least one tranche,
IRM-5,weighted, 1st tranche base=2,775, 2nd tranche base=2,282, 3rd tranche base=1,998)

Assistance for grant receipt
Housing grant recipients were also asked if anyone assisted them in receiving different grant tranches. Family, neighbors, friends, and community groups were cited as the most common sources ofhelp for any of the three tranches (48% first, 46% second, 44% third tranche). Local representatives
were the second most mentioned source of help, and they were mentioned more often for the second and third tranches. Similarly, engineers/technical support centers/and social mobilizers werementioned as a source of assistance for getting the second and third tranches, rather than the firsttranche (21% and 25% compared to 13%). Similar shares mentioned community leaders for the different tranches. A quarter of grant recipients who received each of the three tranches said that noone assisted them (Figure 4.11).

Figure 4.11: Who provided assistance to access the grant (-among those who got at least one tranche,
IRM-5,weighted, 1st tranche base=2,775, 2nd tranche base=2,282, 3rd tranche base=1,998)

61

Administration of the housing reconstruction grantConfidence in receiving all three tranches of the grant
As an additional measure of how well the program worked, people who had received the first andsecond tranches were asked how confident they were about receiving all tranches of the NRA housing
grant. People who had started receiving the grant expressed confidence in getting all three tranchesof the grant both in IRM-4 and in IRM-5 (Figure 4.12). However, the share who said they were ‘very
confident’ increased by 39 points in this time period, suggesting increased confidence among grantrecipients in being able to access the full grant amount.

Figure 4.12: Confidence in receiving all three grant tranches (-among those who got first, or first and second tranches, IRM-4 base=3,494, IRM-5 base=5,057)

Confidence in getting all three tranches of the grant was positively associated with previous experience in getting the grant as well as knowledge about the grant. Six in ten grantees who were awareof the grant requirements were very confident, compared to just a quarter who were unaware. Experience receiving previous tranches, particularly the second one, was also associated with whether
people thought they can get all of the grant money. Among those who found getting the first tranchevery easy, 78 percent were very confident of getting all of the grant amount as were 85 percent of
those who thought getting the second tranche was very easy.

62

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 4.13: Confidence in receiving all three grant tranches – by awareness of requirements, and by easeof getting first tranche and second tranche (IRM-5, weighted, base=3,114)

4.4 Awareness of grant requirements
Those who were declared eligible to receive the housing reconstruction grant were asked whether
they were aware of the requirements that needed to be met to get the various tranches . Most orespondents eligible for the grant (85%) said they knew of the grant requirements. This was a substantial increase from IRM-4, when only half said they were aware.
People in severely hit districts, rural areas, and those whose houses were classified as being fully
damaged were more likely than others to know the requirements of receiving various grant tranches.
Notably, those in Kathmandu were less likely to know of the requirements compared to residents
of other districts. Men were slightly more likely than women to know the requirements. Those who
were illiterate were less likely than those who had at least some education to know what the requirements were.

63

Administration of the housing reconstruction grant

Table 4.7: Awareness of grant requirements – by district impact, district, rural/urban, remoteness, education,
gender, official damage assessment (among those eligible for the grant, IRM-5, weighted, base=3,114)15
Aware
Overall

District impact and district

Rural/urban
Gender

Education

Official housing damage

1564

Not aware

%

%

85

14

Severely hit

91

8

Dhading96

4

Gorkha86

12

Nuwakot982

Ramechhap

89

11Sindhupalchowk

86

12

Crisis hit

77

21

Bhaktapur

92

6

Kathmandu

71

27

Okhaldhunga

86

13

Hit with heavy losses

81

18

Lamjung

84

15

Solukhumbu

78

20

Hit

82

18

Syangja

82

18

Rural

87

11

Urban

77

23

Female

81

17

Male

90

10

Illiterate

79

19

Literate

928

Primary Level

89

11

Lower Secondary Level

83

16

Secondary Level

84

17

SLC Pass

80

14+2/Intermediate Pass

91

9

Bachelor Pass

92

8

Master & Above

97

3

Fully damaged

86

13

Partially damaged

67

32

Not damaged

75

25

Remaining shares were unsure/refused to answer.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

4.5 Use of/planned use of the grantThree in four people among those declared eligible to get the NRA grant said they were using/planned to use it to build a new house following government-approved building guidelines for earthquake-resilient houses. This is a marked change from earlier IRM surveys where fewer people gave
this response (37% IRM-4, 44% IRM-3). The share who mentioned rebuilding/retrofitting theirprevious house also decreased—about a quarter mentioned it in previous IRM surveys, while only
one in ten mentioned this use in IRM-5. Just over two in ten grant-eligible households mentioned
using the cash grant for livelihood support in IRM-4, but only 5 percent mentioned it in IRM-5(Figure 4.14).

Figure 4.14: Use/planned use of grant money (among those declared eligible, IRM-3 base=3,107, IRM-4
base=3,883, IRM-5, base=3114 )65

Administration of the housing reconstruction grant

Reconstruction costs covered by the grant
The NRA housing reconstruction grant was envisioned to cover some of the costs of reconstruction.
Therefore, it is important to understand how much of the total costs beneficiaries thought the grant
would cover. Among those declared eligible for the housing reconstruction grant, four in ten said the
grant would cover less than 25 percent of their total costs, three in ten said it would cover between
25 to 50 percent of the costs, one in ten said between 51 to 75 percent of the cost, and about one inten said it would cover most or all of the costs. The share who said it would only cover less than aquarter of the costs decreased sharply from 72 percent in IRM-3, to 45 percent in IRM-4, and has
remained around the same in IRM-5. At the same time, the shares who mentioned it would cover
between 25-50 percent or 51-75 percent had increased (Figure 4.15).

Figure 4.15: Proportion of total reconstruction cost that the housing grant will cover (IRM-3 base=3,107,
IRM-4 base=3,883, IRM-5, base=3114 )4.6 Grievances
The government issued guidelines on how complaints about the beneficiary lists should be collected
and addressed. However, guidance on how to resolve the most difficult complaints was not issued.
The guidelines outline that complaints should be filed through official grievance forms at the local
government or NRA offices16. Grievance mechanisms were established for this purpose at the ward/
municipality level, district level, the NRA sub-regional office, as well as at the NRA central office. At thetime of research, grievances were still being processed but in June 2020, the NRA announced that it
1666

https://www.nepalhousingreconstruction.org/does-program-have-a-mechanism-for-addressing-grievancesAid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

had addressed all 634,973 grievances filed and added another 106,465 beneficiaries as reconstruction
beneficiaries and another 67,681 as retrofitting beneficiaries through the grievance mechanism.17

Who filed grievances?
Respondents who mentioned that they were not declared eligible for the housing reconstruction
grant (1,604 respondents) were asked if they or anyone on their behalf had filed a grievance about it.
About three in ten respondents (27%) had filed a grievance, and seven in ten had not (72%). Acrossdistricts, those in Ramechhap (83%), Okhaldhunga (80%), and Gorkha (74%) were the most likely
to have filed a grievance. People in urban areas were much more likely than those in rural areas tohave filed a grievance (42% vs. 10%) (Table 4.8).
People whose houses were officially classified as fully damaged were more likely to have filed a grievance (43%), compared to those in the partially damaged (33%) and not damaged (21%) categories(Table 4.8). There were people who could have filed a grievance because they were not declared eligible, but based on self-reporting in the survey, would be eligible; 58 percent of those whose houses
were officially classified as fully damaged, and 66 percent of those who were classified as having
partially damaged houses did not file a grievance. People who self-reported higher damage were also
more likely to have filed a grievance.

Table 4.8: Share of people who filed a grievance among those declared ineligible for the housing reconstruction grant – by district impact, district, and official damage assessment (IRM-5, weighted, base=1,604)
Overall (%)

73

Gorkha74

Dhading

District impact and districts (%)

69

Sindhupalchowk

80

Ramechhap

83

Crisis hit

Bhaktapur

Reported housing damage (%)

17

15

23

Kathmandu

12

Okhaldhunga

63

Hit with heavy losses

32

Lamjung

13

Hit

46

Rural

42

Syangja

Official damage assessment (%)

67

Nuwakot

Solukhumbu

Rural/urban (%)

27

Severely hit

61

46

Urban

10

Fully damaged

43

Partially damaged

33

Not damaged

21

Completely destroyed

60

Badly damaged (major repairs needed)

35

Habitable (minor repairs needed)19

http://www.nra.gov.np/en/news/details/P4M4D8SnX7CXgD-y-7uXzAQK6z4Z-qcFCm2pAD_y-iM67

Administration of the housing reconstruction grantStatus of the grievanceThe most common response from individuals who filed a grievance was that they were unsure of thestatus and thought their grievance was still being processed (45%). A quarter said that they wereapproved to receive the grant, but had yet to receive it; 18 percent said they were rejected, and 8
percent were approved and had received the grant.
The share who said their grievance was approved and had received the grant was highest in Lamjung(20%), Kathmandu (16%), and Gorkha (14%). Those who said their grievance was rejected was highest in Bhaktapur (49%), Dhading (25%), and Sindhupalchowk (25%).

Figure 4.16: Status of grievance (among those who had filed a grievance, IRM-5, weighted, base=1,604)

Who processed the grievance?
Those who had submitted a grievance were asked who had filed/processed their grievance. Twothirds of those who had filed a grievance after their ineligibility said their grievance was processed(forwarded to the NRA) by the local government (66%) and a quarter was unsure (21% unsure, 5%
don’t know). Few mentioned the local NRA office (5%) or the NRA center (3%). Responses were similar across geographical, damage, and demographic categories. However, the share who mentioned
the central NRA as the entity processing their grievance was relatively higher in Lamjung (42%) and
Gorkha (24%), compared to other districts.

Who assisted in filing the grievance?
When it came to assistance in filing the grievance, respondents cited their local government official/
representative (37%), friend/family/neighbor (17%), and engineer/technical support (5%). A quarter of those who filed a grievance also said that they did it by themselves. A higher share of those in
severely hit districts mentioned local government officials/representatives, compared to less affected areas (38% in severely hit districts vs. 14% in hit districts).

68

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Chapter 5

Retrofitting

Photo: Aruna Limbu (Lisankhu, Sindhupalchowk)

This chapter discusses respondents’ awareness of and interest in retrofitting. It highlights levels ofawareness of the retrofitting grant among different demographic groups and across geographicalareas. The chapter also describes who preferred, or would have preferred, receiving the retrofitting
grant over having to rebuild completely, as well as people’s reasons for not being interested in retrofitting. Finally, it presents findings on eligibility for the retrofitting grant, receipt of the grant, andintended or actual uses of the grant.

Key Findings
Awareness•

Around one-fifth (21%) of respondents were aware of the retrofitting grant. Awareness of the
NPR 100,000 (USD 854) retrofitting grant was higher in districts that were most impacted by
the earthquake, among respondents with partially damaged houses, and in rural areas.

•

The three most commonly cited sources of information for the retrofitting grant were family,
friends, and neighbors (which accounted for 81% of those aware of the retrofitting grant),
community or community groups (52%), and radio (47%).

Interest in retrofitting•

Nearly three in ten (28%) respondents with housing damages were interested, or would havebeen interested, in repairing their houses with the retrofitting grant rather than having to rebuild completely. People in urban areas were twice as likely as those in rural areas to express
interest in retrofitting. Residents of Syangja, Kathmandu, and Okhaldhunga were most likely
to say they were interested in the retrofitting grant.
69

Retrofitting•

Most of the 61 percent of respondents who were not interested in retrofitting said their house
was too badly damaged to be retrofitted. The second-most commonly cited reason for not
being interested in retrofitting was the respondents’ preference to stay in a new house rather
than repairing an old house.

Access to and use of the grant•

Out of respondents whose houses had suffered some level of damage (83%, or 4,834 respondents), one-third (33%) reported that they were not declared eligible for the housing reconstruction grant. Among those, eight percent (129 respondents) said they were declared eligible for the retrofitting grant, instead. Overall, this accounts for two percent of the total
respondents surveyed in IRM-5.

•

Not all those eligible for the retrofitting grant have received the money. At the time of thesurvey, 38 percent of eligible households received the first tranche, and five percent received
the second tranche.

•

Of the respondents eligible for the retrofitting grant, a little more than four in ten (44%) statedthat they had either rebuilt/repaired or plan to rebuild/repair their old houses with the retrofitting grant.

5.1 Awareness of retrofitting
Of all respondents, one fifth (21%) were aware of the Nepal government’s NPR 100,000 (USD 854)
retrofitting grant provided to those with partial housing damage. Three fourths (75%) of respondents were not aware1.
Awareness of retrofitting grants was higher among respondents whose houses were partially damaged. One third (33%) of those who reported that their houses were badly damaged and needed
major repairs were aware of the retrofitting grant, compared to 23 percent of those with completely
destroyed houses, 16 percent of those with habitable houses, and 14 percent of those whose houses
were not damaged in the earthquake (Figure 5.1).

1

70

The rest were unsure and could not say.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 5.1: Awareness of retrofitting grant - by reported housing damage levels [IRM-5, weighted,
base=5857]

Awareness of the retrofitting grant was higher in districts that were more heavily impacted by theearthquake and awareness decreased with decreasing impact level (Figure 5.2) – at least in part because fewer respondents in the lesser-impacted districts had suffered housing damages.
Respondents in Dhading (49%), Ramechhap (46%), and Okhaldhunga (44%) stand out as having
greater levels of awareness than other districts; awareness was more than double the overall average. In other earthquake-affected districts, the level of awareness remained below average.
Respondents residing in rural areas (22%) were slightly more likely to be aware of the retrofitting
grant than those in urban areas (18%).

Figure 5.2: Awareness of retrofitting grant – by district and district impact level [IRM-5, weighted,
base=5857]

71

Retrofitting

Awareness of the retrofitting grant increased with higher levels of education, but decreased withrising income levels (Figure 5.3). Those with lower incomes (25%) or medium incomes (23%) weremore likely to be aware of the retrofitting grant than those with high incomes (18%). Men (25%)
were also more aware than women (17%).

Figure 5.3: Awareness of the retrofitting grant – by education level [IRM-5, weighted, base=5857]

Sources of information for the retrofitting grant
The 21 percent of respondents (1,234 people) who were aware of the retrofitting grant were further
asked to state the sources from which they heard about it. Family, friends and neighbors (81%) weremost frequently cited as the main information source, followed by community or community groups(52%), and then radio (47%). Around one-fifth each cited local government/local representatives(21%), or technical support offices/technical officers (18%) as information sources.
Answers differed only slightly for those who were declared eligible for the retrofitting grant (Chapter 5.3). Most of them had heard about it from family, friends, and neighbors (86%), community
or community groups (56%), or radio (41%). Relatively fewer heard about retrofitting from local
governments and local representatives (23%), or from technical support offices or technical officers(13%). Answers were similar for those with different levels of housing damage.

72

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 5.4: Sources of information on the retrofitting grant [among those who had heard about this grant,
IRM-5, weighted, base=1234]

5.2 Interest in retrofitting
In IRM-5 (September -November 2019), all respondents who self-reported some level of housing
damage (4,834 respondents) were asked if they are, or would have been, interested in the retrofitting grant instead of rebuilding a new house–irrespective of whether they had qualified for either of
the two types of housing grants. Over one-quarter (28%) said they prefer, or would have preferred,
retrofitting over having to rebuild a new house, and nearly two-thirds (62%) were not interested.2
Residents of urban areas (47%) whose houses suffered some level of damage during the earthquake
were more than twice as likely as those in rural areas (21%) to say they are, or would have been, interested in the retrofitting grant to repair their house rather than rebuilding a new house.
Those who said their houses were habitable, but need(ed) minor repairs had the highest interestin retrofitting (48%) (Figure 5.5) – likely because they had not yet demolished their house to build
a new one.3 One-quarter each among those with badly damaged (25%) and completely destroyed(27%) houses said they would be, or would have been, interested in retrofitting their house.

2
3

The remaining shares are unsure or could not say.
Findings from the qualitative research conducted alongside this survey reveal that many people with minor damage were still using their
old house in some capacity, but often felt it was not safe enough. See, The Asia Foundation and Democracy Resource Center Nepal (2020).
Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal: Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Phase 5 – Qualitative Field Monitoring (November 2019). Kathmandu: The Asia Foundation73

Retrofitting

Figure 5.5: Interest in retrofitting – overall and by reported housing damage levels [among those with housing damages, IRM-5, weighted, base=4834]

Respondents from hit districts (70%) who had suffered some form of damage were the most likely to
say they would like, or would have liked, to receive the retrofitting grant to repair their house insteadof rebuilding a new house, whereas only seven percent of respondents from severely hit districts
whose houses had been damaged or destroyed said the same.
Residents of Syangja (70%), Kathmandu (46%), and Okhaldhunga (36%) whose houses were partially or completely damaged were more likely to say they would like, or would have liked, to receive
the retrofitting grant to repair their house rather than rebuilding a new one.

Figure 5.6: Interest in retrofitting – by district and district impact level [among those with housing damages,
IRM-5, weighted, base=4834]

74

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Reasons for not being interested in retrofitting
Respondents who said they do not prefer, or would not have preferred, receiving the retrofitting
grant over rebuilding (62% of all respondents with housing damage) were asked for their reasons
why. Most said their houses were too badly destroyed to be retrofitted (61%). Another commonly
cited reason was the respondents’ preference to stay in a new house, rather than repairing an oldhouse (24%). Less commonly cited reasons were the fact that the reconstruction grant amount was
higher than the retrofitting grant amount (10%), the perception that retrofitting is unreliable (9%),
and the perception that retrofitting is expensive (7%) (Figure 5.7). Unsurprisingly, those with higher
levels of housing damage, and those in more heavily impacted districts were comparatively more
likely to say they were not interested because their houses were too badly damaged to be retrofitted.

Figure 5.7: Reasons for not being interested in retrofitting [among those with housing damage who said
they were not interested in the retrofitting grant, IRM-5, weighted, base=2971]

Respondents from rural areas (28%) were more than twice as likely as those in urban areas (11%)
to say they reject retrofitting because they prefer staying in a new house over repairing an old one– suggesting that people in urban areas may be more inclined to repair their houses and reject retrofitting for other reasons. However, people in urban areas questioned the reliability of retrofitting.
Twenty-three percent of people in the urban district of Bhaktapur said they were not interested in
retrofitting because they consider it unreliable, compared to the overall average of 9 percent who
said the same.

75Retrofitting

5.3 Retrofitting grantEligibility for the retrofitting grantRespondents with housing damage who were not declared eligible for the NPR 300,000 (USD 2,560)
housing reconstruction grant (1,604 people) were asked if they were declared eligible for the NPR
100,000 (USD 853) retrofitting grant. Among them, eight percent said that they were declared eligible for the retrofitting grant (129 people, which accounts for two percent of the total survey sample).
Eligibility does not equal receipt of the grant, as eligible beneficiaries had to sign agreements andthen wait for the transfer of the first tranche of the grant into their beneficiary bank accounts. Not allof those eligible have signed agreements.4
People in rural and remote areas were more likely to have been declared eligible for the retrofitting
grant than those in urban or less remote areas (Figure 5.8). More people in severely hit districts
were declared eligible; yet, none of the respondents in Sindhupalchowk were found eligible, possibly reflecting the extensive damages in this district where most houses were completely destroyed.
There are more people in Dhading, Okhaldhunga, and Gorkha, than in the other districts, who were
eligible for retrofitting support (Figure 5.8).

Figure 5.8: Share of people declared eligible for the retrofitting grant – by district, district impact level, rural-urban and remoteness [among those self-reporting damage, but ineligible for the housing grant], IRM-5,
weighted, base=1604]

4

76

At the time of research, around half of those eligible for retrofitting had signed agreements, compared to nearly all of those eligible for the
housing reconstruction grant. By August 2020, just over 70 percent of those eligible for retrofitting had signed grant agreements, and justunder 70 percent had received the first tranche, while less than one percent had received the second tranche. http://www.clpiugmali.gov.
np/reconstruction-update [accessed on 12 August 2020].

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Housing damages among those eligible for retrofitting
Most of those eligible for retrofitting have partially damaged houses. Among the 129 respondents
who were eligible for the retrofitting grant, 12 percent had completely destroyed houses, 46 percent
had badly damaged houses, and 42 percent had habitable houses needing minor repairs. Although
the number of respondents in IRM-5 (September- November 2019) who were eligible for the retrofitting grant was small, it appears there may be some errors in targeting of the retrofitting grantbecause a number of respondents declared their house completely destroyed, yet were found eligible
for retrofitting, and not for the housing reconstruction grant.

Figure 5.9: Levels of damage among those eligible for the retrofitting grant (reported damages, IRM-5,
weighted, base=129)

How much of the retrofitting grant have they received?
Of the 129 respondents eligible for the retrofitting grant, 38 percent (49 respondents) had received
the first tranche and 5 percent (6 respondents) had received the second tranche of the grant, as of
September/October 2019. Those who received the first tranche said they received NPR 50,594 (USD432) on average; and those who received the second tranche reported receiving an average of NPR
54,144 (USD 462).
As shown in Figure 5.10, half of those eligible for the retrofitting grant had partially rebuilt/repaired
a new house and lived in it at the time of the survey; 40 percent had not yet started to rebuild or
repair their house, and 10 percent had fully rebuilt/repaired their house.

77Retrofitting

Figure 5.105: Progress in housing recovery among those eligible for the retrofitting grant [IRM-5, Weighted,
base=129]

Access to the retrofitting grantRespondents (49 people) who were declared eligible for the retrofitting grant and had received atleast one tranche were asked how easy it was for them to receive it. One quarter (25%) of them
reported that it was ‘very easy’ to receive the grant, nearly two-thirds (61%) said it was ‘somewhat
easy,’ and fifteen percent said it was ‘somewhat’ or ‘very difficult’ to access the grant.

Use of the retrofitting grant
The 129 respondents declared eligible for the retrofitting grant were asked what they would use thegrant money for, or in the case of people who already received it, what they had used it for. Most said
they intended to use it for housing recovery. Over two-fifths (44%) said they will use it, or have used
it, for repairing/rebuilding their house. Fewer mentioned other uses, such as loan repayments (7%),
building a new house (4%), or livelihood support (2%).

Figure 5.11: Uses of the retrofitting grants [intended or actual use, IRM-5, weighted, base=129, multiple
responses possible]

578Note about Figure 5.10: Only 0.8% had started to repair/rebuild a house without living in it, while 0% had fully rebuilt/repaired theirhouse but did not live in it at the time of the survey.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Costs of retrofitting
Respondents declared eligible for the retrofitting grant were asked to state actual or estimated costsof retrofitting. On average, respondents stated that actual costs to retrofit their damaged house were
NPR 660,890 (USD 5,641). The median amount was NPR 300,000 (USD 2,560) – three times asmuch as the amount of the retrofitting grant.
Comparing costs of reconstruction with those of retrofitting (actual or estimated) reveals that people
expected rebuilding to cost more. On average, people spent, or expect to spend, nearly twice as muchto rebuild their new houses (NPR 1,201,039 / USD 10,251) as to retrofit it (NPR 660,890 / USD
5,641). The median cost for reconstruction (NPR 600,000 / USD 5,121) was also twice as much asthat for retrofitting (NPR 300,000 / USD 2,560).

79

Retrofitting

Photo:80
Dewan Rai (Okhaldhunga)Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Chapter 6

Coping Strategies

Photo: Manasi Prasai (Barpak, Gorkha)

The IRM surveys have looked at trends in borrowing, asset sales, migration, and food consumption
to examine coping strategies used by people in earthquake-affected areas. This chapter provides an
overview of commonly used coping strategies and trends that have emerged among various demographic groups, over the nearly five years since the earthquake. Debt and borrowing are discussed ingreater depth, given they were reported as common coping strategies in all IRM surveys. The analysis also covers sale of assets, remittances, migration, and food consumption.

Key findings
Borrowing•

Borrowing increased over time in the earthquake affected districts. In IRM-1 (June 2015),
only 14 percent reported borrowing, whereas in IRM-4 (April 2017), 44 percent reported thesame. By IRM-5 (Sept-Oct 2019), 39 percent of respondents said they had borrowed in thepast year. Those in severely hit districts and those with higher levels of damage were more
likely to have borrowed. The likelihood of borrowing decreased with the rise in income andincreased with remoteness. Hill Dalits were the most likely to report borrowing in the last year
across caste/ethnic groups by at least 10 percentage points.

•

At NPR 391,864 (USD 3,335) the average loan amount was highest in IRM-5 and has increased threefold since IRM-1. The average amount has increased mostly due to urban loansin Kathmandu and Bhaktapur. Although people in higher income brackets were less likely toborrow at all, their loan amounts were larger. People who had done nothing toward reconstructing their houses had smaller loans than those who had completed or were in the processof rebuilding their homes.

81Conclusions•

One-quarter of borrowers mentioned cooperatives as their loan source. Immediately after theearthquake, borrowing from friends and family was common, but in later years, taking loans
from cooperatives was most common. Similar shares mentioned borrowing from banks in all
years.

•

Interest rates for all loan sources remained steady in the four-year period. In IRM-5, interest
rates charged by banks, cooperatives, and other financial institutions ranged from 1.2 to 1.7
percent. Interest rates were slightly higher for informal lending sources; monthly interest
rates ranged from 2.2 to 3.8 percent.

•

For the first time in IRM data collection, the main reason for borrowing was for reconstruction
costs, which also explains the increased amounts borrowed. In previous surveys, livelihood
support was the main reason for borrowing. Along with progress toward rebuilding, people
were taking out higher loan amounts for reconstruction purposes, suggesting that rebuilding
has come at the cost of larger debts.

•

Looking at future borrowing intentions, only 9 percent intended to borrow in the next threemonths, mostly to provide livelihood support. Those with higher levels of housing damage
and people living in severely hit districts were more likely than others to say that they willborrow in the future. Similarly, those with lower- and middle-level incomes were much more
likely than people with high incomes to say that they will borrow.

•

Most said that overall debt stayed the same at the time of survey and before the earthquake.
Looking at year-on-year debt level comparisons, although the majority said their debt levelstayed the same, those who said it increased grew in IRM-5. After those who said debt stayed
the same, more people mentioned debt levels increasing than decreasing, compared to before
the earthquake.

Asset Sales•

Less than 10 percent of respondents mentioned selling assets to deal with the effect of theearthquake in all IRM surveys. Asset sales took place in areas that were most affected by theearthquake. Those with higher levels of earthquake damage and those who said they had completed their reconstruction work were most likely to have sold assets.

•

Land and livestock were the most commonly sold assets, and the share who sold land increased compared to previous surveys. Urban residents were more likely to sell land thanrural residents. Compared to previous rounds, people sold less of their land; most said theysold less than 25 percent of the land they owned.

Migration and Remittances82•

The share of respondents who said remittances were a main income source remained similar
across IRM surveys. Migration levels appeared to have stayed the same before and after theearthquake. A similar share of respondents reported having a migrant in the family in all IRM
surveys. People with higher incomes tended to say remittances were a major income source
and were more likely to have a migrant in the family.

•

In contrast to earlier IRM surveys, households with migrants said that a single adult migrated, compared to surveys right after the earthquake when entire families had migrated. The
main reason for migration remains unchanged: people tended to migrate in search of work.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

However, in IRM-5, slightly higher shares mentioned education and lack of housing as reasons for migrating.
•

Migration to destinations abroad was more common than to destinations within the country.
Those residing in less remote and urban areas tended to send migrants abroad, compared torural and more remote areas. People with higher incomes also tended to have migrants indestinations abroad, while those with lower incomes said migrants in their family moved to a
local destination. Most people said that the migrant in their family had moved temporarily.

Food Consumption•

As with previous survey rounds, most people said that their year-on-year consumption remained more or less the same. Compared to previous survey rounds, a higher share of people
said their food consumption had increased over the past year.

6.1 Borrowing
Changes in borrowing over time
Over time, borrowing in earthquake affected areas increased. In IRM-1 (June 2015), only 14 percent
of people in earthquake affected districts reported having borrowed money in the past year. The
share of borrowers more than doubled to 32 percent in early 2016 and stayed the same through late
2016. It was highest in 2017, when 44 percent reported borrowing money, and it decreased slightly
by 2019 to 39 percent. The increases in borrowing roughly correspond with the timelines for reconstruction activity (Chapter 3).

Figure 6.1: Share of people who borrowed (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4,855,
IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)11

IRM-1 to IRM-4 asked about borrowing in the past six months, whereas IRM-5 asked about borrowing in the past year.

83Conclusions

Who borrowed?
Geography: More than half of respondents (55%) residing in severely hit districts had borrowed
money in the past year in IRM-5, which is well over the average for less impacted districts. Within
the severely hit districts, several districts had outstanding rates of borrowing. For example, almost
three-fourths (73%) of respondents residing in Ramechhap said they borrowed money in the past
one year. Other districts that had more than half of respondents reporting that they borrowed money in the past year included Okhaldhunga (58%), Nuwakot (56%), Gorkha (55%), and Sindhupalchowk (53%).

Table 6.1: Share of people who borrowed – by district impact and district (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2
base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)2
Jun 2015(IRM-1)

Feb-Mar 2016
(IRM-2)

Sep 2016(IRM-3)

Apr 2017(IRM-4)

Sep-Oct 2019
(IRM-5)

%

%

%

%

%

Overall

14

32

32

44

39

Severely hit

24

49

43

55

55

Dhading

25

52

48

64

47

Gorkha

17

45

36

52

55

Nuwakot

14

43

34

54

56

Ramechhap

40

63

59

55

73

Sindhupalchowk

30

46

42

49

53

Crisis hit

11

22

25

39

31

Bhaktapur

11

22

14

40

32

Kathmandu

9

19

23

36

29

Okhaldhunga

30

66

66

72

58

Hit with heavy losses

10

24

24

21

27

Lamjung

7

21

23

18

29

Solukhumbu

15

29

26

27

24

Hit

4

43

45

51

38

Syangja

4

43

45

51

38

In IRM-5, those in urban areas were nearly half as likely to have borrowed (23%) compared topeople in rural areas (48%). People living in less remote areas tended to be less likely to borrow
than people in remote and more remote areas (27%). About half of those in remote (48%) and more
remote (50%) areas said they had borrowed, compared to about three in ten (27%) in less remoteareas. In all IRM surveys, those in less remote areas were less likely to have borrowed money thanthose living in remote and more remote areas.

284

IRM-1 to IRM-4 asked about borrowing in the past six months whereas IRM-5 asked about borrowing in the past year.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 6.2: Share of people who borrowed – by urban/rural and remoteness (IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

Demographic groups: Hill Dalits were the most likely to report borrowing in the past year across
caste/ethnic groups by at least 10 percentage points (53% of Hill Dalits, 42% of Hill ethnic groups,
42% of Hill castes, and 29% of Newars reported borrowing in the past year). The likelihood of borrowing decreased as income increased in all IRM surveys. In IRM-5, 52 percent of those in the low
income group and 46 percent of those in the middle income group reported having borrowed in thepast year, compared to only 32 percent in the high income group saying they had borrowed. People
engaged in agriculture were the most likely to have borrowed in the past year (48%), followed bythose in business (35%), those who stay at home (35%), those in service (32%), and those in labor(32%).
Housing damage: Borrowing seemed to be related to housing damage. Half (50%) of those who
self-reported that their houses were completely destroyed had borrowed in the past year, comparedto fewer people who said their houses had major damage (27%), minor damages (35%), or was notdamaged at all (17%). Similarly, people whose houses were classified as being fully damaged weremore likely to have borrowed (51%) than those whose houses were assessed as partially damaged(33%) or not damaged (31%) houses.

Figure 6.3: Share of people who borrowed money in the past year – by housing damage (IRM-5,
base=5,857)

85

Conclusions

Amounts borrowed
The average amount borrowed was highest in IRM-5, at NPR 391,864, (USD 3,335) on average—athreefold increase since IRM-1. The rate of change in the amount borrowed was highest between
IRM-1 and IRM-2 (Table 6.2) when there was a huge increase in amounts borrowed. Between IRM2 and IRM-3, there was a decrease – likely as people in this period started receiving housing grants
or were waiting to receive their grants. The rate of change in amount borrowed increased again between IRM-3 and IRM-4 (by 70%) as well as between IRM-4 and IRM-5 (by 8%) (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2: Rate of change in amounts borrowed (IRM-1 base=342, IRM-2 base=1,859, IRM-3 base=1,554,
IRM-4 base=2,125, IRM-5 base=2,285, weighted 3
Jun 2015(IRM-1)% Change(IRM1 toIRM-2)

Feb-Mar2016(IRM-2)% Change(IRM-2 toIRM-3)

Sep 2016(IRM -3)% Change(IRM-3 toIRM-4)

Apr 2017(IRM -4)% Change(IRM-4 toIRM-5)

Sep-Oct
2019(IRM-5)103.057

194

303.130-30

213.45170

363.1938

391.864

Borrowing in IRM-5 was higher in urban areas (NPR 541,811/ USD 4,611) than in rural areas (NPR
356,117/ USD 3,030). The amounts borrowed continued to be highest in the two urban districts ofKathmandu (NPR 674,847/ USD 5,743) and Bhaktapur (NPR 592,772/ USD 5,044). These amounts
were significantly higher than what was reported in other districts, regardless of impact levels. The
average loan size in less remote regions appears to have spiked in IRM-5 and seems to be higher thanin other areas. Since IRM-4, the amount of money borrowed for respondents residing in less remoteareas increased quite significantly from NPR 402,768 (USD 3,427) in IRM-4, to NPR 598,595 (USD
5,094) in IRM-5. On the other hand, the average loan amount borrowed by respondents residing inremote and more remote areas slightly declined since IRM-4 (Table 6.3).

Table 6.3: Average borrowing in NPR – by district impact, district and rural/urban (IRM-5, base=2,285,
weighted)
Severely hit

District impact and district

308,638

Gorkha242,495

Nuwakot

278,760

Ramechhap

218,228Sindhupalchowk

207,662

Crisis hit

604,112

Kathmandu

659,148

Bhaktapur

193,273

Hit with heavy losses

250,01386

229,745

Solukhumbu

354,278Hit

285,246

Rural

356,117

Urban

541,811

Syangja

3564,184

Okhaldhunga
Lamjung

Rural/urban

237,891

Dhading285,246

IRM-1 to IRM-4 asked about borrowing in the past six months, whereas IRM-5 asked about borrowing in the past year.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Findings also showed that people who had fully rebuilt/repaired their house (NPR 476,723/ USD
4,057) and those who were in the process of repairing/rebuilding (NPR 487,312/ USD 4,147) had
larger loans than those who had not yet started to rebuild/repair (NPR 346,951/ USD 2,952). Respondents with higher incomes borrowed larger sums than those with lower incomes (Table 6.4).

Table 6.4: Average borrowing in NPR – by status of housing recovery and income (IRM-5, base=2,285,
weighted)

Status of housing recovery

IncomeFully rebuilt/repaired house, live in it

268,349

Fully rebuilt/repaired house, do not live in it

239,268

Started to rebuild/repair house, live in it

331,189

Started to rebuild/repair house, do not live in it

301,268

Not yet started to rebuild/repair

234,779

Low

198,169

Medium298,627High

569,491

Sources of lending
People who had borrowed money were also asked for their lending source.4 Cooperatives continued
to be the most commonly named lender (25%). Other sources cited were savings and credit groups(19%), relatives (18%), and neighbors (18%). Immediately after the earthquake, relatives were themost common source of loans, but in later years, borrowing from cooperatives became more common. Similar shares mentioned borrowing from banks in all IRM surveys (Table 6.5). IRM-5 also
asked if people had borrowed from the government’s loan scheme for earthquake-affected households, but zero percent said they had made use of this scheme.
The borrowing sources listed above can be divided into informal sources (moneylenders, friends,
relatives, neighbors, and other individuals) and formal sources (banks, savings and credit groups,
cooperatives, and other financial institutions). In the year immediately following the earthquake,
more people borrowed from informal institutions, but by the third round of data collection, IRM-3(Sept 2016—one and a half years after the earthquake), people had shifted to more formal institutions. For example, borrowing from friends and relatives had decreased over time, while borrowing
from cooperatives and banks had more than doubled (Table 6.5).

4

Borrowing in the past six months for rounds IRM-1 to IRM-4, and borrowing in the past year for IRM-5.

87

Conclusions

Table 6.5: Sources of borrowing among those who borrowed (IRM-1 base=342, IRM-2 base=1,859, IRM-3
base=1,554, IRM-4 base=2,125, IRM-5 base=2,285, weighted)

Cooperatives
Savings and Credit group
Relative
Neighbor
Bank
Money lender
FriendOther financial institution
Other individual from ward
Government loan scheme toearthquake-affected people

Jun 2015(IRM-1)
%
7
17
31
18
2
13
12
1
1

Feb-Mar 2016
(IRM-2)
%
15
18
24
17
13
10
9
5
2

Sep 2016(IRM-3)
%
23
20
13
19
13
12
7
2
1

Apr 2017(IRM-4)
%
27
17
19
17
13
11
12
2
1

Sep-Oct 2019
(IRM-5)
%
25
19
18
18
15
12
6
2
1

-

-

-

0

0

Sources of lending differed between rural and urban areas. People in rural areas were more likely
than those in urban areas to borrow from money lenders (14% in rural, compared to 5% in urban)
and neighbors (21% in rural, compared to 5% in urban). On the other hand, people in urban areas
were more likely to turn to cooperatives (38% in urban, compared to 21% in rural) or friends (11% inurban, compared to 5% in rural). Less commonly used lending sources in both urban and rural areas
were savings and credit groups (19% in rural areas, compared to 16% in urban areas), relatives (18%in rural and 19% in urban), and banks (14% in rural, and 17% in urban). Shares who borrowed fromother, less common, sources of lending were similar in rural and urban areas.
Although loan amounts varied widely each year by lending source, the average loan amount increased significantly between IRM-1 and IRM-5 across all lending sources (Table 6.6). Banks offered
the highest value of loans (NPR 891,471/ USD 7,586) in IRM-5, followed by relatives (NPR 444,658/
USD 3,784) and cooperatives (NPR 419,814/ USD 3,572). Loan amounts were higher in urban versus rural areas by moneylenders (NPR 1,164,060/ USD 9,906 in urban, vs. NPR 263,431/ USD 2,242
in rural) and by banks (NPR 1,124,000/USD 9,565 in urban, vs. NPR 825,472/ USD 7,024 in rural).
However, there were no major differences when it came to other lending sources.

Table 6.6: Average borrowing in NPR – by sources (IRM-1 base=342, IRM-2 base=1,859, IRM-3
base=1,554, IRM-4 base=2,125, IRM-5 base=2,285, weighted) 5

Money lender
FriendRelatives
Neighbor
Other individuals from ward
Bank
Savings and Credit group
Co-operatives
Other financial institution5

88

Jun 2015(IRM-1)
66,00955,080156,562
123,576
24,53487,19653,88865,396
11,522

Feb-Mar 2016
(RM-2)
763,730
99,064
102,836
103,889
97,546887,654
109,503
161,435
130,528

Sep 2016(IRM-3)
107,966
462,343
208,144
103,631
154,018
488,050
98,616
212,858
484,58Apr 2017(IRM-4)
184,393
222,630
220,932
149,183
165,779
750,595
98,378491,373
119,346

Sep-Oct 2019
(IRM-5)343,329294,203444,658
214,361
175,922
891,471
180,199
419,814265,349

IRM-1 to IRM-4 asked about borrowing in the past six months, whereas IRM-5 asked about borrowing in the past year. In IRM-5, only one
person said they borrowed from the government loan scheme for earthquake-affected people (0% of the whole sample). The amount thisone respondent had borrowed was NPR 119,033 (USD 1,013).

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Monthly interest rates
Average monthly interest rates remained largely steady since the earthquake. Interest rates charged
by informal sources, such as moneylenders, friends, relatives and other individuals continued tobe higher than those charged by formal financial institutions (Figure 6.4). In IRM-5, interest rates
charged by banks, savings and credit cooperatives, and other financial institutions ranged from 1.2
to 1.7 percent. For informal sources, monthly interest rates ranged from 2.2 to 3.8 percent.

Figure 6.4: Changes in monthly interest rates from different sources (IRM-1 base=342, IRM-2 base=1,859,
IRM-3 base=1,554, IRM-4 base=2,125, IRM-5 base=2,285, weighted)6

Half of those who borrowed had monthly interest rates above 2 percent. Across districts, Okhaldhunga (74%) and Syangja (60%) had the highest share of people borrowing at a monthly interest
rates above 2%. In Lamjung, only 22 percent reported having to pay an interest rate above 2 percent.

6

For loans taken in the past six months IRM-1 to IRM-4, and in the past year in IRM-5.

89

Conclusions

Table 6.7: Mean reported interest rates – by district impact, district, and rural/urban (IRM-5, base=2,285,
weighted)7
Less than Between Between
1%
1% - 1.5% 1.5% - 2%
Overall

District impact and district

Rural/urban

2

23

Severely hit

1Dhading

1

Above
2%

24

51

20

21

58

22

25

52

Gorkha

1

20

20

59

Nuwakot

0

16

21

63

Ramechhap

1

10

19

70

Sindhupalchowk

1

32

20

46

Crisis hit

0

29

28

42

Bhaktapur

3

52

17

29

Kathmandu

0

29

33

38

Okhaldhunga

1

10

16

74

Hit with heavy losses

28

22

12

37

Lamjung

39

27

12

22

Solukhumbu

0

10

14

76

Hit

0

15

26

60

Syangja

0

15

26

60

Rural

2

23

20

54

Urban

0

26

39

35

Loan conditions
What collateral have people provided for their loans?
A large majority (83%) of people who took loans in the past year did not provide any collateral. Tenpercent mentioned using their land as collateral, and even fewer mentioned putting their house as
collateral, or jewelry and other household items (Figure 6.5). Those with high incomes were more
likely than those with lower incomes to use land as collateral.

Figure 6.5: Collateral provided for loans taken (IRM-5, base=2647, weighted)

790

For loans taken in the past year.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

People who borrowed from banks were the most likely to borrow with collateral, while nearly all whoborrowed from informal sources (relatives, neighbors, or other individuals) did so without providing
any collateral for the loan. The shares who put up land as collateral when borrowing from cooperatives or banks had increased over time (Table 6.8).

Table 6.8: Collateral by sources of lending (IRM-3 base=1,554, IRM-4 base=2,125, IRM-5 base=2,285,
weighted)8
Aug-Sep 2016
(IRM-3)
Money lender
FriendRelative
Neighbor
Other individual from ward
Bank
Savings and Credit group
Cooperatives
Other financial institution

No collateralApr 2017(IRM-4)

Sep-Oct 2019
(IRM-5)

%

%

%

86

96

97

Land

3

2

2

No collateral

89

93

98

Land

6

1

0

No collateral

92

99

99

Land

1

0

1

No collateral

96

98

99

Land

1

1

0

No collateral

91

95

93

Land

7

2

4

No collateral

39

33

28

Land

29

35

38

No collateral

85

92

91

Land

6

5

6

No collateral

81

86

78

Land

7

11

16

No collateral

83

89

80

Land

8

7

8

Respondents who had taken a loan in the past one year and who had provided collateral for the loan
were further asked how much collateral they had provided. Most commonly, 38 percent of respondents said they had provided all of the collateral that was demanded as part of the loan condition, 31
percent said they had provided 25-50 percent of the collateral, 19 percent said they had provided lessthan one-quarter of the collateral, and about 12 percent said they provided over half of the collateral.

Reasons for borrowing
Over the years, there was a sharp increase in respondents who borrowed money to rebuild houses—a
12 point increase from IRM-3 to IRM-4, and an 18 point increase from IRM-4 to IRM-5. For the firsttime, in IRM-5, the most commonly cited reason for borrowing was to rebuild a house (44%). In
previous surveys, people more often borrowed mainly to support their livelihood or for food. Livelihood support (36%) was the second most commonly given reason in IRM-5, followed by education(14%), which increased substantially for the first time from just two percent in previous IRM rounds(Figure 6.6).
8

Most of those providing collateral said they put land as collateral. Shares providing other types of collateral were very small – too small for
separate analysis here.

91Conclusions

Figure 6.6: Reasons for borrowing (IRM-2 base = 1,859, IRM-3 base=1,554, IRM-4 base = 2,125, IRM-5
base = 2,285, weighted)

Housing damage: Those with completely destroyed and badly damaged houses were more likely
to have borrowed to rebuild than those with lesser damaged houses. People in houses with minor
damages were the most likely to borrow for livelihood assistance (Figure 6.7).

Figure 6.7: Reasons for borrowing – by reported housing damages (IRM-5 base=2,285, weighted)

92

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Geography: Those in severely hit districts were more likely to borrow for rebuilding (58%), compared to people in crisis hit (31%), hit with heavy losses (46%), or hit districts (34%). Borrowing
for livelihoods accounted for a larger share of borrowers in the hit (51%) and hit with heavy losses
districts (38%) than in crisis hit (35%) and severely hit (33%) districts.
Rural/urban: Borrowing for reconstruction was much higher in rural (48%) than in urban areas(29%), whereas those in urban areas (43%) were slightly more likely than people in rural areas(34%) to borrow for livelihood support.

Unsuccessful borrowing
All respondents were also asked if they had tried to borrow money in the past year, but had been
unsuccessful in doing so. Just 4 percent of respondents said they were unable to borrow in IRM-5,
similar to past survey rounds. Across all survey rounds, the proportion of people who were unsuccessful at borrowing was lowest in IRM-3 (3%) and the highest in IRM-4 (6%). Banks (27%) andmoneylenders (23%) were the most likely to refuse credit.
Respondents in the low-income bracket (6%) were twice as likely as those in the high-income bracket (3%) to report that they had tried to borrow money in the past year, but were unsuccessful. Thosewith medium incomes were also slightly more likely than those with high incomes to report unsuccessful borrowing. There were no differences in the response between men and women. People inmore remote areas (4%) and remote areas (5%) were more likely to have been refused credit thanthose in less remote areas (2%). More people in severely (4%) and crisis hit (4%) districts were refused loans compared to those in lesser impacted districts (1% each).

Intention to borrow in the future
Respondents were asked if they intended to borrow money in the next three months. Just under one
in ten respondents (9%) said they planned to borrow money in the next three months in IRM-5, thelowest share reported since the question was asked in IRM-2. In previous surveys, at least one infour respondents had said they planned to borrow in the near future.
Damage levels: Borrowing intention correlates highly with the level of housing damage people
experienced. While 12 percent of respondents whose house was completely destroyed intended toborrow, around seven percent whose houses had suffered major damage, six percent with minor
damage and only two percent with no damage expressed their intention to borrow in the next threemonths.
Intention to borrow was also significantly higher in more severely hit districts than in other district
impact categories. While 14 percent of respondents in severely hit districts planned to borrow, only
seven percent in crisis hit districts, one percent in hit with heavy losses districts, and two percent inhit districts intended to borrow in the next three months (Table 6.9). Ramechhap continued to be
the district where the largest share of people (32%) planned to borrow.

93

Conclusions

Table 6.9: Intention to borrow in the next three months – by district impact, district, rural/urban and remoteness (IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Overall

District impact and district

Rural/urban

Remoteness9
Severely hit

14

Dhading

9

Gorkha16

Nuwakot

7

Ramechhap

32

Sindhupalchowk

14

Crisis hit

7

Bhaktapur

15

Kathmandu

5Okhaldhunga

19

Hit with heavy losses

1

Lamjung

1

Solukhumbu

2

Hit

2

Syangja

2

Rural

11

Urban

5

Less remote

7

Remote11More remote

13

Income Intention to borrow money in the next three months was the highest among low-income
households, followed by those with medium incomes, and was the lowest for those with high incomes. Respondents with low income (16%) were three times as likely than those with high incomes(5%), and those with medium incomes were twice as likely as those with high incomes (5%) to reportthat they had intentions to borrow in the next three months.
More people in more remote areas and remote areas planned to borrow money compared to thoseresiding in less remote areas. Hill Dalits were slightly more likely than others to say that they would
borrow in the next three months.

Reasons for future borrowing
Respondents who mentioned that they had an intention of borrowing money in the next threemonths were asked to provide reasons for why they intended to borrow. The most commonly mentioned reasons were for livelihood support (43%), to rebuild their house (29%), for education (13%),and farm inputs (11%). Around one in ten respondents who intended to borrow said it was for food(9%) or for healthcare (9%).

94Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

6.2 Debt
Household debt
In addition to asking about borrowing in the past year, respondents were also asked about theamount of their overall debt at the time of the survey. The average overall debt at the time of IRM5 was NPR 675,157 (USD 5,745). The average size of debt was higher in urban areas and in lessremote areas. Across districts, Kathmandu residents reported overall debt amounts that were significantly higher than in other districts. The overall debt incurred in Kathmandu was NPR 1,123,514(USD 9,561), and the second highest amount of debt was NPR 836,461 (USD 7,118) in Bhaktapur.
In Syangja, the overall debt was also fairly high, at NRP 518,056 (USD 4,408). In the other districts,
overall debt amounts were between around NPR 340,000 (USD 2,893) to 420,000 (USD 3,574)(Table 6.10). Since livelihood was stated as one of the top two reasons for borrowing, higher borrowing in urban and less remote areas may be attributed to the higher cost of living compared to ruraland more remote areas. People with higher incomes had higher debt amounts than those in lower
income brackets.

Table 6.10: Average household debt in NPR – by district impact, district, rural/urban, remoteness, (IRM-5,
base=5,857, weighted)
Overall

District impact and district

Rural/urban

Remoteness

675,157
Severely hit

377,691

Dhading345,872

Gorkha405,634

Nuwakot

342,529

Ramechhap

421,312Sindhupalchowk

374,380

Crisis hit

997,555

Bhaktapur

836,461

Kathmandu

1,123,514

Okhaldhunga

315,513

Hit with heavy losses

408,380

Lamjung

425,083

Solukhumbu

381,353Hit

518,056

Syangja

518,056Rural

557,341

Urban

1,041,467

Less remote1,055,682

Remote516,748More remote331,48095

Conclusions

Table 6.11: Average household debt in NPR – by reported housing damages, status of housing recovery,
and income (IRM-5, base=5,857, weighted)
Completely destroyed
Reported housing damage

Status of housing recovery

Income595,439

Badly damaged (major repairs needed)

585,674

Habitable (minor repairs needed)

949,962

Not damaged

802,632

Fully rebuilt/repaired house, live in it

504,445

Fully rebuilt/repaired house, do not live in it

940,791

Started to repair/rebuild house, live in it

956,789

Started to repair/rebuild house, do not live in it

573,721

Not yet started to rebuild/repair

830,290

Low income

322,559

Medium income

411,423High income

1,003,468

Changes in debts over the past year
Borrowers were asked to assess their current level of debt compared to the past year. While borrowers said their debt levels were mostly similar to the last year, there were some changes over time.
Compared to 2016, the share who said their overall debt had increased a lot had gone up slightly, as
did those who said their debt increased slightly. The share who said it had decreased slightly also
increased sharply between 2017 and 2019 (Figure 6.8).

Figure 6.8: Changes in debt over the past year (IRM-2 base = 1,859, IRM-3 base=1,554, IRM-4 base =2,125, IRM-5 base = 2,285, weighted9)996Remaining shares were unsure or refused to answer.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Changes in debts since the earthquake
Respondents were also asked to compare their current debt to their debt levels before the earthquake. Three in ten respondents said their debt had increased compared to before the earthquake(11% increased a lot, 20% increased slightly), one-quarter said it was the same as before (24%), one
in ten said it had decreased (10% decreased slightly, 2% decreased a lot), and three in ten (32%) said
they had not taken out any loans. Those with low- and medium-level incomes were more likely thanthose with higher incomes to say their overall debt had increased compared to before the earthquake.
An increase in debt since the earthquake was more common for people whose houses were completely destroyed. Debt increased for 45 percent of those whose houses were completely destroyed,for 26 percent of those whose houses had major damage, and for 37 percent whose houses had suffered minor damage (Figure 6.9). Thirty-six percent of households who took a loan, but had not suffered any damage reported having increasing overall debt, which suggests that rising debt is a wider
problem and not solely related to the earthquake. This trend was seen in earlier analysis, whichfound that borrowing was prevalent not only among those with housing damage, but also among
others. However, the fact that those who were the most affected were also the most likely to borrowand to have rising debt suggests that the earthquake has led to more borrowing and debt than people
would have otherwise had.

Figure 6.9: Changes in debt compared to before the earthquake – by reported housing damages (IRM-5,
base=5,857, weighted)

While a relatively low proportion of respondents reported decreases in debt, some districts had alarger share of respondents who said that debt levels decreased (either a lot or slightly). In Okhaldhunga, 17 percent of people reported a decrease in debt. Respondents residing in Dhading (15%),
Nuwakot (15%), Kathmandu (13%), and Lamjung (13%) were also a little more likely to report that
their debt decreased compared to before the earthquake.

97

Conclusions

6.3 Assets Sales
In all IRM surveys, less than 10 percent of respondents reported having sold assets (IRM-2: 4%,
IRM-3: 3%, IRM-4: 6%, and IRM-5: 8%). In IRM-5, one in eight said they had sold assets – morethan in previous rounds. Even though asset sale was relatively uncommon, it seemed to be linked toearthquake impacts. People in the severely hit districts were more likely to report selling assets in all
IRM surveys compared to people in other areas. In IRM-5, asset sales were more common among
those whose houses were completely destroyed (13%), compared to those who suffered lesser (2-4%)
or no damage (0%). Those who had built/repaired a new house (and lived in it, 71%) were at least
seven times more likely than those who did not yet complete rebuilding/repairing their house (ninepercent or less) to have sold assets (Table 6.12).

Table 6.12: Sale of assets to cope with effects of earthquake – by reported damage, status of housing recovery, income (IRM-5, base=5,857, weighted, multiple answers possible)

Reported housing damage (%)

Status of Housing recovery (%)

Income (%)

Completely destroyed

13

Badly damaged (major repairs needed)

4

Habitable (minor repairs needed)2

Not damaged

0

Fully rebuilt/repaired house, live in it

71

Fully rebuilt/repaired house, do not live in it

6

Started to repair/rebuild house, live in it

9Started to repair/rebuild house, do not live in it

9

Not yet started to rebuild/repair

5

Low income

9

Medium income

9High income

7

In IRM-5, people in rural areas (10%) were more than twice as likely as those in urban areas to havesold assets (4%). Assets sales were also higher in more remote areas (12%) than in remote (9%) andless remote areas (5%). Residents of Ramechhap, Gorkha, and Bhaktapur were the most likely tohave sold assets in the past year to cope with the impacts of earthquake (Table 6.13).

98

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 6.13: Sale of assets to cope with effects of earthquake – by district impact, district, remoteness, andurban/rural (IRM-5, base=5,857, weighted, multiple answers possible)
Overall

District and district impact (%)

Rural/urban (%)

Remoteness (%)

8
Severely hit

10

Dhading

5

Gorkha14

Nuwakot

9

Ramechhap19

Sindhupalchowk

6

Crisis hit

8

Bhaktapur

15

Kathmandu

7

Okhaldhunga

5

Hit with heavy losses

3

Lamjung

3

Solukhumbu

2

Hit

2

Syangja

2

Rural

10

Urban

4

Less remote5

Remote9More remote

12Types of assets sold
The majority of respondents who sold assets sold land (50%) and livestock (37%). People also soldgold (17%) and houses (6%) to cope with the earthquake’s impacts. Compared to IRM-4, land sales
among those who sold assets increased by seven percentage points, whereas livestock sales went
down by three percentage points (Figure 6.10). For those who sold assets, land sales were cited more
frequently in Bhaktapur (98%) and Kathmandu (69%). Gold sales were the highest in Sindhupalchowk and Dhading (26% each). Respondents residing in more remote areas who sold assets were themost likely to say they sold livestock, whereas those in less remote areas were more likely to say theysold land. None of the respondents in more remote areas said they sold houses.

99Conclusions

Figure 6.10: Types of assets sold to cope with earthquake impacts (IRM-2 base=302, IRM-3 base-164,
IRM-4 base=302, IRM-5 base=439, weighted, multiple answers possible)10

How many assets have people sold?
Respondents who said they sold a type of asset to cope with the impacts of the earthquake were further asked how much of each asset they had sold. Among those who sold land, nearly two in threesaid they sold less than 25 percent of the land they owned. In previous years, larger quantities of land
were sold. The results were more mixed for livestock sales – as in previous surveys. However, fewer
than two in ten of those who said they sold livestock said that they sold all of it in any of the IRM
surveys. The quantity of household goods sold has decreased in each subsequent survey (Table 6.14).

10

100

One asset not mentioned here is vehicles – only four households (1% of those who sold assets) mentioned having sold vehicles.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 6.14: Quantity of assets sold (IRM-2 base=302, IRM-3 base-164, IRM-4 base=302, IRM-5
base=439, weighted)11

Land

Livestock

Household good

Jewelry

Feb-Mar 2016
(IRM-2)

Sep 2016(IRM-3)

Apr 2017(IRM-4)

Sep-Oct 2019
(IRM-5)

%

%

%

%

All

27

3

12

3

Over 50%

4

66

49

9

25-50%

36

25

25

22

Less than 25%

33

6

13

65

All

18

15

11

19

Over 50%

28

48

40

26

25-50%

29

29

33

32

Less than 25%

25

8

16

22

All

2

2

5

0

Over 50%

17

68

62

3

25-50%

68

30

26

91

Less than 25%

12

0

7

5

All

0

0

0

7

Over 50%

0

0

0

25

25-50%

0

0

0

28

Less than 25%

0

0

0

40

6.4 Remittances
To further understand the role of remittances in earthquake recovery, respondents were asked questions related to remittances before and after the earthquakes. Similar to previous IRM surveys, 12
percent of respondents in IRM-5 said that remittances were a main income source (10% in IRM-1,
13% in IRM-2, 14% in IRM-3, and 15% in IRM-5).
The share who reported having ever received remittances was highest in IRM-5 (27%). Four percent
said they received remittances from inside the country, 19 percent from outside the country, andfour percent from both inside and outside the country. In previous surveys, at least two in ten had
reported getting remittances either from inside the country or abroad (21% in IRM-2, 19% in IRM-3,
and 24% in IRM-4).

11

One asset not mentioned here is vehicles – only four households (1% of those who sold assets) mentioned having sold vehicles. All of thosesaid they had sold less than 25% of their vehicle assets. Jewelry was not asked about separately in IRM-2 to IRM-4.

101

Conclusions

Figure 6.11: Share of people who received remittance (IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4
base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

More people with higher incomes received remittances compared to others. They were especiallymore likely than people with lower incomes to say they received remittances from outside the country (23% compared to 11%) (Figure 6.12). People in rural areas were more likely to say they received
remittances from inside the country (6%), while those in urban areas were more likely to have gotten
remittances from abroad (20%). Women were slightly more likely than men to say they received
remittances from outside the country (21% to 17%).

Figure 6.12: Share of people who ever received remittances – by income (IRM-5, weighted)

102

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Generally, most respondents who received remittances said that the levels of remittances received
was similar to before the earthquake, in all survey rounds. However, in IRM-5, people were slightly
more likely to say that they received more remittances since the earthquake occurred (19% compared to less than 10% in previous rounds) – suggesting an increase in remittances since the earthquake (Figure 6.13).

Figure 6.13: Changes to remittances received since the earthquake (IRM-2 base=1,019, IRM-3 base=922,
IRM-4 base=1,165, IRM-5 base=1,006, weighted)

6.5 Migration
Migration in the community
Migration provides remittances, which are counter-cyclical and generally increase or remain stable after natural disasters and during economic crises and armed conflicts (Clarke and Wallsten
2003; Mahapatra et al. 2009). They are an important adaptive strategy for households during disasters. But migration also reduces the labour force needed to recover from such disasters, such as the
Gorkha earthquake. Although there is an increasing body of work focusing on remittances and crisis,
there is little understanding of the effect of the loss of labour, as a result of migration, on emergency
and recovery needs.

103Conclusions

The IRM surveys tracked levels of migration in the community. Migration could be an adaptive
strategy after disasters, but it can also mean a loss of manpower needed to rebound from a crisis.
In both IRM-4 and IRM-5, the majority of respondents said that the level of migration from theircommunities has stayed the same before and after the earthquake, with a higher share saying so in
IRM-5 (76% in IRM-5 compared to 65% in IRM-4). Since equal shares reported an increase in migration in the community in both IRM-4 and IRM-5, this response was most likely because fewer
people were unsure of levels of migration in the community compared to IRM-4, and not because
migration had actually increased between the two survey rounds (Figure 6.14).

Figure 6.14: Change in migration in the community compared to before the earthquake (IRM-4 base4,854, IRM-5 5,857, weighted)

Migration of household members
Less than 10 percent of respondents said that someone in their household migrated (defined as leaving home for at least three months) after the earthquake in all survey rounds. In IRM-5, seven percent of respondents reported that a member of their household had migrated since the earthquake.
Just two percent of respondents said someone in their family planned to migrate in the coming year.
Across districts, Syangja (26%), Gorkha (12%), and Sindhupalchowk (11%) residents were most likely to report someone in theor household having migrated after the earthquake. Those in rural areas(9%) were more likely to report migration in the family than people in urban areas (4%) (Table 6.15).

104

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 6.15: Share of people who say someone in their household migrated after the earthquake – by
district impact, district, urban/rural (IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5
base=5,857, weighted)

OverallSeverely hit

District impact and district

Rural/urban

Feb-Mar2016(IRM-2)

Sep 2016(IRM-3)

Apr 2017(IRM-4)

Sep-Oct
2019(IRM-5)

%

%

%

%

7

3

3

7

7

4

5

7

Dhading

2

2

9

1

Gorkha

12

4

2

12

Nuwakot

3

1

6

7

Ramechhap

2

4

4

6

Sindhupalchowk

13

9

3

11

Crisis hit

10

3

1

5

Bhaktapur

11

9

2

2

Kathmandu

10

3

1

6

Okhaldhunga

9

1

7

3

Hit with heavy losses

4

1

3

2

Lamjung

5

2

3

3

Solukhumbu

2

0

3

2

Hit

1

1

1

26

Syangja

1

1

1

26

Rural

7

3

3

9

Urban

9

5

1

4

In IRM-5, migration did not seem to correlate to housing damage. Among those with completely destroyed houses, six percent said someone in their family migrated, compared to 12 percent with badly damaged houses, nine percent with partially damaged houses, and four percent with no damage.
Respondents with higher incomes (68%) were more likely to report migration of a family member
since the earthquake, compared to those with middle (45%) or low incomes (36%).
Those who reported that someone in the family had migrated were also asked which family member(s) migrated. Looking at who migrated for each survey round, there appeared to be a connection
to housing damage. Up until 2016, in the early period after the earthquake when many had not yet
rebuild damaged houses, entire families had migrated – meaning they had left their home for at least
three months (86% in IRM-2, 89% in IRM-3). Afterwards, there was a decline in the whole family
migrating (42% in IRM-4 and 5% in IRM-5) and increase in individual family members migrating –corresponding with progress in reconstruction around the same time (see Chapter 3). In IRM-5, themigrant in each family was most likely to be an adult family member (74%).

105

Conclusions

Figure 6.15: Who in the family migrated (IRM-2 base=186, IRM-3 base=158, IRM-4 base=127, IRV-5
base=417, weighted)

Further, the reasons for migration given in IRM-2 and IMR-3 were primarily lack of shelter (68%in IRM-2, 40% in IMR-3) followed by adverse geography or weather. In contrast, after the earlypost-earthquake period was over, the main reason for migration was work (78% in IRM-4, 74% in
IRM-5). The share who mentioned education (34%) also increased in IRM-5 (Figure 6.16). Shelter-related reasons for migration explain why in earlier survey rounds, the whole family tended tomigrate, while in later rounds, other adults were the migrants, as they were migrating for work or
education purposes.

Figure 6.16: Reasons for migrating (IRM-2 base=186, IRM-3 base=158, IRM-4 base=127, IRM-5
base=417, weighted)

106

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Among those who reported that a family member had migrated since the earthquake, nearly everyone (97%) said that they had temporarily migrated. Only three percent of respondents who said thata family member migrated reported that they had migrated permanently. The shares of respondents
who migrated permanently were higher in Okhaldhunga (31%), Dhading (18%), and Solukhumbu(17%). People living in less remote areas (10%) were more likely to migrate permanently than remote (1%) and more remote areas (2%). Similarly, those in urban areas (9%) were more likely thanthose in rural areas (1%) to say migration was permanent.
Looking at migration destinations, four in ten said that their family member had migrated within
the country (42%) and nearly six in ten said they had gone abroad (58%). Of those who reported
that a family member had migrated since the earthquake, respondents residing in Bhaktapur (96%),
Kathmandu (73%), Solukhmbu (67%), and Syangja (60%) were more likely to report that they had
migrated abroad. Respondents in more remote areas and those with lower incomes who reported
migration of a household member since the earthquake were more likely to mention that their family
member had migrated within the country. People in rural areas had higher levels of migration within
the country (45% to 28%), and those in urban areas, outside of the country (55% to 72%).

6.6 Food consumption
Respondents in each IRM survey were asked to compare their current food consumption level withthat of the year before. As with previous survey rounds, most people said that their year-on-year
consumption had remained the same, with around one-third saying it has increased, and nine percent reporting a decrease. Since IRM-3, the number of people who had increased their food consumption slightly doubled (16% in IRM-3 to 32% in IRM-5), while the proportion of people who
maintained the same consumption level decreased steadily (75% in IRM-3 to 58% in IRM-5). The
proportion of people who slightly decreased their food consumption also doubled since IRM-3 (4%to 8% in IRM-5) (Figure 6.17).
The four districts to report more than average decreases in consumption (9%) were Lamjung (16%),
Okhaldhunga (16%), Gorkha (15%), and Nuwakot (12%). Those with lower incomes were only slightly more likely than the medium and high-income groups to say food consumption decreased in thelast year.

Figure 6.17: Changes in food consumption in the last year (IRM-2 base=4,853, IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4
base=4,854, and IRM-5 base=5,857)

107

Conclusions

Photo:108
Manasi Prasai (Gorkha)Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Chapter 7

Livelihoods

Photo: Manasi Prasai (Gorkha)

People’s housing situation is just one measure of recovery – which is why the IRM research has
also tracked impacts and recovery in other areas. This chapter looks at livelihoods and explores theearthquake’s impacts on, and recovery of, income sources, as well as livelihood assistance to earthquake-affected people, and current need for livelihood support. Livelihoods recovery is a crucialpart of overall recovery. As Chapter 6 shows, households severely affected by the earthquake seemto have more borrowing and increasing debt over time. Strengthening livelihoods and increasing
incomes could potentially reduce the longer-term negative financial impacts of these trends.

Key findings
Impacts on income sources•

At the time of the earthquake, the majority of households in earthquake-affected areas generated income by farming their own land (59%) or through their own businesses (32%). Farming was cited most frequently as a main income source across all five survey rounds. Yet, overtime, there has been a decline in the number of households generating income through farming (by 10 percentage points between 2015 and 2019) and from livestock (by seven percentage
points between 2015 and 2019), as well as a simultaneous increase in households earningincome from daily wages and from their own businesses.

•

Those whose main household income came from their own business (76%), rent (52%), or
daily wage work (43%) were most likely to say their income source was affected by the earthquake. People in government service (6%) and those who got remittances (16%) were the least
likely to say so. Around one-third (33%) of those farming their own land said their household
livelihood was affected.

109

Coping Strategies to Finance Reconstruction•

Among those households whose source of income was affected by the earthquake, more thanhalf said their house was completely destroyed. This confirms that housing damage has had
an impact on income sources – even five years on. Overall, 84 percent of respondents faced
the double burden of having their income affected and having to repair or rebuild their damaged house. Only 16 percent of people with no housing damage said their income source wasaffected.

•

Livelihoods have largely recovered. Nearly five years after the earthquakes, 75 to 88 percent
of respondents reported improvements to affected sources of income for all types of income
sources.

•

Incomes seem to have remained stable when comparing income levels in late-2019 to those
before the earthquake. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) said their household income has
stayed the same as before the earthquake. Twenty-one percent said their income has increased (20% slightly increased, 1% increased a lot) and 14 percent said it decreased (12%slightly decreased, 2% decreased a lot).

•

Only five percent said they have changed livelihood since the earthquake, but changes seem
inconclusive as most households remained in the same sectors: either agriculture or business.

Livelihoods assistance•Two in 10 respondents (18%) received some type of livelihood assistance after the earthquake,while eight in 10 (82%) said they did not receive such support. Respondents who reside inseverely hit districts, rural areas, more remote areas, and those in the low-income bracket,
and with low educational levels were more likely to have received livelihood support after
the earthquake. Respondents who were in the process of rebuilding their house or who hadfinished rebuilding their house were more likely to have received livelihood assistance.

•

People who received livelihood support overwhelmingly said it was useful (97%), but fewer
people (77%) found the livelihood support they received to be helpful specifically for earthquake recovery.

Livelihoods needs

110•

Cash grants were the main livelihood support that people wanted now, with 58 percent ofrespondents mentioning it. A total of 47 percent said they needed some form of agricultural
support (training, livestock, seeds, general support, land, or irrigation) while a total of 22
percent said they needed support for their business (business development or training). Onefourth of respondents (25%) said they did not need any livelihood support.

•

Respondents with higher educational status and higher incomes were more likely to state thatthey did not currently have any need for livelihood support. Those with low incomes were almost twice as likely as those with high incomes to say they needed cash support. People withhousing damage were also comparatively more likely to say they required cash grants as aform of livelihood support than those with no damage at all.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

7.1 Impacts on incomes sources
Respondents’ income sources
The survey asked the respondents to state their profession and any additional sources of income
they might have. Four in ten (43%) mentioned agriculture as their profession and one-fourth (25%)
said they were engaged in business. About seven percent were engaged in service sectors, and five
percent in labor. One in ten respondents (12%) were homemakers. Secondary sources of income included agriculture (21%), small and medium enterprise (13%), labor (10%), and service (9%). However, three in ten (34%) said that they do not have any additional income sources.

Figure 7.1: Current main profession of respondents [IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857]

Household income sources at the time of the earthquake
The survey also asked about the household income sources of respondents. At the time of the earthquake, most households in affected districts farmed their own land (59%), especially in rural districts
where close to 90 percent or more say one of their main sources of income was farming. Residents
of rural areas said their income source at the time of earthquake was farming, livestock farming,and daily wage work in the local area, while residents of urban areas say that their main sources ofincome were business, salary/wage work in private company, and rent (Table 7.1).

111

Coping Strategies to Finance Reconstruction

Farming onothers' land

%

%

%

%

%

15

14

12

10

12

3

Severely hit

94

12

9

1

22

27

12

6

9

4

Dhading

94

7

11

0

13

2

9

5

8

4

Gorkha

90

18

4

1

23

26

11

6

14

6

Nuwakot

95

13

13

2

18

66

18

7

10

0

Ramechhap

97

9

5

1

23

47

11

8

10

9

Remittance%

19

Livestockfarming%19

Daily wage
work

%

32

Rent

%

59

Salary/wages in privatecompany%
Overall

Own business

Pension/ Social security

Government
service

Farming own
land

Table 7.1: Sources of income at the time of the earthquake – by district impact, district, and rural/urban(household income sources, multiple answers possible, IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)

Sindhupalchowk

95

14

9

1

31

7

10

6

6

4

Crisis hit

29

50

28

34

10

3

7

11

14

2

Bhaktapur

61

34

30

12

21

9

6

12

11

5

Kathmandu

19

56

30

40

8

0

7

12

14

1

Okhaldhunga

97

6

4

1

20

29

10

8

14

5

Hit with heavy losses

90

14

8

1

23

10

24

14

10

5

Lamjung

91

10

10

2

26

10

33

17

14

7

Solukhumbu

89

21

4

0

19

11

7

10

3

1

Hit

92

8

11

0

9

43

34

9

19

6

Syangja

92

8

11

0

9

43

34

9

19

6

Rural

81

21

11

8

18

21

13

11

11

4

Urban

16

53

35

39

8

2

9

7

14

2

Changes to household income sources over time
In each survey round, respondents were asked about their household’s current main income
source(s). Farming was cited most frequently as a main income source across all five survey rounds.
Over time, however, there was a decline in the number of households generating income throughfarming (by 10 percentage points between 2015 and 2019) and through livestock (by seven percentage points between 2015 and 2019), as well as a simultaneous increase in households earningincome from daily wages and from their own business (Figure 7.2). Livestock farming decreased
noticeably immediately after the earthquake, rebounded in 2016, but has since showed an annual
decline. Shares of households generating income through their own business, working for a privatecompany, or daily wage work has increased since the earthquake. As a result of the larger urban
sample in the recent IRM survey, there appears to be a larger share of households citing rent as anincome source between IRM-4 and IRM-5.

112

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 7.2: Top income sources for households from 2015-2019 (IRM-1 base=2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850,
IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted, multiple answers possible)

Earthquake impacts on household income sources
Respondents were asked whether their household’s main source(s) of income at the time of theearthquake were affected by the earthquake. Those who had relied on their own business (76%), rent(52%), or daily wage work (43%) were most likely to say their livelihood source was affected by theearthquake. People in government service (6%) and who received remittances (16%) were the least
likely to say their livelihoods were impacted by the earthquake. One-third (33%) of those farming
their own land said their livelihood was affected.

113

Coping Strategies to Finance Reconstruction

Figure 7.3: Effect on sources of income (household income sources at the time of the earthquake, IRM-5,
weighted, base=5,857)

Among those people whose source of income was somewhat or completely affected by the earthquake, more than half (53%) said their house was completely destroyed. This confirms that housing
damage has had an impact on income sources – even five years on. Overall, 84 percent of respondents faced the double burden of having their income somewhat or completely affected, and also
having to repair or rebuild their partially or fully damaged house. Only 16 percent with no housing
damage said their income source was affected (Figure 7.4). Those with housing damage who had
relied on rent or their own business for income were more likely to say their income source was affected (but they were also comparatively more likely to say their income source has since improved).

114

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 7.4: Reported housing damage for people whose livelihoods were either somewhat or completely
affected by the earthquake (IRM-5, weighted, base=3,092)

Recovery of income sources
Livelihoods have largely recovered nearly five years after the earthquake. The majority of households whose pre-earthquake income sources were either somewhat or completely affected by theearthquake noted that their incomes have since improved again. Seventy-five to 88 percent of respondents reported improvements to affected sources of income nearly five years after the earthquake, across all income sources (Figure 7.5).

Figure 7.5: Shares reporting improvements to affected income sources since the earthquake (among those
who said their household income source was either completely or somewhat affected by the earthquake,
IRM-5, weighted, base=varies by income source)1

1

The base for various income sources were as follows: farming one’s own land (1153), daily wages (371), own business (1434), livestock
farming (208), remittance (107), salary/wages in private company (357), and rent (577). Sample sizes for other income sources were too
small.

115

Coping Strategies to Finance Reconstruction

Livelihood recovery varied across districts, and between rural and urban areas. Generally, thosein urban areas were more likely than those in rural areas to have seen improvements to their livelihoods since the earthquake, except for remittances and livestock farming (Table 7.2). People in
Solukhumbu were less likely than others to mention improvements to farming, daily wages, or theirbusinesses. Those in Nuwakot (91%) were the most likely, and those in Sindhupalchowk (43%) werethe least likely to say remittances had improved. Nearly everyone in Bhaktapur (92%) said salaries/
wages from private companies had improved, and only half said the same in Gorkha. Rent as anincome source improved the most in Bhaktapur and Kathmandu, whereas livestock farming had
improved the most in Ramechhap and Okhaldhunga.

Table 7.2: Shares reporting improvements to income sources – by district impact, district, and rural/urban(among those who said the income source was either completely or somewhat affected by the earthquake,
IRM-5, weighted, base=varies by income source)2
Farming
own land

Daily
wage
work

Own busiRemittanceness

Salary/wages in privatecompany

Rent

Livestockfarming

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Overall

84

86

87

75

85

87

88

Severely hit

83

89

80

70

73

48

87

Dhading

86

100

73

73

86

50

45

Gorkha

86

91

74

50

49

0

84

Nuwakot

90

97

95

91

78

80

89

Ramechhap

69

82

89

68

88

50

92

Sindhupalchowk

82

84

77

43

65

29

86

Crisis hit

93

90

88

69

88

88

89

Bhaktapur

86

79

81

86

92

91

79

Okhaldhunga

91

94

83

83

75

0

96

Kathmandu

100

95

89

67

88

88

0

Hit with heavy losses

64

58

52

44

87

0

100

Solukhumbu

63

38

44

57

86

0

100

Lamjung

87

94

87

0

100

0

100

Hit

95

100

100

100

0

0

0

Syangja

95

100

100

100

0

0

0

Rural

83

84

80

76

69

89

88

Urban

94

91

92

69

94

86

69

Changes in levels of income since the earthquake
Two-thirds (66%) of respondents said their income stayed the same as before the earthquake. Fewersaid it had increased (20% slightly increased, 1% increased a lot) or decreased (12% slightly decreased, 2% decreased a lot).

2

116

The base for various income sources were as follows: farming one’s own land (1153), daily wages (371), own business (1434), livestock
farming (208), remittance (107), salary/wages in private company (357), and rent (577). Sample sizes for other income sources were too
small.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Across the 11 districts, most respondents said their income had stayed the same as before the earthquake, with the exception of Ramechhap and Lamjung. More people in Lamjung (49%) and Ramechhap (46%) reported that their incomes increased than stayed the same. Higher than average shares
reported decreased incomes in Gorkha (20%), Sindhupalchowk (15%), and Kathmandu (17%). People in districts that suffered less damage were more likely to say their income increased compared
to before the earthquake than those in districts with more widespread damage. However, there wasalso wide variation in shares who said their income increased or decreased between severely hit districts. Urban residents were slightly more likely than the overall average to note a decrease in theirincome, and slightly less likely to see an increase in income since the earthquake (Table 7.3).

Table 7.3: Change in income level since the earthquake – by district impact, district, rural/urban, and remoteness (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Increased

Stayed the same

Decreased%%%

Overall

21

66

14

Severely hit

22

65

13

Dhading

12

76

12

Gorkha17

63

20

Nuwakot

21

71

9

Ramechhap

46

44

11

Sindhupalchowk

22

63

15

Crisis hit

17

67

16

Bhaktapur

19

67

14

Kathmandu

17

66

17

Okhaldhunga

16

78

7

Hit with heavy losses

35

60

4

Solukhumbu

11

82

6

Lamjung

49

47

3

Hit

30

68

2

Syangja

30

68

2

Rural

22

66

11

Urban

18

65

17

Housing damages and status of housing recovery seemed to have some level of impact on income recovery. Those who said their houses were completely destroyed (18%) were slightly less likely to say
incomes had increased compared to people who said their houses were badly damaged, habitable,
or not damaged (23% each). Looking at housing recovery status, those who live in a partly or fully
rebuilt/repaired house were comparatively more likely to say their incomes increased than those
who had not yet started to rebuild/repair their house, or who had started or completed rebuilding/repairing their house, but do not yet live in it.

117Coping Strategies to Finance Reconstruction

Have people changed their livelihood?
Only five percent of respondents said they changed their livelihood after the earthquake in IRM-5– only slightly more than in past survey rounds (2% IRM-2, 4% IRM-3, 2% IRM-4). There was notmuch variation across types of livelihood sources when it came to changing to a different source
after the earthquake. Looking at the current income sources of people who switched to a different
livelihood source after the earthquake, most converted to farming their own land (42%) or working
in their own business (35%).

Figure 7.6: Current livelihood source among those who changed their source of livelihood after the earthquake (IRM-5, weighted, base=301)

Of the five percent who reported that they changed their livelihood, most reported their family’s
main income source(s) to be farming their own land or running their own business at the time of theearthquake. Looking at income source at the time of the earthquake and in 2019, most seemed tohave remained within the same industries, suggesting that they may have shifted the type of farming
or business, but remained within those two categories. Another possibility is that the family’s mainincome source(s) remained the same, while the respondent reported having changed his/her income
source in the past four-and-a-half years. The shift in livelihoods is therefore inconclusive.

7.2 Livelihood assistance
Who received livelihood support after the earthquake?
All respondents were asked if they had received livelihood support after the earthquake. Most (82%)
said they had not received any support, and some (only 18%) said they had received such support.
Those in severely hit districts (44%) – particularly Gorkha (69%), Nuwakot (62%), and Dhading(43%) – were more likely to have received livelihood support than in districts that were less impacted. Few in Kathmandu (2%), Solukhumbu (2%), or Syangja (4%) reported getting livelihood
support. Respondents in rural areas (25%) were far more likely than respondents residing in urban
areas (4%) to report receiving livelihood support. The likelihood of having received support also
increased with remoteness (Table 7.4).

118

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 7.4: Share of people who received livelihood support since the earthquake – by district impact, district,
rural/urban, and remoteness (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Overall (%)

District impact and district (%)

Urban/rural (%)

Remoteness (%)

18
Severely Hit

44

Dhading

43

Gorkha69

Nuwakot

62

Ramechhap

14

Sindhupalchowk

26

Crisis Hit

4

Bhaktapur

21

Kathmandu

2

Okhaldhunga

9

Hit with heavy losses

11

Solukhumbu

2

Lamjung

16

Hit

4

Syangja

4

Rural

25

Urban

4

Less remote

6

Remote26More remote32

Respondents with low- or medium-income levels and lower educational attainment were more likely to say they received livelihood support. Hill ethnic groups and Hill Dalits were more likely thanrespondents from other castes/ethnic groups to report that they received livelihood support (Table
7.5). Those engaged in agriculture (31%) were more likely to report having received livelihood support. People depending upon social security allowances (only 4 percent of total sample) also said
they got livelihood support (36%).
People who said their houses were completely destroyed (30%) were more likely than those who
suffered less damage to say that they received livelihood support. Respondents who were in the process of rebuilding their house (35%) and those who had completely rebuilt their house (29%) weremore likely to say that they had received livelihood support after the earthquake than those who hadcompleted repairing, were in the process of repairing, or those who had done nothing (Table 7.5).

119

Coping Strategies to Finance Reconstruction

Table 7.5: Share of people who received livelihood support – by education, caste/ethnicity, income, andstatus of the housing recovery (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Overall (%)

18

Education (%)

Caste/ethnicity (%)

Income (%)

Status of housing recovery (%)

Illiterate

30

Literate

21

Primary Level

22

Lower Secondary Level

13

Secondary Level

14

SLC Pass

9+2/Intermediate Pass

8

Bachelor Pass

5

Master & Above0

Hill castes

13

Hill ethnic groups

29

Hill Dalit

25

Newar

10

Low

28

Medium

27

High

10

Fully rebuilt/repaired house, live in it

29

Fully rebuilt/repaired house, do not live in it

35

Started to repair/rebuild house, live in it

10

Started to repair/rebuild house, do not live in it

7

Not yet started to rebuild/repair

10What types of livelihood support did people receive?
Respondents were asked to name the different items they received for livelihood support. The majority (84%) of those who received livelihood support received it in the form of cash grants. Others
mentioned receiving food (29%), seeds (19%), and tents/tarps (17%). Far fewer received other typesof livelihood assistance, such as training, agricultural support, and livestock (Figure 7.7).

Figure 7.7: Types of livelihoods support received (IRM-5, weighted, base=1,041)

120

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Usefulness of livelihood support
Respondents who received livelihood assistance were asked to rate how useful the support was, andif it helped them recover from the earthquake. Nearly everyone said the assistance was useful, with
one-fourth (25%) saying it was very useful, and seven in ten (72%) saying it was useful. However,fewer thought the livelihood assistance was helpful for earthquake recovery—77 percent found it
helpful for earthquake recovery compared to 97 percent who found the assistance generally useful.
One quarter felt that the assistance was not helpful for earthquake recovery (19% not helpful, 5% not
helpful at all).

Figure 7.8: Usefulness of livelihood support and helpfulness for earthquake recovery(IRM-5, weighted, base=1,041)

7.3 Livelihood needs
What are the main livelihood needs now?
People were asked to list their main livelihood needs now. One-fourth (25%) of respondents said
they did not have any need for livelihood support, while a majority (53%) said they needed cash
inputs. Far smaller shares needed other types of assistance, such as business development support(12%), agriculture training (12%), livestock (11%), seeds (10%), business training (10%), or othertypes of support. However, a combined total of 47 percent said they needed various types of agricultural support (training, livestock, seeds, general support, land, irrigation) compared to 22 percent
who said they needed support for their business (business development or training).

121

Coping Strategies to Finance Reconstruction

Figure 7.9: Main livelihood needs (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857, multiple answers allowed)

Livelihood needs across locations: Across all districts, the most-cited livelihood need was cash.
In Solukhumbu, Okhaldhunga, Ramechhap, and Sindhupakchowk large shares are also listed livestock and seeds as their main livelihood needs. Nearly half (45%) of respondents in Solukhumbu
requested agriculture training – a much higher share than in any other district surveyed. Higher
shares in Kathmandu (44%) and Bhaktapur (18%) than in other districts said they do not need any
support at all. There was as much variation in households not needing support between districts
within the same damage level category as between districts with higher or lower damage levels (except in the ‘crisis hit’ district category, due to the two urban districts of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur
falling into this category).
Needs for cash and various types of agricultural and livestock support increased with remoteness,while those not needing any livelihood assistance, or those needing business development support,
were more likely to be found in less remote areas. Similarly, respondents in urban areas were more
likely to not need any support or cite business development needs than those in rural areas, whereas
those in rural areas were more likely to say they needed other types of support, such as cash or agricultural inputs than those in urban areas (Table 7.6).

122

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 7.6: Main livelihood needs – by district impact, district, rural/urban, remoteness (IRM-5, weighted,
base=5,857)

CashNo
grants needs

Overall

District
impact anddistrict

Rural/urban

Businessdevelopment support

AgricultuBusiness
Livestock Seeds
re training
training

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

58

25

12

12

11

10

10

Severely hit

74

8

7

17

18

19

6

Dhading

71

12

5

20

18

20

4

Gorkha

77

9

11

9

15

13

5

Nuwakot

68

7

4

20

10

12

6

Ramechhap

78

3

6

18

30

25

6

Sindhupalchowk

74

8

11

20

20

23

6

Crisis hit

44

38

15

7

5

4

13

Bhaktapur

63

18

13

11

3

8

10

Kathmandu

39

44

16

6

2

2

14

Okhaldhunga

71

12

3

15

41

26

1

Hit with heavy losses

78

7

9

22

21

23

14

Solukhumbu

58

4

16

45

34

46

27

Lamjung

89

8

6

8

14

10

6

Hit

78

11

7

7

20

8

3

Syangja

78

11

7

7

20

8

3

Rural Area

67

15

8

16

16

15

10

Urban Area

41

43

19

4

1

2

9

Less remote

44

40

15

5

2

3

8

68

14

9

16

16

15

12

72

9

8

16

32

21

5

Remoteness Remote
More remote

Livelihood needs across groups: Respondents with higher educational status and higher incomes were more likely to state that they did not currently have any need for livelihood support.
Those with low incomes were almost twice as likely as those with high incomes to say they neededcash support. The stated need for business support increased with income, while the need for agricultural support decreased. Observations for level of education were similar. The need for agricultural inputs and support decreased with higher education. Hill ethnic groups (Janajati) and Hill
Dalits were less likely to say they did not have livelihood needs and more likely to say they neededcash or agricultural and livestock support than other castes/ethnic groups (Table 7.7).

123Coping Strategies to Finance Reconstruction

Table 7.7: Main livelihood needs – by income, caste/ethnicity, and education (IRM-5, weighted,
base=5,857)

CashNo
grants needs

Overall
IncomeCaste/
ethnicity

Education

Businessdevelopment support

AgricultuLivestock Seeds
re training

Businesstraining

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

58

25

12

12

11

10

10

Low

78

7

5

15

21

18

5

Medium

69

10

13

17

17

16

8

High

47

37

14

8

5

5

13

Hill castes

52

30

11

12

10

10

11

Hill ethnic groups

67

17

8

13

17

15

5

Hill Dalit

74

11

11

11

24

15

6

Newar

55

27

17

9

5

5

14

Illiterate

75

13

6

13

17

13

4

Literate

63

21

9

15

16

15

4

Primary Level

68

13

8

13

14

15

10

Lower Secondary Level

45

28

15

15

9

9

18

Secondary Level

66

16

22

11

8

9

9

SLC Pass

47

39

11

7

6

7

12

+2/Intermediate Pass

48

35

26

11

4

3

13

Bachelor Pass

31

50

15

6

1

3

16

Master & Above

11

68

14

0

0

0

9

Livelihood needs by housing damage and housing recovery: Those who reported earthquake damage mainly required cash grants from livelihood support—67 percent among those who
said their houses were completely destroyed, 69 percent among those with major damage, 53 percent among those with minor damage, and 24 percent among those with no damage. People withcompletely destroyed houses were also more likely to mention livestock, seeds, and agriculture
training than those with lesser housing damage. They were, however, less likely to mention businesstraining than those who sustained lower levels of damage.

124

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Chapter 8

Aid, needs and services

Photo: Dewan Rai (Okhaldhunga)

This chapter looks at what types of aid people received in the past year. Capturing all forms of aid
and assistance helps gain a better overall picture of support provided to people in earthquake-affected areas since 2015. More detailed findings on reconstruction assistance and the housing reconstruction grants are presented in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. Livelihoods assistance is discussed in Chapter
7. This chapter looks at other types of aid and perceived fairness in aid distribution; whether all
people can access support equally.
The chapter further discusses current and future needs of respondents. The IRM surveys tracked
people’s needs to assess whether the assistance matched stated needs, to identify the types of assistance most needed now and in the future, and to observe how needs may have changed over time.
Finally, this chapter explores another measure of recovery: access to and satisfaction with public
services, such as schools, health posts, roads, and drinking water.

Key findings
Aid received•

Nearly five years after the earthquake, nine percent of respondents in earthquake-affectedareas had received some form of aid within the past year – a much smaller share than in previous IRM research rounds. Households who reported some level of housing damage were more
likely to have received aid than those without damages.

•

Looking at types of aid received, seven percent reported getting cash; fewer people mentioned
tents and tarps, food items, blankets and warm clothing – items that were more importantduring the relief phase.

125

Aid, Needs and Services

Needs

•

The most commonly cited current and future need was cash, followed by employment support.

•

Households with housing damage, and those in rural areas, were more likely to mention theneed for cash, employment support, and road access/better roads. They were also much lesslikely to say they did not need any support than those without damage and those in urban
areas.

•Cash has been the top current and future need since June 2015. However, the need for cash
has decreased since IRM-4 (from 69 percent in IRM-4, to 52 percent in IRM-5), likely reflecting progress in the distributions of housing grants.

Fairness of aid distribution•

A majority of respondents from IRM-2 through IRM-5 believed that everyone was able to access assistance according to their needs, regardless of their background. In IRM-5, 73 percent
of respondents agreed (13% strongly agree, 60% somewhat agree) with the statement thatpeople of every caste, religion, and ethnicity were able to access aid equally according to theirneeds, while 25 percent disagreed (18% somewhat disagree, 7% somewhat disagree). IRM-2
had the highest share of respondents (88%) agreeing that people can access aid equally. The
highest shares of respondents who disagreed that aid distribution was fair were in IRM-3 andIRM-4, but noticeably declined in IRM-5.

•

The most commonly cited group (48%) seen to receive less assistance or to face difficulties
accessing assistance was the so-called ‘low caste’ group. Other commonly cited groups thatthe respondents mentioned were indigenous Janajatis, people with disabilities (26%), and theelderly (25%).

Public services•

Since April 2017 (IRM-4), access to public services – electricity, drinking water, medical facilities, school, and motorable roads – improved according to respondents. Most noticeably,
the share with access to drinking water increased from 65 percent in IRM-1, to 91 percent in
IRM-5.

•

Respondents’ satisfaction with public services also increased. They were most satisfied withelectricity (96%), followed by schools (90%), and medical facilities (81%). Satisfaction withdrinking water (70%) and motorable roads (72%) was comparatively lower.

8.1 Aid received
IMR-5 covered various types of assistance that people in earthquake-affected areas may have received. Chapter 3 looks assistance received during the housing recovery process. Chapter 4 specifically covers the NRA’s housing grants, the Nepal government’s flagship earthquake recovery program. Chapter 7 discusses livelihoods assistance. This section includes information on other formsof aid that people may have received.
126

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Aid Coverage
Each round of the IRM surveys included questions about the types of assistance people received.
Immediately following the earthquakes in June 2015, 96 percent of respondents had received someform of assistance. By 2019, nearly five years after the earthquake, just nine percent of respondents
in earthquake-affected areas said they received some form of assistance in the past year – 91 percent
said they had received no aid. This was the lowest share to have received aid in the IRM surveys,
which is expected, given the amount of time that had passed since the earthquake (Table 8.1).
In IRM-1, aid coverage was evenly distributed across district impact categories. By the fourth roundof the survey (2017), assistance was concentrated in the severely hit and crisis hit districts – likely
due to the distribution of housing grants in the fourteen heavily impacted priority districts at thattime. In IRM-5, people in the districts hit with heavy losses were comparatively more likely to havereceived aid (mostly driven by Solukhumbu) (Table 8.1).

Table 8.1: Share of people receiving any type of aid in the past year – by district impact (IRM-1 base= 2,980,
IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)1
Jun 2015(IRM-1)

Feb-Mar2016 (IRM-2)

Sep 2016(IRM-3)

Apr 2017(IRM-4)

Sep-Oct 2019
(IRM-5)

%

%

%

%

%

Overall

96

54

15

40

9

Severely hit

100

98

26

81

16

Dhading

100

97

7

73

10

Gorkha

100

97

56

79

27

Nuwakot

100

99

15

84

14

Ramechhap

100

97

21

80

26

Sindhupalchowk

100

100

32

89

8

Crisis hit

92

30

11

25

2

Bhaktapur

100

55

0

60

8

Kathmandu

91

23

11

18

0

Okhaldhunga

100

76

34

51

9

Hit with heavy losses

100

65

6

0

29

Lamjung

100

47

0

0

19

Solukhumbu

100

95

16

0

47

Hit

100

30

5

4

9

Syangja

100

30

5

4

9

Types of aid
Over time, the type of aid items received has changed. In the initial phases, items, such as tarps,
blankets, and warm clothes were given out as aid items, but by IRM-5, the share having received
these items had dropped.

1

The time reference for this question varied depending on when the survey was fielded to ensure no time overlap and also to allow a reasonable time for recall. Previous surveys asked about assistance received in the last six months. For IRM-5, the question was asked as‘assistance received in the past year’ (12 months).

127

Aid, Needs and Services

Most respondents noted cash as the main type of aid received. Of the respondents who receivedaid (9%), seven percent received cash and the rest received items, like tarps, blankets, food, andwarm clothes (Figure 8.1). Cash assistance from the government by IRM-5 was mainly through the
disbursement of NRA housing grants, discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. Additionally, a small share of
respondents also received cash allowances as part of the government’s social security program. In
IRM-5, when asked about aid received, seven percent said they received cash assistance (other thanhousing grants) from the government.

Figure 8.1: Main types of aid received (multiple answers allowed, (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850,
IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

Non-government cash assistanceIn addition to asking about various types of aid received, all IRM surveys asked a separate questionon whether people had received any cash assistance since the earthquake from non-governmental
sources. This question only asked about cash assistance, the known preferred form of assistance. It
was difficult to find information on non-governmental cash assistance through other data sources.
At 16 percent, the share reporting cash assistance from non-governmental sources was highest in
IRM-5, suggesting there was at least some additional non-governmental cash received by people between April 2017 (IRM-4) and Sep/October 2019 (IRM-5) (Figure 8.2). In IRM-5, recipients had received an average of NPR 29,614 (USD 252) from non-governmental sources after the earthquakes.

128

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 8.2: Share receiving non-government cash grants – overall (IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855,
IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

Among households that reporting receiving cash grants from non-government agencies since theearthquake, those in rural areas (24%) were significantly more likely than those in urban areas (2%)
to report that their household received cash from non-government agencies – but people in rural
areas were also more likely to say cash was still an urgent need for them than those in rural areas(see Chapter 8.2).
As noted in previous IRM reports, those in severely hit districts were more likely to say they received
cash assistance from a non-government agency (42%) than those in other district impact categories,
particularly in Nuwakot (75%) and Gorkha (61%). Respondents with lower levels of education andthose with lower incomes, were comparatively more likely to have received non-government cash
assistance.
Respondents who had either completely rebuilt their house or were in the process of rebuilding it
were more likely to report that they had received cash from a non-government agency, compared tothose who were yet begin rebuilding. Over the years, those who reported higher levels of earthquake
damage were more likely to have received cash from non-government sources, demonstrating that if
this assistance was targeted to earthquake-affected people, it worked as intended (Figure 8.3).

129

Aid, Needs and Services

Figure 8.3: Share receiving non-government cash assistance – by reported damage levels (IRM-1 base=2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

8.2 Needs
What are the current needs?
Respondents were asked to name up to three existing needs for them and their family, at the time ofthe survey. The most common needs cited were cash (52%) and employment support (32%). Road
access/better roads (17%), drinking water (15%), quality health facilities (12%), support for reconstruction (11%), access to loans/soft loans (10%), and training on agriculture (10%) were some of
their other current needs. About four in ten respondents (37%) said they did not have any need forsupport at the moment—perhaps because much of the recovery/rebuilding work had been completed.2
Responses differed slightly for those who reported housing damage. Households with housing damage were comparatively more likely to mention the need for cash (67%), employment support (42%),and road access/better roads (27%). They were also much less likely to say they did not need any
support (21%).

2

130

Respondents were asked a series of questions related to earthquake assistance. First, they were asked what assistance they received in
the past one year, then, how useful the assistance received was for the items that were given, and lastly, what were the current and futureneeds. For the questions on needs, respondents could name up to three items. Not having any current or future needs, or not knowing what
their needs were, were recorded as answers as well.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 8.4: Current needs – overall and those reporting housing damage (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)3

Across all districts, more than six in ten mentioned cash as a current need, except in Kathmandu(30%) and Solukhumbu (45%). People in rural areas (61%) were nearly twice as likely as those inurban areas (34%) to mention cash as a need, even though they were more likely to have received
government or non-government cash support (Chapter 8.1). The share of respondents saying cash
was a current need declined sharply with increases in income and education. Among caste/ethnic
groups, Hill Dalits (72%) and Hill ethnic groups (62%) were more likely to say they needed cash
compared to other Hill castes (47%) and Newars (44%).
When it came to employment support, people in Nuwakot (59%), Sindhupalchowk (43%), and Bhaktapur (40%) were the most likely to mention it. There was no notable rural/urban differences, nordifferences based on remoteness of area surveyed. Medium- and high-income groups were slightly
more likely than lower income groups to mention employment support as a need.

3

For the questions on needs, respondents could name up to three needs. Not having any current or future needs, or not knowing what theirneeds were, were recorded as answers as well.

131

Aid, Needs and Services

Kathmandu (56%) residents were the most likely to say they did not need any support. Those in urban areas, less remote areas, and those with higher educational attainment and higher incomes werealso comparatively more likely to say they did not need assistance.

Table 8.2: Most mentioned current needs – overall, and by district impact, district (IRM-5, weighted,
base=5,857)4

Cash
grantsRoad
access/betterroad

Drinking
water

Qualityhealthfacility

%

%

%

%

%

%

37

32

17

15

12

Severely hit

69

20

39

23

17

18

Dhading

68

26

36

24

13

14

Gorkha

74

17

34

19

6

34

Nuwakot

61

8

59

42

32

13

Ramechhap

74

18

23

10

18

14

Sindhupalchowk

70

29

40

17

17

14

Crisis hit

35

51

29

14

16

7

59

33

43

13

27

15

District impact Bhaktapurand district
Kathmandu

RemotenessSupportwith employment

52

Overall

Rural/urban

No needfor support

30

56

28

15

15

5

Okhaldhunga

61

28

13

14

15

10

Hit with heavy
losses

73

22

31

15

3

27

Solukhumbu

45

6

28

28

9

35

Lamjung

89

31

33

8

0

22

Hit

74

20

22

10

6

16

Syangja

74

20

22

10

6

16

Rural

61

27

33

20

14

15

Urban

34

55

31

10

17

7

Less remote

38

53

31

10

18

8

Remote

61

26

33

21

13

15

More remote

65

17

31

29

9

20

Those who were declared eligible to receive the housing reconstruction grant (62%) were much more
likely than those who were ineligible (48%) to say that they needed cash – an indication that people
who were rebuilding still needed cash assistance. Similarly, those who reported at least some typeof earthquake damage to their house were more likely to need cash grants, compared to people who
said their house was not damaged. Results among those at different stages of housing recovery weresimilar—perhaps an indication that those who still needed to rebuild required cash grants for theprocess, and those who completed rebuilding also still felt burdened and needed cash grants.

4132

For the questions on needs, respondents could name up to three needs.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 8.3: Most mentioned current needs – by where people are living, eligibility for housing grant, andself-assessed housing damages (IRM-5, weighted, base=5857)5No
need
Cash Support withfor sup- grants employment
port

Eligibility for housing
reconstruction grant

Reported housing
damages

Status of housing
recovery

Road access/betterroad

Quality
Drinking
healthwater
facility

%

%

%

%

%

%

Eligible for housing grant

29

62

36

18

14

15

Not eligible for housing
grant

38

48

29

16

9

14

Completely destroyed

30

61

34

18

13

15

Badly damaged (major
repairs needed)

30

58

40

13

14

12

Habitable (minor repairsneeded)

38

47

29

18

9

15

Not damaged

60

24

26

12

12

16

Fully rebuilt/repaired
house, live in it

27

68

36

19

15

17

Fully rebuilt/repaired
house, do not live in it

49

59

25

17

12

11

Started to repair/rebuild
house and live in it

35

59

34

16

10

11

Started to repair/rebuild
house, do not live in it

22

54

33

24

13

11

Not yet started to rebuild/repair

39

51

26

16

9

13

What will next year’s needs be?
All of the respondents were asked what needs they anticipated having in one year’s time. Again,
cash grants (37%) and employment support (27%) were the top two most anticipated needs – asthey were for current needs. Other commonly cited future needs included road access/better roads(14%), drinking water (13%), and quality education for children (12%).

5

For the questions on needs, respondents could name up to three needs.

133

Aid, Needs and Services

Figure 8.5: Top anticipated needs in one year – overall (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857) 6

The share of people who anticipated needing cash in one year was highest in Lamjung (72%), Gorkha(65%), Ramechhap (51%), Nuwakot (49%), and Dhading (48%). Residents in rural areas, remoteareas, those with lower educational status, and those with lower incomes were more likely to state
they needed cash next year. The shares of people who said they did not anticipate needing any support in one year were highest in Kathmandu (60%), followed by Sindhupalchowk (56%). The shareof people saying they did not need any future support increased with income. Those in urban areas
and less remote areas were also more likely than others to mention that they had no need for support
in the future.

6134

For the questions on future needs, respondents could name up to three needs. Not having any current or future needs, or not knowing
what their needs were, were recorded as answers as well.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 8.4: Top anticipated needs in one year – by district impact, district, rural/urban, remoteness, and income (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)7

Overall

District impact
and district

Rural/urban

Remoteness

IncomeNo needfor support

CashgrantsSupportwith employment

Road access/ betterroad

Qualityhealthfacility

Drinking
water

%

%

%

%

%

%

44

37

27

17

14

13

Severely hit

32

50

32

21

18

14

Dhading

38

48

26

20

17

10

Gorkha

21

65

29

20

30

4

Nuwakot

15

49

52

42

14

29

Ramechhap

23

51

22

14

17

18

Sindhupalchowk

56

37

29

10

13

11

Crisis hit

57

26

26

15

9

15

Bhaktapur

44

44

44

10

17

25

Kathmandu

60

22

24

15

8

14

Okhaldhunga

40

42

16

13

7

10

Hit with heavy losses

32

55

26

26

31

5

Solukhumbu

8

25

32

54

44

13

Lamjung

45

72

23

10

23

0

Hit

18

45

13

10

14

6

Syangja

18

45

13

10

14

6

Rural Area

36

43

29

22

17

13

Urban Area

61

25

23

8

8

14

Less remote

59

29

24

8

10

15

Remote

34

43

29

23

16

12

More remote

29

45

25

27

24

8

Low

29

52

24

16

19

12

Medium

38

44

31

16

14

13

High

53

28

27

18

12

14

Those who were not eligible for the NRA housing grant were more likely to say they needed cash
grants in the future and less likely to say they did not need any support. Cash grants were also a more
frequently reported need for those with higher levels of housing damage than those with lesser or no
damages (Table 8.5).

7For the questions on future needs, respondents could name up to three needs.

135

Aid, Needs and Services

Table 8.5: Top anticipated needs in one year – by eligibility for housing grant, status of housing recovery,and self-reported housing damages (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857) 8

Eligibility for
housing reconstruction grant

Reported housing damages

Status of housing recovery

No needfor support

CashgrantsSupportwith employment

Road
access/betterroad

Qualityhealthfacility

Drinking
water

%

%

%

%

%

%

Eligible for housing grant

38

43

30

20

15

12

Not eligible for housing
grant

45

32

24

14

13

13

Completely destroyed

40

41

29

20

14

13

Badly damaged (major
repairs needed)

38

46

25

15

19

7

Habitable (minor repairsneeded)

43

33

26

16

12

15

Not damaged

62

25

23

11

12

16

Fully rebuilt/repaired
house, live in it

37

42

31

19

15

15

Fully rebuilt/repaired
house, do not live in it

50

36

22

22

12

5

Started to repair/rebuild
house and live in it

41

35

26

18

15

11

Started to repair/rebuild
house, do not live in it

41

37

29

25

16

11

Not yet started to rebuild/repair

47

39

22

15

13

10

Changes in needs
Since IRM started in June 2015, cash has been the top current need cited by respondents. In IRM1, nearly four in ten (38%) mentioned cash as their most important current need. The share who
mentioned cash as their top current need has grown steadily since then, with half of respondents(49%) mentioning it in IRM-2, six in ten (59%) in IRM-3, and seven in ten (69%) in IRM-4. The needfor cash decreased after IRM-4 (52% in IRM-5), reflecting progress in the distribution of housing
grants. The need for emergency relief, such as food, also decreased over time, as did the need for corrugated iron (CGI) sheets, which were mentioned nearly as often as cash in IRM-1. Items needed toreconstruct houses remained at around 30 percent between IRM-2 and IRM-4. In IRM-5, 11 percent
said they needed support for reconstruction but only 6 percent anticipated needing reconstruction
support in one year’s time.
When asked about anticipated needs for the future, people again prioritized cash in all survey rounds.
Forty percent anticipated cash as a future need in IRM-1, 26 percent in IRM-2, and after that, it grewto 55 percent in IRM-3, and 64 percent in IRM-4. In IRM-5, it was lower, at 37 percent, again possibly reflecting the fact that more people had received housing grants and had rebuilt by IRM-5.

8136

For the questions on future needs, respondents could name up to three needs.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

In IRM-5, support beyond what is needed for housing reconstruction and basic necessities werementioned for both current and future needs—a change from previous rounds. People were now
mentioning employment support and better infrastructure and services, such as roads, drinking
water, and education.

Table 8.6: Changes in current and anticipated needs (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3
base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)9

Jun
2015
(IRM1)

Dec
2015
Projected(IRM-1)

FebMar2016(IRM2)

Sep
2016
Projected(IRM-2)

Sep
2016(IRM3)

SepOct
SepMar
Oct
2017
Apr
Oct
2017
2020
Pro20172019
ProjecProjec(IRM- jected(IRMtedted(IRM4)
5)(IRM-3)(IRM-5)
4)

Cash

38

40

49

26

59

55

69

64

67

37

Items to reconstruct house

-

-

33

11

30

20

30

18

-

-

Clean drinking
water

6

5

3

3

2

2

9

8

15

13

Corrugated ironsheets

37

21

5

3

11

5

6

4

-

-

Rice, wheat,
maize

27

24

17

8

10

10

7

6

-

-

Farm implements

4

6

3

1

2

2

6

6

-

-

Clean water forhousehold purposes

2

3

2

1

2

2

6

4

-

-

Support with
employment

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

42

27

Road access/better road

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17

17

Quality healthfacility

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

12

14

8.3 Fairness of aid distribution
Equal access to assistance
Since IRM-2, all respondents were asked whether or not they believed that people of every caste,religion, and ethnicity were able to access assistance equally, according to their needs. A majorityof respondents from IRM-2 through IRM-5 believed that everyone was able to access assistance according to their needs, regardless of their background. In IRM-5, 73 percent of respondents agreed(13% strongly agree, 60% somewhat agree) with this, and 25 percent disagreed (18% somewhat
disagree, 7% somewhat disagree). IRM-2 had the highest share of respondents agreeing to the statement (88%) and IRM-3 had the the lowest (54%).

9

For the questions on needs, respondents could name up to three needs. Empty fields mean N/A (the response option was not asked about
given changing priorities and needs).

137

Aid, Needs and Services

Figure 8.6: Opinions on whether all can get aid equally according to their needs (IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

The combined share of respondents who either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that assistancewas equally accessible to all people without discrimination was the highest in Sindhupalchowk(92%), followed by Nuwakot (91), and Ramechhap (89%).
On the other hand, the combined share of respondents who either strongly disagreed or somewhat
disagreed with the statement was relatively higher in Kathmandu (35%) and Syangja (33%).
Residents of urban areas (31%) were more likely to disagree that all people were equally able to access assistance compared to residents of rural areas (21%).

138

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 8.7: Opinions on whether all can get aid equally according to their needs – by district impact, district
and rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)10

Overall, the majority of people across various castes/ethnic groups thought that people were able
to access assistance equally according to their needs, regardless of their backgrounds, but thosebelonging to Hill ethnic communities were most likely to hold this view. The Hill ethnic community
was also more likely to strongly agree (19%) compared to Hill Dalits (11%) and Newars (6%).
Although more than seven in ten Hindus and Buddhists agreed that all people were able to get assistance in a fair manner, Buddhists were more likely to hold this view strongly (22% Buddhists vs.
11% Hindus).111011

Remaining shares were unsure or could not/refused to answer.
Sample sizes for other religions were too small for separate analysis.

139

Aid, Needs and Services

Figure 8.8: Opinions on whether all can get aid equally according to their needs – by caste/ethnicity (IRM5, weighted, base=5,857)12

Which groups received less assistance and faced difficulties accessing assistance?
Respondents who said they either somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed that people of every
caste, religion, and ethnicity were equally able to access assistance according to their needs wereasked to state the group of people they thought received less assistance or tended to face difficulties
while receiving assistance.
In all rounds, the most commonly cited group perceived to receive less assistance or face the mostdifficulties receiving assistance were so-called low castes (47% in IRM-5). Other commonly citedgroups mentioned by respondents were Janajatis (indigenous groups), people with disabilities(26%), and the elderly (25%).

12

140

Sample sizes for Madhesi, Terai Madhesi Ethnic groups, and Muslims were too small for analysis.

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 8.9: Groups that people think tend to get less aid among those who say not everyone is able to get
aid equally (IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857; weighted)

Figure 8.10: Groups that people think tend to get less aid among those who say not everyone is able to get
aid equally – by caste (IRM-5, base=1,430, weighted) 13

13

Sample sizes for Madhesi, Terai Madhesi Ethnic Groups and Muslims were too small for analysis.

141

Aid, Needs and Services

8.4 Public services
The IRM surveys tracked access to key services as well as the earthquake’s impacts on these services.
Throughout all rounds, most respondents said they have had access to electricity, drinking water,
medical facilities, school, and motorable roads. Drinking water supply was available for 69 percent
of respondents in IRM-1, compared to over 80 percent in subsequent rounds. In IRM-5, 91 percent
reported having access to drinking water in their home – a higher share than in previous rounds. In
IRM-5, access to drinking water was above 83 percent in all districts, which signifies an improvement from previous rounds. The share of respondents having access to the other services remained
mostly the same over time.

Figure 8.11: Share saying they have access to the services provided by rural municipalities/municipalities(IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857,
weighted)

Satisfaction with Public Services
Respondents who reported having access to different types of public services/amenities were further
asked about their satisfaction with each of these services.
Respondents’ satisfaction with different services decreased noticeably after IRM-1 (IRM-2 to IRM4), but increased since the last survey round in April 2017 (IRM-4) (Figure 8.12). In IRM-5, respondents expressed the highest satisfaction level with regards to electricity (96%), followed by school(90%), and medical facilities (81%). They were less satisfied with drinking water facilities (18%)

142

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

and motorable roads (15%). With the exception of electricity, respondents’ satisfaction with otherservices was lower in IRM-5 than in IRM-1, perhaps due to higher expectations than in the weeks
immediately following the earthquake.

Figure 8.12: Satisfaction with public services (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3
base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

Where were people more dissatisfied with public services?
Rates of dissatisfaction greatly differed between district impact categories and between rural andurban areas. Respondents from crisis hit districts (23%) and urban areas (30%) were more likely to
express dissatisfaction with drinking water than those in other district impact categories, or those inrural areas (Figure 8.13). Residents of rural areas (10%) were more likely than those in urban areas(2%) to say they were dissatisfied with medical facilities. Dissatisfaction with motorable roads (18%)
was the highest in the crisis-hit districts among the district impact categories, despite the inclusionof the well-connected districts of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur in this category.

143

Aid, Needs and Services

Figure 8.13: Dissatisfaction with public services – by district impact and rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted,
base=5,857)

Changes to public services since the earthquake
Respondents who reported that they had access to public services were further asked if these services had improved or gotten worse since the earthquake. The provision of electricity was mostfrequently cited as having gotten better. Between IRM-3 and IRM-5, the shares who said electricity
services had improved steadily increased (Figure 8.14). Up until early 2016, no one reported improvements to drinking water.
Drinking water supply and medical facilities stayed the same in 2015, but worsened in 2016, the year
right after the earthquake. Both facilities were reported to have improved in subsequent years. In
2019, 65 percent said medical facilities had gotten better (21% a lot better, 44% somewhat better)and 50 percent said that drinking water facilities had gotten better (19% a lot better, 31% somewhat
better).

144

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 8.14: Changes to public services: Electricity, drinking water and medical facilities (IRM-1 base=2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

Between IRM-4 (April 2017) and IRM-5 (September-October 2019), the shares of respondents who
said that school services and access to motorable roads had gotten better increased, while the sharessaying they had gotten worse decreased (Figure 8.15).
Most respondents reported that school facilities had worsened when the first and second survey
rounds were conducted, in June 2015 and February 2016 respectively. In the third survey round(September 2016), 57 percent reported improvements to school facilities, while 39 percent said
schools had stayed the same. By the fourth round (April 2017), 63 percent reported that school
facilities had stayed the same, while 35 percent said they had improved since the earthquake. In
IRM-5, the majority of respondents (78%) said that school services had either gotten a lot better orsomewhat better. The shares of respondents who reported worsening of school services from IRM-3
to IRM-5 were very small (Figure 8.15).

145

Aid, Needs and Services

Figure 8.15: Changes to the public services: Schools and motorable roads (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2
base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

146

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Chapter 9

Security, Social Relations,and Illness

Photo: Dewan Rai (Okhalhdunga)

This chapter looks at secondary earthquake impacts such as people’s safety, incidents of violence,social relations and levels of trust in institutions, and illness and psychological wellbeing. First, ithighlights people’s perceptions of their own safety and their experiences or observations of violent
incidents. Secondly, it looks at people’s trust in various institutions and leaders and whether levelsof trust have changed over time. Finally, the chapter discusses occurrences of illness, the types of
illnesses commonly reported, and whether people are still experiencing psychological effects nearlyfive years after the earthquake.

Key findings
Security and protection•

The majority of respondents (58%) said that they felt very safe, while 38 percent said they felt
somewhat safe. Only a small minority of three percent said they felt somewhat unsafe, andone percent said they felt very unsafe. Respondents in rural areas were more likely to statethat they feel safe in their community.

•

Eight percent reported violent incidents in their community in the past year – a small share,
but a noticeable increase compared to previous rounds. Respondents residing in urban areas,
particularly in the district of Kathmandu, were more likely to say that a violent incident had
occurred in the community.

Trust and social cohesion•

According to respondents, the most trusted institutions were the media (92%), Community
Based Organizations (CBOs) (85%), and the Nepal Army (83%). The most trusted individuals
among political and elected leaders were ward chairpersons (70%).

147

Security, Social Relations, and Illness•

Almost three-fourths of respondents (72%) said they trusted the people they know, one-third(32%) reported trusting people from a different area, a little over half (51%) said they trust
people from a different caste, and slightly less than half (48%) said they trust people belonging to a different religion. Residents of rural areas were generally more likely to trust people
than those residing in urban areas.

•

Since IRM-4 (April 2017), similar shares of respondents reported that they would be very
likely or likely to conserve food or water in the community in case of an emergency whenrequested by public officials (87% in IRM-5). The share of respondents who were either very
unlikely or unlikely to cooperate to save food and water in an emergency was relatively higher
in crisis-hit and in urban areas, especially in Kathmandu.

•

Compared to previous survey rounds, IRM-3 (September 2016) and IRM-4 (April 2017), a
smaller number of people said that their relations with neighbors had improved or become
better since the earthquake. Most respondents (85%) reported that their relations with neighbors had remained the same since the earthquake. Residents of rural areas were more likely
than those in urban areas to report that relations with neighbors had improved.

Illness and psychological effects•

Nine percent of respondents reported that their family members had fallen sick during the2019 monsoon due to problems with their shelter – although most of those reporting illness
were now living in their new house. The most common illness was fever or flu.

•

In IRM-5 (Sept-Oct 2019), six percent of respondents reported that someone in their family
was still suffering from psychological effects of the earthquake – a lower share than in previous years. Respondents who said that their houses were damaged by the earthquake weremore likely than those with lesser or no damage to say they had a family member who still
suffered psychological effects from the earthquake. Extreme fear was the most common psychological effect, followed by nervousness.

•

While those residing in urban areas were more likely to say their family member had fallen
ill due to problems with housing/shelter conditions, those residing in rural areas were more
inclined to say that someone in their family was suffering psychological effects from the earthquake.

9.1 Security and protection
Perceptions of safety and security
All respondents were asked to state how safe and secure they felt in their community. In all fivesurvey rounds, respondents largely felt safe in their community (Figure 9.1). They felt the least safein IRM-1 (June 2015), likely due to chaos in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake and the factthat most people were staying in temporary shelters at that time. By IRM-3 (September 2016), alarger share than during any of the other round (67%) said they felt very safe. The shares who said
they felt unsafe were similar between IRM-2 (Feb-Mar 2016) and IRM-5 (Sept-Oct 2019), at 3 to 4
percent. In IRM-5, 58 percent said they felt very safe, 38 percent said they felt somewhat safe, only
three percent said they felt somewhat unsafe, and one percent felt very unsafe.

148

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 9.1: Perception of security (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4
base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

There were no substantive differences in the perception of safety between men and women. The
shares who said they felt unsafe were similar between both genders (Figure 9.2).
Those over 65 years old were slightly more likely to say they felt safe compared to younger
respondents.

Figure 9.2: Share feeling unsafe (either very or somewhat unsafe) in their community – by gender (IRM-1
base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

149

Security, Social Relations, and Illness

The overall feeling of safety and security was slightly higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Moreover, the share of the respondents who said that they felt ‘very safe’ was slightly higher in rural areas(61%) than in urban areas (53%) (Figure 9.3).
While respondents in districts severely hit by the earthquake (69%) and crisis-hit districts (56%)
were more likely to report that they felt very safe in their community, respondents in districts hit
with heavy losses were more likely to report that they felt somewhat safe (63%).
Larger shares of respondents from Nuwakot (91%), Gorkha (84%), and Bhaktapur (76%) felt verysafe in their community. On the other hand, a major proportion of respondents in Lamjung (70%)
and Solukhumbu (50%) reported that they felt somewhat safe in their community. An equal proportion of respondents (48% each) in Syangja reported that they felt very safe or somewhat safe whileliving in their locality.

Figure 9.3: Perceptions of security – by district impact, district and rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted,
base=5857)

150

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Violent incidents in the community
In all survey rounds, respondents were asked if there had been any violent incident(s) in their community and about the number of incidents that occurred over the past year. The shares who said
there had been violent incident(s) was low across survey rounds. Between IRM-1 (June 2015) andIRM-4 (April 2017), it was at three percent or lower. In IRM-5 (Sept-Oct 2019), it was highest at 8
percent (Table 9.1).1 Respondents residing in urban areas (12%) were twice as likely as those in rural
areas (6%) to report that there was a violent incident in their community.

Table 9.1: Share of people saying there was a violent incident in the community in the past year - by district impact, district, IRM-1 to IRM-5 (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4
base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Jun 2015(IRM-1)

Feb-Mar2016(IRM-2)

Sep 2016(IRM-3)

Apr 2017(IRM-4)

Sep-Oct 2019
(IRM-5)

%

%

%

%

%

Overall

3

1

1

1

8

Severely hit

2

0

2

1

2

Dhading

5

1

0

1

2

Gorkha

1

0

3

1

0

Nuwakot

2

1

3

2

4

Ramechhap

0

1

1

1

2

Sindhupalchowk

1

0

3

0

4

Crisis hit

5

1

1

2

12

Bhaktapur

5

1

0

1

4

Kathmandu

19

0

0

8

14

Okhaldhunga

2

2

2

2

5

Hit with heavy losses

3

1

0

0

1

Lamjung

3

0

0

0

1

Solukhumbu

3

3

0

0

2

Hit

3

2

1

1

5

Syangja

3

2

1

1

5

People in the ‘hit with heavy losses’ (1%) and ‘severely hit’ (2%) districts were the least likely to report violent incidents in their community in the past year. Respondents in ‘crisis hit’ districts werecomparatively much more likely (12%) to report violent incidents in their community. This is dueto the inclusion of the urban district of Kathmandu in the ‘crisis hit’ category, and the higher sharesof people in urban areas reporting violent incidents. Compared to other districts, Kathmandu has
the highest share of respondents (14%) who reported that there had been violent incidents in theirlocale (Table 9.1).

1

Booster samples in urban areas were added in IRM-5 to better capture urban recovery trends and rural-urban differences (see Chapter 1
and Annexes). The larger urban sample may, in part, account for higher incidents of violence in IRM-5, given that people in urban areas
were much more likely to say there had been violence. However, even in rural areas, six percent said there was violence, in IRM-5, revealing
increases across urban and rural areas compared to previous rounds.

151Security, Social Relations, and Illness

In each survey round, the shares of women reporting a violent incident were similar to the share ofmen. In IRM-1 (June 2015) and IRM-5 (Sept-Oct 2019), women were slightly more likely to reportviolent incidents (by one percentage point), whereas in other rounds, they were either as likely as
men or less likely than men to report violence.

Figure 9.4: Share of people saying there was a violent incident in the community in the past year – bygender (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2 base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854,
IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

Changes in crime rate
Respondents were asked whether and how the crime rate in their community had changed since theearthquake. In IRM-5 (Sept-Oct 2019), the majority (87%) said that the crime rate had remained thesame (Figure 9.5). Eight percent thought it had decreased, and five percent thought the crime rate
had increased. These findings were similar to answers given in IRM-1 (June 2015). In IRM-2 (Feb/
Mar 2016), however, people were less positive, with 68 percent reporting increased crime rates (6%risen substantially, 62% risen slightly), while only 16 percent thought it had stayed the same, andeight percent reported decreased crime rates. The remaining shares were unsure or refused to answer. Between IRM-3 (Sep 2016) and IRM-5 (Sep-Oct 2019), the shares reporting fallen crime rates
became progressively smaller, while the shares reporting that the crime rate had stayed the same
increased. During the same period, the shares reporting rising crime rates were small, but increased
from 1 percent in IRM-3, to five percent in IRM-5 (Figure 9.5).

152

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 9.5: Change of crime rate in the community since the earthquake (IRM-1 base= 2,980, IRM-2
base=4,850, IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

Compared to the overall share of respondents in IRM-5 who reported that the crime rate had risen (5% said it rose slightly or substantially), higher shares reported increases in the crime rate in
Solukhumbu (23%) and in Ramechhap (10%). On the other hand, the shares of respondents statingthat the crime rate has decreased were largest in Nuwakot (19%), Syangja (17%), Solukhumbu (16%),and Gorkha (10%) (Figure 9.6).

153

Security, Social Relations, and Illness

Figure 9.6: Change of crime rate in the community since the earthquake – by district impact, district andrural/urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5857)

9.2 Social cohesion
Trust in Institutions
Respondents were asked how much they trusted certain people and institutions in the country. Trust
was fairly high, with at least half of respondents either fully or moderately trusting all people and institutions specified in the survey. The most trusted institutions were the media (92%), CBOs (85%),and the Nepal Army (83%). Amongst the individuals specified, respondents were most likely to trust
their Ward Chairperson (70%). Among the least trusted institutions (‘don’t quite trust’ or ‘don’t
trust at all’) were political parties (48%), followed by the provincial government (41%), and federal
government (39%) (Table9.2).

154

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 9.2: Trust in institutions (IRM-5, base=5857, weighted)
Fully trust%

Moderately Don’t quite
trust
trust
%

%

Don’t trust
at allDon’t know/
can’t say%%

The media (television, radio, newspapers)

40

52

6

1

1

Nepali Army

37

46

10

6

1

Public Service Commission

33

42

8

3

12

CBOs (womens’ groups, savings andcredit groups)

32

53

9

3

3

Armed Police Forces

31

47

12

7

2

Police

30

42

17

10

1

Courts

29

45

14

7

4

Ward Chairperson

27

43

17

12

1

Judicial Committees

25

43

17

9

6

NGOs/Human rights defenders

23

53

14

4

5

Mayor/Rural Municipality Chair

21

45

20

12

1

Religious/caste-based organizations

21

52

16

7

4

Local government

19

43

21

15

2

Local political leaders

19

42

22

15

1

Federal government

18

40

23

16

3

Provincial government

14

41

24

17

3

Political parties

13

37

26

22

1

Trust in other people
Respondents were also asked whether they thought that other people could be trusted or whether
one should be very careful in dealing with other people. Between IRM-3 (Sep 2016) and IRM-5(Sep-Oct 2019), the large majority (over 90%) thought it was better to be careful when dealing withothers. The share who said that others can be trusted was small, but increased from six percent to 10
percent in the same period (Figure 9.7).

Figure 9.7: Share trusting/distrusting other people (IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5
base=5,857, weighted)

155

Security, Social Relations, and Illness

Respondents were asked whether or not they trusted different groups of people. Almost threefourths of respondents (72%) trusted the people they knew, a little over half (51%) trusted people
from a different caste, slightly less than half (48%) trusted people belonging to a different religion,and one-third (32%) trusted people from a different area. Notably, trust for other groups increased
between IRM-3 and IRM-5. Still, in IRM-5 seven out of ten (68%) respondents did not trust people
who came from another area, more than half (52%) did not trust people belonging to a different religion, and a similar share of respondents (49%) did not trust people from a different caste.

Figure 9.8: Share trusting different groups of people (IRM-3 base=4,855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5
base=5,857, weighted)

Residents of rural areas were more likely to trust others than those in urban areas (Table 9.3). Residents of Kathmandu were the least likely to trust people from another area (21%). The share of
respondents who reported that they trusted people from a different caste (77%) and people froma different religion (71%) was the highest in Nuwakot. Respondents in crisis-hit districts were lesslikely than respondents in other district impact categories to report that they trusted people theyknew (63%), primarily due to the fact that the three crisis-hit districts selected include the urban
districts of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur (Table 9.3).

156

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 9.3: Share trusting different groups of people – by districts impact, district and rural/urban (IRM-5,
weighted, base=5,857)
People they know

People from another area

People from different People with diffecaste/ethnic groups
rent religion

%

%

%

%

Overall

72

32

51

48

Severely hit

83

38

59

55

Dhading

90

39

53

49

Gorkha

87

26

61

55

Nuwakot

88

52

77

71

Ramechhap

73

39

53

55

Sindhupalchowk

73

35

49

47

Crisis hit

63

25

45

42

Bhaktapur

77

31

47

45

Kathmandu

59

21

44

40

Okhaldhunga

88

55

64

63

Hit with heavy losses

84

39

47

46

Lamjung

90

29

36

34

Solukhumbu

73

57

67

65

Hit

82

55

64

61

Syangja

82

55

64

61

Rural

77

39

56

52

Urban

62

18

42

39

Cooperation in the community
The last three IRM surveys asked respondents whether they would be willing to conserve food andwater in the case of an emergency, if requested by public officials as a measure of cooperative behavior. While each time, a majority of respondents said that they would likely conserve food and water if
asked, the share who said they would be ‘very likely’ to do so declined over the years (by 12 percentage points between IRM-3 in IRM-5) (Figure 9.9). The share who said they would be ‘unlikely’ to doso remained small, but doubled between IRM-3 and IRM-4/IRM-5. The share who said they wouldbe ‘likely’ to conserve food and water increased slightly over the years (by five percentage points
between IRM-3 and IRM-5) (Figure 9.9).

157

Security, Social Relations, and Illness

Figure 9.9: Likelihood of people in the community conserving food or water if asked by the government incase of an emergency (IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

People in urban areas were less likely than those in rural areas to cooperate in case of an emergency(Figure 9.10).

Figure 9.10: Likelihood of people in the community conserving food or water if asked by the government incase of an emergency – by rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)

158

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Over time, the share of people who said they would be ‘very likely’ to cooperate to conserve foodand water if ask decreased by more than half in Sindhupalchok, Kathmandu, and Lamjung. It also
decreased in Dhading. On the other hand, the share who said they would be ‘very likely’ to cooperateincreased in Gorkha, Nuwakot, Bhaktapur, and Solukhumbu. In Nuwakot, it increased more thannine-fold between IRM-3 and IRM-5 (Table 9.4).

Table 9.4: Share saying people in their community would be very likely to conserve food or water if asked
by the government in case of an emergency – by district impact and district (IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4
base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)
Sep 2016 (IRM-3)

Apr 2017 (IRM-4)

Sep-Oct 2019 (IRM-5)

%

%

%

Overall

38

32

29

Severely hit

40

32

35

Dhading

30

46

24

Gorkha22

35

34

Nuwakot

630

58

Ramechhap

39

24

32

Sindhupalchowk

74

39

30

Crisis hit

31

32

22

Bhaktapur

27

39

39

Kathmandu

56

48

19

Okhaldhunga

27

23

24

Hit with heavy losses

26

27

18

Lamjung25

26

6

Solukhumbu

28

29

41

Hit

67

42

57

Syangja

67

42

57

Similar shares of men and women reported that their community would be likely to cooperate toconserve food or water during an emergency. The likelihood of conserving food and water declined
slightly with increases in income level.

159

Security, Social Relations, and Illness

Figure 9.11: Likelihood of people in the community conserving food or water if asked by the government incase of an emergency – by income and gender (IRM-5, weighted, Base=5,857)

Relations with neighbors
Respondents were also asked how the earthquake had affected their relations with neighbors. The
majority of respondents (85%) reported that relations with their neighbors had remained the same,
14 percent said relations had become better (11% slightly better, 3% much better), while only one
percent said relations were worse (1% slightly worse, 0% much worse) (Figure 9.12).
In IRM-5 (Sep/Oct 2019), fewer people said that their relations with neighbors had improved since
the earthquake, compared to IRM-3 (Sep 2016) and IRM-4 (Apr 2017). Since IRM-4, the share of
respondents who said that their relations with neighbors had become slightly better after the earthquake decreased by half (Figure 9.12).

Figure 9.12: Changes in relationships with neighbors after the earthquake – IRM-3 to IRM-5 (IRM-3
base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

160

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Similar to other findings on social cohesion, residents of rural areas were more positive. People inrural areas were more likely to report that relations with neighbors had improved (19%) comparedto those in urban areas (4%). However, people in urban areas were not reporting worsening relations– instead, they were more likely to say that relations had remained the same. The proportion of respondents who reported that their relations with neighbors had improved was comparatively higher
in Ramechhap (47%) and Solukhumbu (46%). The lowest share of respondents stating that theirrelations had become either slightly better or much better were in Lamjung (3%) and Kathmandu(4%) (Table 9.5).

Table 9.5: Relations with neighbors after the earthquake – by district impact, district and rural/urban (IRM-5,
weighted, Base= 5,857)
Remained the same

Better (slightly or muchbetter)Worse(slightly or much worse)

%

%

%

85

14

1

Severely hit

73

26

1

Dhading80190Overall

Gorkha81

18

1

Nuwakot81

18

2

Ramechhap

52

47

1

Sindhupalchowk

61

38

0

Crisis hit

93

6

1

Bhaktapur

89

10

1

Kathmandu

95

4

1

Okhaldhunga

70

29

1

Hit with heavy losses

79

19

2

Lamjung95

3

2

Solukhumbu

52

46

1

Hit

86

15

0

Syangja

86

15

0

Rural

79

19

1

Urban

95

4

1

9.3 Illness and psychological effects
Illness due to problems with shelter
The IRM surveys captured whether earthquake-affected people had fallen sick due to problems with
their housing conditions and adverse weather, such as winter or monsoon, depending on when thesurvey took place. In IRM-5 (Sept-Oct 2019), respondents were asked if anyone fell ill during thepast monsoon due to their housing conditions. Nine percent said someone in their family fell ill
during monsoon due to shelter issues. More people had reported falling ill in IRM-4 (19%) during
the winter and in IRM-3 (17%) during the monsoon (Figure 9.13).

161

Security, Social Relations, and Illness

Figure 9.13: Share of people who said someone in their family got sick due to shelter issues (IRM-3
base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

The nine percent of respondents who reported that a family member had fallen ill during the monsoon due to housing/shelter conditions were further asked how many of their family members had
fallen sick. Most (72%) reported that only one family member had fallen ill. More than one in five(23%) said that two family members had fallen ill, and three percent reported that three or moremembers of their family had fallen ill.
The share who reported that someone in their family got sick in monsoon season tracked with where
people were living in IRM-5 (Chapter 2): Most people were now living in fully repaired/reconstructed houses, and they were also the ones most likely to report an illness in the family (56% of people
in fully recovered housing said someone in the family got sick, compared to much lower shares inother housing arrangements).

Figure 9.14: Current living situation of those who said someone in their family got sick due to shelter issues(IRM-5, weighted, base=531)

162

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Types of illnesses
Respondents who reported an illness in their family due to shelter conditions in the last monsoon
were asked to mention the type of illness. The most common form of illness was fever/flu (66%).
Other illnesses cited included swollen feet (18%), pneumonia (15%), asthma (9%), prolonged cold(9%), recurrent cold (8%), and diarrhea/dysentery/cholera (6%). Less commonly reported illnesses
were skin rash (2%) and dengue (1%).

Figure 9.15: Illness prevalence amongst those whose family member(s) got ill (IRM-5, weighted, base=531)

Psychological effects from the earthquake
All respondents were asked if any of their family members still suffered from psychological effects
from the earthquake. Over the years, the share of people with trauma had reduced, with fewer people
reporting that a family member still suffered from psychological effects from the earthquake (Figure
9.16).

163

Security, Social Relations, and Illness

Figure 9.16: Share of people reporting psychological effects from the earthquake (IRM-3 base=4855, IRM4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857, weighted)

Compared to respondents in urban areas (3%), those in rural areas (7%) were more likely to report
psychological effects of their family members. Lasting psychological effects from the earthquake
were more common in Gorkha (32%), Dhading (14%), Okhaldhunga (12%), and Syangja (12%), andcomparatively less common in Solukhumbu (1%), Lamjung (1%), and Kathmandu (1%).
Respondents whose houses had been completely destroyed were slightly more likely to say they had
a family member who still suffers psychological effect from the earthquake (8%), compared to those
who suffered lesser or no housing damage (between 2-5%).

Types of psychological problems
The most commonly cited psychological effect that people suffered from due to the earthquake wasextreme fear (55%), followed by nervousness (23%) and trouble sleeping (17%). Over the years, there
was a substantial increase in people suffering from nervousness and slight increases in respondents
reporting extreme fear. Fewer mentioned getting startled while sleeping as a psychological effect of
the earthquake in IRM-5 than in previous survey rounds.

164

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 9.17: Type of psychological effects (IRM-3 base=4855, IRM-4 base=4,854, IRM-5 base=5,857,
weighted)

165

Security, Social Relations, and Illness

Photo:166
Pallavi Payal (Bhaktapur)

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Chapter 10

Future Outlook andDisaster Preparedness

Photo: Aruna Limbu (Lisankhu, Sindhupalchowk)

This chapter discusses respondents’ perceptions of the future outlook for the country and theirown locality, and of future disaster preparedness in general. More specifically, the chapter presents
whether people feel prepared, reasons for being prepared or unprepared, advice for other people
and the government to prepare for future disasters, and positive aspects of, and learning from, thisreconstruction process.

Key Findings
Disaster preparedness•

Six in ten say they feel prepared for future natural disasters, about one-third say they do not
feel prepared1. Respondents in the low income bracket, with no formal education, residing inseverely hit districts, and in rural areas were comparatively more likely to feel prepared if a
disaster struck again in their community.

•

Building houses on safe land and constructing earthquake-resilient houses, based on government guidelines, were the main factors influencing whether or not people feel prepared for
future disasters. These are also the top two recommendations people in earthquake-affectedareas give to people elsewhere in the country and to the government for future preparedness.
However, while these individual measures were cited most frequently, many also said government measurements, such as prevention, information-sharing, and forming rescue and relief
teams, were also important.

1

The share ‘prepared’ is reported combining the categories: very prepared, somewhat prepared, and prepared. The share ‘not prepared’ isreported combining the categories: not prepared, not at all prepared, and do not know how to prepare for future disasters.

167

Future Outlook and Disaster Preparedness

Perceptions of the reconstruction process•

When assessing the reconstruction process, people were most positive about the ability toreconstruct houses according to NRA standards: Around one in three said they found this
aspect to be most positive about earthquake reconstruction. A similar share said they foundnothing positive about the reconstruction process. More than twice as many people in urban
areas said there was nothing positive about the reconstruction process, pointing to the list ofchallenges they faced with reconstruction in urban areas, where progress has been slower.

Future outlook of the country•

Slightly more than half (52%) of people in earthquake-affected districts said things in Nepal
are moving in the right direction, but four in ten (43%) believe the country is moving in thewrong direction. People in the urban districts of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur were more negative about the direction of the country than those in the other districts.

•

People had a more optimistic outlook about their own locality than the nation. Nearly sevenin ten (69%) said conditions in the place they live and work in are improving, and three in ten(28%) said things are getting worse.

•

Similar patterns emerged across demographic groups when comparing results for their outlook on the nation and their own locality. Optimism was highest among the youngest group,and declined with increases in income and education. People in rural areas were optimistic,
while those in urban areas were pessimistic.

10.1 Perceptions of disaster preparedness
How prepared do people feel for future disasters
In IRM-5 (September-November 2019), for the first time in the IRM survey, people were asked how
prepared they feel for future natural disasters. Six in ten said they feel prepared (14% very prepared,
22% somewhat prepared, and 24% prepared), while one-third said they feel unprepared or do notknow how to prepare for disasters (26% not prepared, 6% not at all prepared, and 2% don’t know/
can’t say).
Respondents in districts more severely impacted by the earthquake felt better prepared for futuredisasters. Residents of districts severely hit (85%) or hit with heavy losses (76%) were much more
likely than residents of districts crisis hit (46%) and hit (31%) to report that they felt prepared for
future natural disasters. People in Nuwakot (94%) were the most likely and those in Syangja (31%)
and Kathmandu (43%) were the least likely to feel prepared. People in rural areas (69%) were slightly more likely than those in urban areas (60%) to feel prepared (Table 10.1).

168

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Table 10.1: Feeling of preparedness for future natural disasters – by district impact, district, and rural-urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857)
Very Prepared/ Somewhat
Prepared/ Prepared

Not Prepared/ Not at all Prepared/
Do not have knowledge on preparing
against disasters%%

Overall

60

34

Severely Hit

85

12

Dhading80

15

Gorkha81

13

Nuwakot

94

6

Ramechhap87

13Sindhupalchowk

86

13

Crisis Hit

46

45

Bhaktapur

59

34

Kathmandu

43

48

Okhaldhunga

68

28

Hit with heavy losses

76

22

Lamjung

74

25

Solukhumbu

79

15

Hit

31

68

Syangja

31

68

Rural

69

27

Urban

60

34

Income and education levels seem to impact feeling of preparedness. Only half of thosein the high income bracket (52%) said they feel prepared, whereas seven in ten in the low income(72%) and middle-income (69%) groups said the same. Apart from those who completed a Master’slevel education; those with lower levels of education tended to say they feel prepared for future disasters (Table 10.2).
The difference in feelings of preparedness between men and women was insignificant: Men (62%)
were only slightly more likely than women (58%) to feel prepared. However, there was variation
by caste and ethnicity: Over six in ten of those belonging to Hill castes (63%), including Hill Dalits,(64%) and Hill ethnic groups (67%) felt prepared, compared to only 46% of Newars.

169

Future Outlook and Disaster Preparedness

Table 10.2: Feeling of preparedness for future natural disasters – by education, income, gender (IRM-5,
weighted, base=5,857)

Overall
IncomeGender
Education

Feel prepared(Very prepared/ somewhat
prepared/prepared)

Do not feel prepared(Not prepared/not at all prepared/Don’t know or can’t say)

%

%

60

34

Low Income

72

24

Medium Income

6928High Income

52

41

Female

58

36

Male

62

33

Illiterate

63

32

Literate

72

23

Primary Level

64

32

Lower Secondary Level

64

32

Secondary Level

55

45

SLC Pass

51

37+2/Intermediate Pass

51

44

Bachelor Pass

37

56

Master & Above

59

32

Reasons for feeling prepared for future disasters
Of the sixty percent of respondents who said they feel prepared for future disasters, the main reasons for feeling so were having built a house in a safe place (85%) and having followed disaster preparedness guidelines in rebuilding or repairing their house (43%). Far fewer people said they feel
prepared for future disasters because of government preventive measures, whether it was having aneffective and efficient disaster plan (5%), taking preventative measures (8%), or information dissemination (13%). Other preparedness measures also ranked low, such as having sufficient food stored(7%), having health insurance (7%), community having a rescue team (4%), and having property
insurance (3%) (Figure 10.1).
At least eight in ten in the severely hit, hit with heavy losses, and crisis hit districts said they feel
prepared because their house is in a safe place. A relatively high share of respondents in Nuwakot
feel prepared for future disasters (66%) due to having followed disaster preparedness guidelines inbuilding their houses. Syangja residents (41%) were the most likely to mention having a rescue teamin their community. People in Syangja (22%) and Bhaktapur (22%) were more likely than people inother districts to feel prepared because of health insurance. Similarly, those in Syangja (14%) werealso comparatively more likely to feel prepared because they have property insurance.

170

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 10.1: Reasons for feeling prepared for future natural disasters (IRM-5, weighted, Base=3,506,
asked to those who feel prepared, multiple choice)Reasons for feeling unprepared for future disasters
Of respondents who said they do not feel prepared or did not know how to prepare for future disasters, the most commonly cited reason was because their house is not in a safe place (63%), followedby not having followed disaster guidelines for building an earthquake-resilient house (39%). Onein five felt that the government had not taken enough preventive measures (20%). Less frequently
cited reasons were not having a community rescue team (15%), the government not having informed
them about how to stay safe during disasters (13%), not having property insurance (12%), not having
health insurance (12%), the government not having a rescue team (10%), and because they had notstored sufficient food (10%) (Figure 10.2).

171Future Outlook and Disaster Preparedness

Figure 10.2: Reasons for feeling unprepared for future disasters (IRM-5, weighted, base=2,016, asked tothose who feel unprepared, multiple choice)

What would help people feel better prepared?
All respondents were asked what information or actions would help them feel more prepared for
future disasters and emergencies. Responses track closely with reasons given for why people felt
prepared or unprepared. Individual preventive measures, such as building houses in a safe place(85%) and building according to guidelines for resilient buildings (54%) were considered most crucial to improve disaster preparedness. A quarter (25%) thought that the government should takepreventative measures for future disasters and a quarter (25%) felt the government should inform
people on how to stay safe. Just over one in five (22%) mentioned the presence of rescue teams in
the community as a factor, and even fewer said having sufficient food stored (17%), the government
having effective rescue teams (16%), or property and health insurance (11% each) were important to
prepare for disasters.
Disaster preparedness advice for people in areas not affected by the earthquake
People in earthquake-affected areas were also asked what advice they would give to those elsewherein the country if an earthquake or similar disaster were to strike there. The most widely sharedadvice was to build a house in a safer place (87%), followed by building houses according to government guidelines for earthquake-resilient houses (59%). However, the role of government was also
seen as crucial. Nearly one in three said that pressuring the government to inform people on how
to stay safer during disasters, pressuring the government to take preventive measures, forming acommunity rescue team, and pressuring the government to form an effective and efficient rescue
team were important (Figure 10.3).

172

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Figure 10.3: Measures people elsewhere in the country should take to prepare for disasters (IRM-5,
weighted, base=5,857, multiple choice)People in rural and urban areas differed when asked what they consider important for others to prepare for future disasters. People in urban areas were more likely to consider the following measures
important: pressuring the government to take preventive measures, forming a rescue team in thecommunity, storing sufficient food, and having insurance (Figure 10.4).

Figure 10.4: Measures people elsewhere in the country should take to prepare for disasters – by rural/
urban (IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857, multiple choice)173

Future Outlook and Disaster Preparedness

What actions should the government take during future disasters?
Based on their experiences of the post-earthquake reconstruction and recovery period, all respondents were asked what they thought the government (both central and local) could do if a similardisaster were to strike again in the future.
The top recommendations for government were to encourage people to build houses in safe places(88%) and according to safety guidelines (60%). Other commonly cited responses were to inform
people on how to stay safe during disasters (35%), make provisions for large open spaces (35%),
and take preventative measures against natural disasters (33%). Having effective rescue teams, providing food, and encouraging property insurance and health insurance were mentioned less often(Table 10.4).
People in urban areas were comparatively more likely than those in rural areas to think the government should encourage people to build safe houses, to create large open spaces, to form community
rescue teams, and to take other preventative measures (Table 10.4). Regardless of area or districtlevel impacts, a majority of respondents agreed that the most important action for government totake for future disasters is encouraging people to build in a safe place, followed by encouraging people to adhere to guidelines for safe building.

Figure 10.5: Measures the government should take during future disasters – overall and by rural/urban(IRM-5, weighted, base=5,857, multiple answers)

174

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

10.2 Perceptions of post-earthquake
reconstruction process
All respondents were asked to state what they felt was the most positive aspect of the reconstruction
process. Answers given included the ability to rebuild their houses according to standards set by the
NRA (27%), ease of getting relief (14%), increase in social cohesion (9%), and ability to build theirown house under the supervision of engineers (9%). Only 5% mentioned regular monitoring of reconstruction as a positive aspect.
Among those who reported complete damage to their houses, responses were more positive: Forty-one percent said being able to rebuild based on NRA guidelines was the most positive aspect ofreconstruction, and 22 percent mentioned ease of getting relief. The majority of those with lesser
housing damage, or no damage, said there was nothing positive about the reconstruction process,or they were unsure. Among the positive aspects of reconstruction mentioned by people with somehousing damage (i.e. badly damaged and habitable houses) were the ability to build according to
NRA guidelines, building houses with engineer supervision, and social cohesion. People who had
minor or no damage mentioned social cohesion and ability to build using NRA guidelines as themost positive aspects.

Figure 10.6: Most positive thing about the reconstruction process – by reported housing damages [IRM5, weighted, base=5857]

175

Future Outlook and Disaster Preparedness

Overall, three in ten (30%) respondents said they did not find anything positive about the reconstruction process. More than twice as many people in urban areas (46%) said there was nothing
positive about the reconstruction process, compared to rural respondents (22%) (Table 10.5).
The severely hit districts were more positive about the reconstruction period, perhaps due to theirmore extensive engagement with the process. The ability to reconstruct following NRA guidelines(46%) and the ease of getting relief (26%) were mentioned most frequently as the most positive aspects of the reconstruction process by those in severely hit districts.

Increase in social
cohesion

Could build
houses under
supervision ofengineers)

Proeprmonitoring ofreconstruction

Don’t know/can’t
say

30%

27%

14%

9%

9%

5%

6%

Severely Hit

9%

46%

26%

4%

12%

3%

1%

Dhading

12%

55%

18%

4%

8%

0%

3%

Gorkha

13%

51%

11%

4%

16%

4%

1%

Nuwakot

2%

35%

55%

2%

3%

3%

0%

Ramechhap

10%

36%

14%

6%

30%

4%

1%

Sindhupalchowk

6%

46%

30%

3%

9%

2%

2%

Crisis Hit

44%

14%

9%

11%

9%

6%

7%

Bhaktapur

23%

13%

22%

5%

15%

10%

11%

Kathmandu

49%

12%

6%

12%

8%

6%

7%

Okhaldhunga

18%

41%

16%

3%

9%

5%

9%

Hit with heavy losses

22%

47%

8%

7%

2%

8%

7%

Could build
housesaccording to
NRA standards

Overall

Nothing positive
to say about thereconstruction
process

Easy to receive
reliefTable 10.3: Positive aspects of the reconstruction process – by district impact, district, and rural/urban(IRM-5, weighted, base= 5,857)

Lamjung

23%

52%

3%

6%

2%

10%

4%

Solukhumbu

20%

37%

18%

8%

2%

3%

12%

Hit

27%

28%

2%

24%

2%

7%

10%

Syangja

27%

28%

2%

24%

2%

7%

10%

Rural Area

22%

37%

17%

7%

9%

4%

4%

Urban Area

46%

9%

8%

14%

8%

7%

8%

10.3 Future outlook
Overall direction of the country
When asked about the overall direction of the country, just over half of respondents (52%) said thatthings in Nepal were moving in the right direction, and four in ten (43%) said it was going in thewrong direction.

176

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Looking at optimism levels across differently impacted areas, those in severely hit districts weremost likely to be optimistic (79%), followed by those in districts hit with heavy losses (71%), and hit
districts (70%). Only three in ten (31%) in the crisis-hit districts were optimistic about the country’s
direction – but this is a reflection of the fact that two of the three crisis-hit districts sampled weremore urban and in the Kathmandu valley. The two largely urban districts of Kathmandu (29%) and
Bhaktapur (24%) were least optimistic about the country’s direction; while in Okhaldhunga, anothercrisis-hit district, optimism levels were high, just like in other higher impact districts (76%).
Opinions about the direction of the country varied widely between urban and rural areas. While 63
percent of those in rural areas said the country was headed in the right direction, 64 percent of thosein the urban areas said the country was going in the wrong direction.
The country outlook was similar among men and women. Younger people were more optimistic:
The 18-25 age group was the most optimistic (64%), although about half in other age groups also
expressed optimism. Lastly, optimism rates declined with higher incomes and also with higher education levels.

Table 10.4: Conditions at the national level – by district impact, district, and rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted,
base=5,857)
Improving

Getting worse

Don’t know

%

%

%

Overall52

47

5

Severely Hit

79

15

6

Dhading80

118Gorkha69

20

11

Nuwakot90

100Ramechhap

82

16

2

Sindhupalchowk

76

20

4

Crisis Hit

31

65

3

Bhaktapur

24

70

6

Kathmandu

29

68

2

Okhaldhunga

76

18

6

Hit with heavy losses

71

23

5

Lamjung66

32

2

Solukhumbu

80

8

12

Hit

71

14

13

Syangja

71

14

13

Rural Area

63

32

5

Urban Area

31

64

4

177

Future Outlook and Disaster Preparedness

Future outlook for own locality
Respondents from IRM-5 (September-November 2019) were also asked to assess conditions in theplace they live and work. Nearly seven in ten (69%) said that conditions in their locality were improving, and about three in ten (28%) said conditions were getting worse. Overall, people were more
optimistic about their own localities (69%) than the country as a whole (52%)2.
Respondents in Kathmandu (49%) were the least optimistic about conditions in their localities. The
level of optimism about local conditions was very high among residents of Nuwakot (93%), Ramechhap (92%), Lamjung (89%), and Dhading (88%) districts. Compared to residents of urban areas(51%), residents of rural areas (78%) were more likely to believe that there have been improvementsin their local conditions.
A significant majority of younger people (ages 18-25) said conditions in their localities were improving (83%). About seven in ten men (70%) and women (68%) shared the same view. Once again,
optimism about local conditions declined with increasing income and education levels.

Table 10.5: Conditions at the local level – by district impact, district, and rural/urban (IRM-5, weighted,
base=5,857)
Improving

Don’t know

%

%

%

Overall

69

28%

3%

Severely Hit

88

9%

3%

Dhading

88

8%

4%

Gorkha

84%

11%

5%

Nuwakot

93%

7%

0%

Ramechhap

92%

7%

2%

Sindhupalchowk

85%

14%

1%

Crisis Hit

54%

44%

2%

Bhaktapur

71%

27%

2%

Kathmandu

49%

49%

2%

Okhaldhunga

85%

12%

3%

Hit with heavy losses

85%

10%

4%

Lamjung

89%

11%

0%

Solukhumbu

79%

9%

11%

Hit

78%

15%

6%

Syangja

78%

15%

6%

Rural Area

78%

19%

3%

Urban Area

51%

46%

3%

2

178

Getting worse

The Survey of Nepali People (SNP) conducted by The Asia Foundation in late 2018 also looked at optimism at the national and local levels.
Compared to nationwide results, optimism about the direction of the country was the same in earthquake affected areas (52% in bothsurveys). When it came to local conditions, optimism was slightly higher in IRM-5 (63% SNP, 68% IRM-5).

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Annex A

Methodology
While the report draws primarily on the recent IRM-5 (Sept-Oct 2019) survey dataset, it also uses
datasets from previous survey rounds to assess changes over time. The first IRM survey, IRM-1, wasconducted in June 2015 and included 2,980 respondents from 14 districts. The second IRM survey,
IRM-2, was conducted in 11 of the 14 districts during February-March 2016 and had a sample size of
4,850 respondents. 1 The same 11 districts were covered in the third, fourth, and fifth IRM surveys.
The third survey, IRM-3, was conducted in September 2016 with a total of 4,855 respondents, thefourth survey, IRM-4, was conducted in April 2017 with 4,854 respondents, and the fifth IRM survey, IRM-5, was conducted in September-October 2019 with a total sample of 5,857 respondents.
In IRM-5, an additional sample of 1,000 respondents was allocated as a booster2 sample to examine
issues and the present scenario with regards to retrofitting. This additional sample was added in
two rural municipalities (Champadevi Rural Municipality of Okhaldhunga district, and Jwalamukhi
Rural Municipality of Dhading district) and two urban municipalities (Kathmandu Metropolitan ofKathmandu district, and Bhaktapur Municipality of Bhaktapur district).
All respondents were asked the questions in-person and all interviews were conducted in Nepali.
The interviews in IRM-5 were undertaken through Android tablets, while other surveys in the IRM
series were undertaken through hard copy forms. As much as possible, the interviews took place inthe respondents’ homes.
Findings from survey results are based on weighted data.

Sampling frame and district selection
Households for IRM-5 were selected from the same 11 districts as previous rounds of IRM surveys.
To the extent possible, the same respondents who were interviewed in preceding survey were alsointerviewed in IRM-5. Respondents were selected from 345 wards in the 11 districts.3 In most cases,
when making comparisons across the five surveys, results were based on full surveys in 11 districts,
using weights described below.

1

2

3

The 11 districts in the last four IRM rounds do not include the three least affected districts that were included in IRM-1. For a summary of
the construction of the earlier surveys, see Annex A in: The Asia Foundation (2015). Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal: Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Nepal Phase 1 – Quantitative Survey: June 2015; The Asia Foundation (2016). Aid and Recovery
in Post-Earthquake Nepal: Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Nepal Phase 2 – Quantitative Survey: February and March
2016; and The Asia Foundation (2017). Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal: Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring
Nepal Phase 3 – Quantitative Survey: September 2016; Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal: Independent Impacts and Recovery
Monitoring Nepal Phase 4 – Quantitative Survey: April 2017.
While designing the sample, the main sample has been further supplemented by booster samples in certain rural/urban municipalities
of Kathmandu, Bhaktapur, Dhading, and Okhaldhunga. Although the sampling design for the booster sample is purposive in nature, theprocesses of selecting the households and respondents are common to both – the main sample and the booster. For the booster sample,
The Asia Foundation provided IDA the list of sample clusters of the concerned Palikas in Okhaldhunga and Dhading where the retrofitting
activities are very likely to take place. Similarly, the clusters of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur districts where a large number of households
were damaged by the earthquake have also been added to the booster sample.
Manang, Khotang and Dang were included in IRM-1 but were dropped from the sample because they did not appear in the PDNA’s list ofaffected districts.

179Methodology

Table A.1 lists the impact categories, districts, and the basic sample sizes used in IRM-5. The marginof error at the aggregate level is +/- 1.3% at a 95 percent confidence level. The sample size and margin of error at 95 percent confidence level for each district are presented in table below.

Table A.1: Distribution of sample by impact districts
Sample size

Margin of error (+/- %)Number of sample wards

Total

5,857

1.3

345

Severely hit

2,833

1.8

180

Dhading

681

3.8

41

Gorkha

600

4.0

40

Nuwakot

350

5.2

22

Ramechhap

600

4.0

38

Sindhupalchowk

602

4.0

39

Crisis hit

1,972

2.2

99

Bhaktapur

612

3.9

22

Kathmandu

502

4.4

22

Okhaldhunga

858

3.3

55

Hit with heavy losses

701

3.7

44

Solukhumbu

350

5.2

22

Lamjung

351

5.2

22

Hit

351

5.2

22

Syangja

351

5.2

22

Selection of wards within districts
Fourteen districts were sampled in IRM-1 from the population of 26 districts that were affected by
the earthquake. In subsequent IRM rounds, the team further narrowed the sample from 14 to 11 ofthese 26 districts. The survey adopted a multi-stage probability sampling design for the selection ofsample districts. The selection was based on stratified random sampling based on four impact categories, as shown in Table A.1. In each of these districts, probability proportional to size sampling(PPS) was adopted to select sample wards. In total, 238 sample wards were selected from the 11 districts. Households for IRM-1 and IRM-2 were chosen from these 238 wards. In addition to these 238
wards, the sample sizes were boosted in four districts where food insecurity was higher than average,
bringing the total number of wards to 308 for IRM-2, IRM-3, and IRM-4. Again, in addition to these308 wards, the sample sizes were boosted in four districts where retrofitting was more common
compared to other areas, bringing the total number of wards to 345 for IRM-5. Distribution of wards
in each district for the IRM-5 survey is shown in Table A.1. On average, each sampled ward had 16
sampled households from one tole/village (with the exception of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur, where
there were 23 and 28 households per ward, respectively).

Selection of enumeration areas within wards
Within the sampled wards, there are numerous clusters of settlements. For sampling purposes, such
settlements are referred to as enumeration areas (EA), which could be tole or villages (gaon). The
various EAs within a ward were identified and listed once the survey team reached the locality. From
this list, each EA was randomly selected using simple random sampling. On average, 16 interviews
were conducted in each EA within these new wards.
180

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

For 3,554 of the sampled households, the same EAs that were sampled during IRM-2 were visited inIRM-3, IRM-4, and IRM-5. The number of interviews per EA, however, has increased since IRM-1,
from 10 households per in EA to 16 households per EA in IRM-2, IRM-3, IRM-4, and IRM-5.
The same procedure which was used in IRM-1 was also used for the selection of an additional 1,000
respondents in IRM-5 for the extra sampled wards (in the four districts where retrofitting was prioritized).

Selection of households within EAs
To the extent possible, the same households which had been surveyed in previous IRM surveys
were identified for interviews in IRM-5. The remaining households in each EA who had not beeninterviewed earlier were selected using the same protocols as in the earlier survey. Households wererandomly selected using the household lists generated for each EA during IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3,
and IRM-4.
The table below summarizes the attrition rate in different rounds of IRM survey.

Table A.2: Attrition rate of IRM surveys
Surveys

June
2015
IRM-1

Feb/March
2016
IRM-2

Aug/Sep
2016
IRM-3

April
2017
IRM-4

Sep/Oct2019
IRM-5

Total Sample size (without IRM-5 booster)

2980

4855

4855

4854

4854*

Panel Sample

NA

NA

4446

4131

3554

Longitudinal sample

409

723

1300

Attrition Rate compared to IRM 2 (%)

8.4

14.9

26.8

Attrition Rate compared to Previous IRM (%)

8.4

7.1

13.9

*Total follow-up sample size in IRM-5 without booster sample.

The attrition rate was 13.9 percent in IRM-5 compared to IRM-4. In other words, 86.1 percent of thesame households which had been surveyed in IRM–4 were also surveyed in IRM-5.

Selection of respondents within households
Wherever possible, the same respondents who had been surveyed in IRM-4 were selected for IRM-5.
The IRM-4 survey team obtained the names and mobile phone numbers of interviewees. This wasused to identify the respondent in each household to be interviewed for subsequent surveys.
Once a household was selected for the interview, the next task was to select the respondent fromwithin the household. A well-informed individual who played some role in household decision-making was selected and interviewed. Within a household, respondents were randomly chosen fromamong the decision-making individuals, with steps taken to ensure a gender balance.

181

Methodology

Weighting data
IRM-1 results were based on weighted estimates. Results in IRM-2 were based on unweighted sample means. For IRM-3, weighted results were used for all three full datasets, and unweighted results
were used for household panel datasets. Also, in IRM-4, weighted results were used for all four full
datasets, and unweighted results were used for household panels. For IRM-5, weighted results wereused for all five full datasets.
Weights for all four datasets were constructed in three steps. First, the base weight was calculated bytaking the ratio of sample and population in each Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) impact
category or stratum. Second, the base weight in each stratum was adjusted by multiplying by the
proportion of the urban and rural population. Finally, the composite weight was calculated by multiplying the adjusted weight with the proportion of district samples. Using the final composite weighthelps reduce any over-coverage and under-coverage bias, thus producing more accurate survey estimates of population parameters. For instance, the total population households in Kathmandu are
44.4 percent of the population in 11 districts, but the sample size in the district is only 7.3 percentof the total sample. Using the composite weight, the sample 7.3 percent will reflect the 44.4 percent
population. Similarly, the population of Solukhumbu represents 2.4 percent of the population in 11
districts, but 7.2 percent of the total sample, which is adjusted using the final weight. The population
parameters come from the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), Nepal’s 2011 National Population andHousing Census.

182

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Annex B

Demography
Demographic profile of respondents
This section presents the demographic profile of respondents from IRM-1 (June 2015), IRM-2 (FebMarch 2016), IRM-3 (Sep 2016), IRM-4 (April 2017), and IRM-5 (Sep-Oct 2019). The total sample
size of IRM-5 was 5,857. The sample sizes for IRM-1, IRM-2, IRM-3 and IRM-4 were 2,380, 4,853,
and 4,855 and 4,854, respectively. The tables below show the distribution of age groups, gender,
educational status, caste/ethnicity, religion, marital status, and occupation of respondents.
Of the total respondents in IRM-5, there was an equal distribution of male and female respondents,
where 48 percent were male and the remaining 52 percent were female. As shown in Table 1, thedistribution of gender was more or less consistent across all survey rounds.

Table B.1: Gender of the respondents (%)

FemaleJune 2015(IRM – 1)

Feb-Mar 2016
(IRM – 2)

Sep 2016(IRM –3)

April 2017
(IRM –4)

Sep-Oct 2019
(IRM – 5)

50.0

50.0

48.2

49.2

51.8

Male

50.0

50.0

51.8

50.8

48.2

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Similarly, about 5 percent of respondents were between 18 to 25 years old, nearly 17 percent were
between 26 to 35 years old, one quarter were between 36 to 45 years old, and slightly more than
50 percent were above 46 years old. The sampled population in IRM-5 has a higher percentage of
respondents aged 46 and above, and fewer respondents aged 18-25, or 26-35, compared to previous
rounds.

Table B.2: Age group of respondents (%)
June 2015

Feb-Mar 2016

Sep 2016

April 2017

Sep-Oct 2019

(IRM – 1)(IRM – 2)(IRM –3)(IRM –4)(IRM – 5)

%

%

%

%

%

18-25

8.5

8

8.1

8.1

5.1

26-35

20.7

19.4

20.5

19.8

16.8

36-45

22.5

24.1

25.8

25.4

24.3

46 & Above

48.3

48.5

45.6

46.8

53.8

Total

100

100

100

100

100

183

Demography

Among the IRM-5 respondents, one quarter were illiterate and a one in ten were literate without
any formal schooling. These numbers remained fairly consistent throughout the surveys. About 17
percent of respondents had received primary education and less than 2 percent reported being university graduates.

Table B.3: Educational status of respondents (%)
June 2015

Feb-Mar 2016

Sep 2016

April 2017

Sep-Oct 2019

(IRM – 1)(IRM – 2)(IRM –3)(IRM –4)(IRM – 5)

%

%

%

%

%

Illiterate

21.4

33.2

23.7

24.8

22.9

Literate

19.5

19.3

22.3

22.7

13.9

Primary Level

11.9

11.5

12.1

11.9

16.8

Lower Secondary
Level

9.2

8.8

8.9

10.3

11.8

Secondary Level

5.2

15.2

10.7

9.8

3.8

SLC Pass

13.2

0.3

7.6

8.6

12.9

+2/Intermediate
Pass

10.3

7.6

9.4

7.4

10.3

Bachelor Pass

6.6

3.3

3.1

3

6

Master & Above

2.8

0.8

2.2

1.6

1.5

Total

100

100

100

100

100

The caste/ethnic composition of respondents from all surveys was predominantly Hill caste, Hill
ethnic, and Newar, which is to be expected in most of the earthquake affected districts. The share ofMadhesi respondents was lowest among the distribution of caste/ethnicity in IRM surveys. Otherwise, the distribution of caste/ethnicity was fairly consistent in all survey rounds.

Table B.4: Ethnicity of respondents (%)

184

June 2015

Feb-Mar 2016

Sep 2016

April 2017

Sep-Oct 2019

(IRM – 1)(IRM – 2)(IRM –3)(IRM –4)(IRM – 5)

%

%

%

%

%

Hill Caste

38.6

34.2

38.9

36.6

37.1

Hill Ethnic

27.5

33.3

31.4

33.1

29.2

Hill Dalit

4.9

5.9

5.5

5.7

5

Newar

27.8

25.4

22.2

22.1

26.8

Madhesi Caste

0.4

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.6

Madhesi Ethnic

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.3

1.1

Madhesi Dalit

0

0

0.1

0

0.2

Muslim

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.4

0

Total

100

100

100

100

100

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

The religious breakdown of the survey sample closely matches the actual religious composition of
the overall population. See table below for more details. In IRM-5 , Hindu respondents constituted
82.2 percent of the sample, and Buddhist respondents made up 15.4 percent of the sample. Similarly, Muslims were 0.3 percent, Christians were 1.4 percent, and Kirat were 0.6 percent of the sample.
In the sample of all five waves, Hindu respondents were slightly over-represented and Buddhists
were under-represented, compared to the national figures as specified in the 2011 census.

Table B.5: Religion of respondents (%)
June 2015

Feb-Mar 2016

Sep 2016

April 2017

Sep-Oct 2019

(IRM – 1)(IRM – 2)(IRM –3)(IRM –4)(IRM – 5)

%

%

%

%

%

Hindu

83.2

80.8

80.5

79.9

82.2

Buddhist

13.8

16.7

16.6

16.9

15.4

Muslim

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.3

Christian

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.5

1.4

Kirat

1.6

1.1

1.1

1.4

0.6

Atheist

0.1

0.1

0.2

0

0

Total

100

100

100

100

100

The disaggregation of the sample by respondents’ marital status is presented in the table below. In
the sample, an overwhelming majority (86%) of respondents were married, and around 6 percent
were unmarried. The proportion of windows/widowers in the sample was 8 percent. There was asimilar pattern in these proportions throughout all survey rounds (Table B.6).

Table B.6: Marital status of respondents (%)
June 2015

Feb-Mar 2016

Sep 2016

April 2017

Sep-Oct 2019

(IRM – 1)(IRM – 2)(IRM –3)(IRM –4)(IRM – 5)

%

%

%

%

%

Married

87.9

89.1

87.8

87.6

86.1

Unmarried

6.4

4.1

5.6

4.9

5.5

Widow/widower

5.4

6.1

5.9

6.8

7.6

Divorced

0

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

Separated

0.2

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

Total

100

100

100

100

100

Respondents in IRM-5 were asked to compare their monthly income before and after the earthquake. Most people said their monthly income had remained the same, while around two in ten said
it had increased, and 14 percent reported a decrease (Figure B.1).

185

Demography

Figure B.1: Status of monthly income (%)

More than one quarter of respondents (29%) said that their household income was more than NPR.
40,000 (USD 341) per month during the last month. The second highest proportion of respondents(27%) mentioned that their income bracket was NPR. 20,001 to 39,999 (USD 171- 341) per month.
Around one quarter of respondents said their monthly income was NPR. 10,000 to 19,999 (USD 85 171). The share of respondents who mentioned that their monthly income was less than NPR. 10,000(USD 85) was around 20 percent.

Figure B.2: Income of respondents (%)

186

Aid and Recovery in Post-Earthquake Nepal

Almost half of respondents (43%) reported agriculture as their main occupation. About one quarter
said their occupation was in industry/business, and 12 percent said they were housemakers. Another 7 percent were in service, 5 percent in labor, and 3 percent said they were unemployed and retired.

Table B.7: Occupation of respondents (%)
Jun-15

Feb-16

Aug-Sep 2016

Apr-17

Sep-Oct 2019

(IRM – 1)(IRM –2)(IRM –3)(IRM –4)(IRM –5)

%

%

%

%

%

Agriculture

42.4

55.6

44.6

43.8

42.8

Business

26

18.6

29.7

28.8

25.3

Service

7.7

4.8

5.4

5.3

7.2

Labor

3.7

4.2

4.2

6.4

4.5

Student

2.3

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.5

Housewife/husband

12.3

11.5

9.8

10

11.7

Retired

3.6

2.5

2.4

2.1

2.7

Unemployed

2.1

1.6

2.3

2.1

3.2

Total

100

100

100

100

100

187

Demography

Aid and Recovery in
Post-Earthquake Nepal
Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Phase 4
Qualitative Field Monitoring: April 2017

188

Aid and Recovery in
Post-Earthquake Nepal
Independent Impacts and Recovery Monitoring Phase 4
Qualitative Field Monitoring: April 2017