The case of Mathare 1

Informal settlements’
vulnerability mapping in Kenya
FA C I L I T I E S A N D PA RT N E R S ’ M A P P I N G I N N A I R O B I A N D K I S U M U S E T T L E M E N T S

The Case of Mathare

June, 2020
2
 The case of Mathare 3

An overview of Mathare slum, Nairobi, Kenya © Julius Mwelu / UN-Habitat

4

Contents

Overview............................................................................................ 5
The mapping Approach ................................................................................................ 5

Survey Limitations ....................................................................................................... 5

Presentation of Mapping Outputs ................................................................................ 5

Mathare Settlement.......................................................................... 6
1. Overview of all Facilities .......................................................................................... 7

2. Access and State of WASH Facilities........................................................................ 11

3. Access and State of Health Facilities....................................................................... 18

4. Access and State of Education Facilities ................................................................ 19

5. Access and State of Social / community Halls ...................................................... 20

6. Access and State of Public Spaces.......................................................................... 21

7. Assessment Development Partners Operations and Reach...................................... 22

Key observations.......................................................................................................... 23
 The case of Mathare 5

OVERVIEW

Globally, cities are and have recorded in Kisumu and comprehensively mapped by UN-Habitat experts over a period of
the highest number of covid-19 cases. all the key facilities and development one day. Community volunteers were
In sub-Saharan Africa and many other partners operating in those informal drawn from the targeted slums which
developing regions with more presence settlements. This was done with a goal allowed them to work longer hours and
of slums in cities, covid-19 is likely to to identify gaps and limitations in service require no transport costs to undertake
spread faster and also take longer to provision, access to services and support data collection during the strict covid-19
control once it crosses into the slum by development partners. The mapping lockdown. In addition, UN-Habitat
and informal settlements’ populations. outputs identified critical gaps that can ensured that there was gender-balance
With high tenure insecurity, low-quality be helpful when planning for responses among the volunteers who participated in
housing, limited access to basic services, to covid-19 or any other emergency this exercise.
and poor sanitation, informal settlements response in these slums. The newly
offer the perfect settings for risk collected data on sample of informal Survey Limitations
factors to accelerate the spread of any settlements advances the discourse
infectious disease. Informal settlements and policy dialogue on how to improve The survey focused on communally
are also classified as highly vulnerable the lives of people who live in informal shared facilities; therefore, facilities
to numerous risks including climate settlement, and ensure that no one is left within the settlement that are accessed
change impacts, disasters, and socio- behind in COVID-19 response. at the household level (e.g. toilets and
economic shocks. This is because they water points), if any, are not included in
are densely populated, and households The mapping Approach the survey. Such facilities exist in some
have inadequate access to water and mapped settlements such as Kawangware
sanitation, little or no access to waste The mapping exercise, which was carried in Nairobi and Manyatta in Kisumu.
management, public transport and limited out between 20th May and 10th June These settlements exhibit mixed formal
access to formal employment and health 2020, involved field data collection on and informal characters, and for any
care facilities. more than 18 facility types, including survey generalizations to be made on
water and sanitation facilities (water them, there is need for complementary
In Kenya, informal settlements vary in points, handwashing facilities, solid waste household level data collection. Data
size, character and their levels of need disposal sites, communal toilets, and collection for this survey was at the
vary among and within settlements. bathrooms), health facilities, including community level rather than at the
Governments and numerous agencies chemists and pharmacies, community household level.
work in informal settlements, each spaces (halls and public spaces) and
addressing a specific felt need in line with institutional spaces such as schools, local
its organizational goals, often with little NGO offices, administrative offices and Presentation of Mapping
coordination. Consequently, access to religious institutions. Outputs
services has not been evenly distributed
across settlements, resulting in pockets of Data collection utilized a mobile phone The mapping outputs are presented in 4
spatially disadvantaged communities. application hosted on an open source parts, each presenting settlement specific
data collection toolbox (KoboToolbox). findings. This report presents findings
In this mapping exercise, the UN-Habitat Field data collection was done by youth for the Mathare informal settlement in
sampled 3 settlements in Nairobi and 7 community volunteers, who were trained Nairobi.

An overview of Mathare slum, Nairobi, Kenya © Julius Mwelu / UN-Habitat

 6

MATHARE SETTLEMENT

The Mathare informal settlement is the The settlement is largely classified into in the settlement are highly exposed
second largest informal settlement in 13 villages, which are used as units of to heath, economic and social shocks
Kenya after Kibera. It has a long history data analysis in this survey. The villages caused by COVID-19.
of existence and is currently home to are Kiamutisya, Village 1/Mlango Kubwa,
206,564 people according to the National Kosovo, Village 2, Mathare 3A, Mathare In character, Village 1/Mlango Kubwa and
Housing and Population Census (2019). 3B, Mathare 3C, Mathare 4A, Mathare Village 2 are different from the rest of the
The settlement is characterized by 4B, Mashimoni (including Mashimoni settlement in that they have shacks mixed
hundreds of structures, densely packed Village 10), Kwa Kariuki, Gitathuru and with apartments, some of which have
and laid out without adhering to spatial Mabatini. For having poor access to sanitation facilities and water points within
layout guidelines. Many residents in the sanitation facilities, affordable healthcare, the apartment blocks.
settlement work in the informal business sustainable job opportunities, residents
sector inside the settlement and also in
the estates surrounding the settlements.

Figure 1: The Mathare settlement and its villages

 The case of Mathare 7

1. Overview of all Facilities

From the 1,122 data points

mapped, it was observed that,
while the villages’ population
densities are almost even
across the settlement,
densities of facilities in the
settlement vary, with Village 1
and Kosovo having the highest
facilities’ densities per area.
Village 2, Mathare 3C, Mathare
4A, Kiamutisya and Kwa Kariuki
have the lowest facilities’
densities per area. As a result,
some villages/communities
are clearly underserved which
shows the need for spatially
targeted provision of services.
Figure 2: Facilities’ densities by villages

Clustering of facilities is
observed in certain localities,
most of which are identified
as locations of major human
interactions. These locations
are in Village 1 / Mlango
Kubwa, which is a major entry
point to the settlement from
Juja Road, and Kosovo, also
a major entry point to the
settlement but from Thika
Road.

Spatial analysis revealed that

there are generally more
facilities in close proximity to
major roads, which are also Figure 3: Locations of facilities relative to major roads in the settlement
locations of businesses and
major human interaction.
This implies better access
to facilities by more people,
but also a disadvantage to
locations not fronting major
roads.
8

MAPPED FACILITIES BY TYPE

Hand washing facilities 25%

23% Majority of the facilities
Communal sanitation facilities (eg toilets) 15%
mapped are in the WASH
7%
Religious facilities 5% (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene)
4% category (hand washing, water
Flood lights 4% points and sanitation facilities
3%
Public spaces 3% – toilets and bathrooms).
2% This is an indication
Markets 2% that service providers in
2%
Juakali/ artisan shade / garages 1%
informal settlements have
1% put considerable efforts in
Local organization/ NGO offices 1% improving WASH, which is a
0% critical sector in maintaining
Local administrative offices 0%
healthy living.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Figure 4: Mapped facilities by type

FACILITY TYPES AND THEIR FUNCTIONALITY

Flood lights
Communal kitchens
Water points
The survey established
Public spaces
that existing facilities in
Social hall / community centre / resource centres the settlements are mostly
Communal sanitation facilities (eg toilets) functional; floodlights,
Health facilities kitchens and water points
Hand washing facilities were identified as having the
Transport stops (matatus/ boda-boda) highest proportions of non-
Markets functional facilities; these are
key action areas in prioritized
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% intervention.
No Yes
Figure 5: Facility types and their functionality

COMPARING RELIABILITY OF FACILITIES BY TYPE

Water points
Flood lights
Communal kitchens
Social hall / community centre / resource centres
Hand washing facilities
Public spaces Additionally, water points and
Communal sanitation facilities (eg toilets) floodlights were identified
Health facilities as having lowest levels of
reliability of all the mapped
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
facilities.
No - has not functioned the last month
Very rarely functions - very occasional, not predictable
Rarely functions (less than 2 days/week or 8 times/month)
Mostly functions (more than 4 days/week or 16 times/month)
Yes - Always functions
Figure 6: Comparing reliability of facilities by type
 The case of Mathare 9

COMPARING CONDITIONS OF FACILITIES BY FACILITY TYPE

Markets
Waste collection bin / open dumping areas
Public spaces In terms of conditions, most
Water points facilities are in fair condition,
Hand washing facilities with markets, waste collection
Communal sanitation facilities (eg toilets) areas, public spaces and
Transport stops (matatus/ boda-boda) water points having the least
Flood lights proportions of facilities in
Education Facilities good conditions. They survey
Health facilities identifies gap and proposes a
Social hall / community centre / resource centres focus on hygiene improvement
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% in market areas, public spaces
and waste collection points.
Dilapidated Fair Good
Figure 7: Comparing conditions of facilities by facility type

FACILITIES AND MANAGING ORGANIZATIONS

Water points
There is noted to be a
Hand washing facilities relationship between
Communal sanitation facilities (eg toilets) management of facilities,
Education Facilities facilities’ conditions and
Individual (eg business owner)
Health facilities their reliability. Data shows
Community group
Markets that the private actors/
Waste collection bin / open dumping areas County government individuals have a huge role
Transport stops (matatus/ boda-boda) NGO in the management of key
Public spaces Private company facilities in the settlement. Key
Social hall / community centre / resource centres National government facilities mostly under private
Flood lights UN Agency management include water
Communal kitchens No one
points, sanitation facilities
(toilets), education facilities,
0 100 200 300 health facilities and markets.
Number of facilities This has an implication on cost
Figure 8: Facilities and managing organizations of services and –with informal
settlements known to have
predominantly low income
earners – this understandably
has an impact on affordability
of services.
FACILITIES MANAGERS AND THEIR CONDITIONS

Individual (eg business owner)

Community group
NGO Organizations that have
majority of the facilities they
County government
manage in good conditions
No one include NGOs and private
Private company companies. Their facilities’
numbers are however
National government
proportionally very small
UN Agency compared to facilities
managed by individuals.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Number of facilities
Dilapidated Fair Good
Figure 9: Facilities managers and their conditions
10

MANAGEMENT OF FACILITIES AND FACILITIES’ RELIABILITY

Individual (eg business owner)
Community group
NGO
County government In terms of reliability of
Private company facilities, the survey identified a
UN Agency significant number of unreliable
National government facilities; apparently, a huge
No one majority of mapped facilities are
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 always functioning, with NGOs
Number of facilities and community group managed
No - has not functioned the last month facilities being comparatively
Very rarely functions - very occasional, not predictable more reliable.
Rarely functions (less than 2 days/week or 8 times/month)
Mostly functions (more than 4 days/week or 16 times/month)
Yes - Always functions
Figure 10: Management of facilities and facilities’ reliability

NUMBER OF FACILITIES JOINTLY MANAGED

Hand washing facilities

Education Facilities

Water points
The settlement has a limited
Transport stops (matatus/ boda-boda) number (15, equivalent to
1.3%) of facilities being jointly
Public spaces managed (by more than one
Markets organization). Majority of them
are in the WASH sector.
Communal sanitation facilities (eg toilets)

0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of facility managers
Figure 11: Number of facilities jointly managed

Facility Types With Join Management Organizations Collaborating in Management

Collaboration is more among
Communal sanitation facility Individual (eg business owner) Community group organizations managing
Education facilities Individuals, NGOs, Community groups education and WASH facilities.
Partnership is observed among
Handwashing Individuals, community groups, UN-Agency individual business owners,
Public spaces Community group, UN-Agency community groups and NGOs
Water points Individual, community group, county government
(see table).

Jointly managed facilities, despite being few in numbers, have better functionality than those managed by single organizations.
 The case of Mathare 11

2. Access and State of WASH Facilities

Surveyed wash facilities include water points, handwashing facilities, communal sanitation facilities (toiles and bathrooms), and waste
disposal locations. The four are discussed in this sub-section:

i) Water supply
The settlement has a high water point density; access to water locations is good with over 80% of all settlement’s
locations being within 50 metres from a water point.

Figure 12: Locations of water points and access levels

Kosovo
100
Mathare 3A Gitathuru
80

Kiamutisya 60 Mashimoni
Proportional to
40
their built up
areas, Mathare
20
3A, Kiamutisya,
Mathare 4A Mathare 3C Mathare 4A
0
and Villages 1
have the largest
proportions of
areas without
Village 1 Mathare 3B access to water
at 20M and 50
metres (Figure
13).
Kwa Kariuki Mathare 4B

Mabatini Village 2

Access at 20m Access at 50m

Figure 13: Access to water by villages at different distances
12

Kosovo and Gitathuru villages have the highest water point densities in the settlement. The survey has established that
access to water points is generally not a challenge in the settlement; the challenge is in the reliablity of water – survey
outputs show that majority of water points do not function throughout the week (Figure 14). In effect, queues were noted
at water points, creating hotspots of human interactions against social distancing guidelines.

Figure 14: Water points and their reliability

The survey established that, while there are efforts by the government to supply water to informal settlements’ areas at
no cost, water is still acquired at a cost by a huge proportion of residents. The average retail price of a 20-litre container
of water is between Kes. 2 and 10. High costs of water was noted in Village 2 and parts of village 1 where a 20-litre
container has costs rising up to Kes. 20.

Figure 15: Comparing management of water points and costs

 The case of Mathare 13

ii) Handwashing Facilities

The survey mapped 225 handwashing facilities in the settlement. Assuming an estimated population of 206,000 (KNBS), this
translates into an average of about 900 persons per public handwashing facility; indeed, there are high variability among villages,
but these statistics give an indication that there is a pressing need to establish additional handwashing facilities in the settlement.

Figure 17: Access to handwashing facilities

Using spatial statistics, the survey established that more than 50% of the settlement’s locations can access a handwashing facility
within 50 metres, but this number halves when distances are reduced to 20M. The need for more handwashing facilities near homes
and business locations is emphasized by the fact that, unlike for water points, residents are unlikely to walk for distances longer than
20 metres to access handwashing facilities.

ACCESS TO HANDWASHING FACILITIES

Access at 20m Access at 50m

100

80

60

40

20

Figure 18: Comparing access to handwashing facilities by villages

14

It is notable that all mapped handwashing facilities were established in the year 2020, particularly in response to COVID-19. It is
concerning that the numbers of new facilities established by months since March, 2020 are on the decline despite the growing need
for more facilities, which is underlined by the growing numbers of COVID-19 infections. Additionally, the survey noted that at least
87% of handwashing facilities are manually fed with water, with no connection to piped water supply; this poses serious challenges
of sustainability. It is further observed that, with all handwashing facilities established less than 4 months ago, it is concerning to have
over 20% of them not having soap throughout the day.

50% 100% 87%

41% 40%
40% 75%

30% 50%

20% 14% 25%

10%
1% 2%
10% 0%
0% 1% Connected to Directly from Directly from Fed manually
0% storage tank water main water main
January, February, March, 2020 April, 2020 May, 2020 lines lines Fed
2020 2020 manually
Figure 19 & 20: Temporal trends in establishment of handwashing facilities and their mode of water acquisition

Spatial analysis shows that most of business locations in the settlement front major roads, and there is notable clustering of
handwashing facilities along these high human interaction areas (e.g. around village 1, Mathare 4B, Mathare 3A and Kosovo). This
implies that handwashing facilities can be accessed by large numbers of people which is fundamentally desirable.

Figure 21: Location of handwashing facilities relative to major roads

 The case of Mathare 15

it is notable that handwashing facilities serving huge populations of more than 100 people are mostly managed by NGOs, UN
Agency, and also individuals. Most small-capacity facilities are managed by individual business owners, a factor likely to affect their
sustainability.

Figure 22: Location, sizes and management of handwashing facilities

iii) Communal Sanitation Facilities

Facilities mapped under this category include toilets and bathrooms. It is favourably noted that a huge majority of the sanitation
facilities (90%) are functioning and in fair to good conditions.

Figure 23: Conditions of sanitation facilities

16

Kosovo village has the highest density of sanitation facilities. The survey established that the low numbers of sanitation facilities
mapped in Village 1 and Village 2 is largely associated with the fact that these areas have household/ neighbourhood toilets and
bathrooms within apartments blocks.

Notable location with fewer facilities included Mathare 4A, Kiamutisya, Mathare 3A and 3B. Lack of sufficient sanitation facilities in
informal settlements is often associated with open defecation and use of ‘flying toilets’ which is unhygienic and discouraged.

Figure 24: Sanitation facilities densities

ORGANIZATIONS MANAGING SANITATION FACILITIES

60%

50%

40%

Management of sanitation
30%
facilities is majorly in the
hands of individuals, followed
by community groups and
20% private companies.

10%

0%
National County No one NGO Private Community Individual (eg
government government company group business
owner)
Figure 25: Organizations managing sanitation facilities
 The case of Mathare 17

iv) Solid Waste Management

The settlement has generally a poor system of solid waste management. Mapped waste disposal and collection points were few
and in dilapidated conditions. Over 70% of them exist in the form of open dumping. The survey established that there are at least 15
organizations involved in waste collection and management, and there is need for their coordinated action and common strategy in
waste management.

Figure 26: Waste disposal / collection points and their conditions

18

3. Access and State of Health Facilities

A total of 31 health facilities were mapped in the settlement, over 70% of them being clinics and dispensaries. Data shows that
management of most health facilities is in the hands of individual business owners, which may be associated with high cost of
services and reduced healthcare affordability. A survey on capacities of health facilities and costs of accessing health services is
required in designing targeted interventions.

MANAGEMENT OF HEALTH FACILITIES AND FACILITY TYPES

3%
Hospital
12%

Health centre

Dispensary / Clinic
85%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

County Govt NGO Individual County government Individual (eg business owner) NGO
Figure 27 & 28: Management of health facilities and facility types

Figure 29: Location and levels of health facilities

 The case of Mathare 19

4. Access and State of Education Facilities

The settlement has a high density of education facilities (70 facilities mapped). Kiamutisya, Kwa Kariuki and 4A villages have the
lowest per area coverage of facilities. It is notable that facilities for primary school level and lower account for over 80% of the
mapped facilities.

Figure 30: Location and levels of education facilities

The mapped education facilities exist within congested built up spaces, and do not meet space requirement for schools, with most
lacking even a basic playfield. It is particularly concerning that social distancing guidelines require increased space per learner while
the current facilities are far below these standards. The mapping identified this as requiring urgent action and coordinated efforts.

Figure 31: Location of education facilities on satellite image

20

5. Access and State of Social / community Halls

The survey mapped 23 social halls, 20 of which are functional and in good conditions. Majority of the halls are managed by
community groups.

Figure 32: Mapped locations of social/community halls

SERVICES AVAILABLE IN SOCIAL/COMMUNITY HALLS

Sewer Connection The community/ social halls

solid waste in the settlement are not
fully equipped with support
Sanitation facilities/Toilets services, with at least 50%
water of them lacking solid waste
management systems,
Electrity
connection to sewer and
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% connection to water supply.
Has Service Lacks Service
Figure 33: Services available in social/community halls

The survey identified an urgent need to have more public facilities connected to water systems, and equipped with sanitation and
solid waste facilities. The current state of access to services within facilities requires community facilities’ users to transport water
(including water for handwashing) to the facilities (e.g. halls), a model that is not easy to sustain with efficiency.
 The case of Mathare 21

6. Access and State of Public Spaces

The settlement has an acute shortage of public spaces; the settlement has less than 2% of its land area under public spaces. This is
against the recommended 20-25%.

Figure 34: Mapped public spaces in the settlement

AREAS OF OPEN SPACES AND PROPORTIONS BY VILLAGES

Mathare 3A
At the villages level, all have
Mashimoni less than 2.5% of their land
Village 1 area under public spaces.

Mathare 3C The public spaces in the

Kiamutisya settlements are small in
size with the largest being
Kwa Kariuki about 1,200 M2. The average
Mathare 4B size of public spaces is 350
M2, which is about the size
Village 2 of a volleyball pitch. This
Mathare 3B translates into challenges
by the community in
Mathare 4A maintaining social distances
Kosovo during outdoor interactions,
and increased exposure to
Gitathuru COVID-19.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Proportion of land under open spaces
Figure 35: Areas of open spaces and proportions by villages
22

7. Assessment Development Partners Operations and Reach

The survey mapped 7 organizations with offices within the settlements (in 6 villages), including Loving Concern, River Youth Group,
Mysa, Ghetto Foundation, SHOFCO, Transformer Group, and Slum Children Education and Art Centre.

Waste Management
The survey also detailed 37
Financial empowerment (loans and savings) organizations with programmes
Business start up in the settlement (Annex 1),
Water supply including those that do not have
offices within the settlement.
Human Rights and Avocacy The organizations mapped have
Youth & Talent a wide network of partnership
Drug abuse and HIV with 30 of them reporting
to work in partnership with
Arts and Craft other organizations. Majority
Sports of the mapped organizations
Tree planting are involved in the WASH
sector. From water points
Reproductive Health data, 45 organizations were
Girls & Women empowerment identified as being involved in
Support to street families management of water points
(below). Additionally, over 25
Photography organizations and 35 individuals
Education were mapped as donors of water
facilities
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Figure 36: Organizations involved in water supply

 The case of Mathare 23

A review of development partners’ activities within villages show that some villages have more partners’ activities than others; for
example, an assessment of partners with programmes not covering the entire settlement shows more partner activities in Kiamutisya
and Kwa Kariuki more than in other villages (map below).

Figure 37: Partner activities in villages

Key observations

The following are key observation from the mapping:

1. The facilities’ densities analysis points to villages that are potentially underserved and need location focused actions,
including Mathare 4B and Mashimoni.

2. Facility types with less than 50% of facilities in dilapidated or fair conditions include floodlights, water points and public
spaces; intervention is required.

3. Facilities managed by NGOs and community groups are more reliable than those managed by county government and
individuals; their absolute numbers are however few and need boosting.

4. There is only limited partnership in the management of facilities; expectedly, data shows a positive relationship
between partnerships and increased efficiency in service provision; partnering organizations include individuals, NGOs,
community groups and UN Agencies. More partnership and actors’ coordination is key.

5. Access to water points is high, but water points reliability ranges from poor to moderate. Despite programs supporting
free water supply in the settlement, the survey established that water in most villages is still acquired a cost, and
is largely in the hands of individual business owners. More partners’ action to improve access and affordability is
required.
 24

6. While majority of residents in the settlements are able to access handwashing facilities within 50 metres of any
settlement’s location, the average population per facility is extremely high (about 900 persons/facility). More facilities
are required, particularly near homes.

7. Handwashing facilities are mostly manually fed with water which impacts on their sustainability; there is need to
connect major facilities to the piped water network for sustainability.

8. Despite handwashing facilities not being evenly distributed in the settlement, there is a concentration of facilities on
major business activity nodes/ interaction areas which is helpful for their purpose.

9. Sanitation facilities have higher densities at Kosovo; their average functionality in the settlement is however good.
Some villages have notably fewer facilities and are exposed to risks of open defecation.

10. Only a few solid waste disposal areas were mapped by the survey. Majority of them are in poor conditions despite
numerous partners being engaged in environmental clean ups and waste management. This points to a need to have a
change of approach from managing dumped waste to controlling dumping.

11. The health sector, like the WASH sector, has a huge private sector control; there is need to investigate service
affordability under the private sector and its impact on health care in the settlement. The survey has noted that the
settlement has very high population per health facility ratios.

12. While schools are accessibility within short walking distances, the facilities are sandwiched in dense human
settlements areas and lack recreational spaces for learners. These densities expose the learners to risks such as fire
and easy spread of infectious diseases. e.g. COVID-19; new school regulations may require the schools to reduce
the learners’ populations or think about acquisition additional land spaces. Such is currently unavailable, and early
stakeholders’ discussion on the issues is key.

13. The settlement has an acute shortage of open spaces; there are very few open spaces (less than 5% of the land
areas for each village). Long term planning to improve settlements layout and space standards (including through
encouraging vertical development) is required.

An overview of Mathare slum, Nairobi, Kenya © Julius Mwelu / UN-Habitat