<strong>Field</strong> ArticleVulnerability Mapping inUrban AfghanistanBy Heloise Troc and Erin GrinnellHeloise Troc is a food securityofficer, working for ACF forover 3 years. Her field experiencesinclude acting as afood security co-ordinator inLiberia and Afghanistan.Erin Grinnell is an anthropologistwho has been working forover two years with ACF as afood security officer in Burmaand Afghanistan.Thanks to the entire ACF field team for their contribution and support during this assessment, andto Lisa Ernoul, ACF HQ, for her work on this field article.Figure 1Livelihood Zones in Kabul CityVulnerability LegendThis article describes vulnerability mappingcarried out by ACF in Kabul, and how it hasbeen used to inform programming and tailorinterventions in the field 1 .A. Central Bazaar - - -B. High Services Residential + + +C. Medium Serviced Residential + +F. Serviced Destroyed + +I- -D. Poor Serviced - East -E. Poor Serviced - South -G+C+ +F+ +G. Good Income - West +H. Remote North -I. Peri-urban - -Most vulnerable - - -Least vulnerable + + +B+ + +A- - -H-E-ḎI- -ACF, Based on Automated InformationMapping System (AIMS)The past 23 years of unrest inAfghanistan have had a significantimpact on Kabul, with up to 60% ofhousing destroyed and infrastructuredecimated. Since the fall of the Taliban, therehas been a massive return of refugees toAfghanistan, mainly coming back fromPakistan and Iran, and placing an enormousstrain on municipal resources. In 2002, a totalof 393,582 refugees and internally displacedpeople (IDPs) arrived in Kabul in a matter ofonly ten months. The Central StatisticsOffice’s current estimate of numbers in thecity is 2,799,300 persons.Action Contre la Faim (ACF) has beenworking in Kabul for eight years, implementingnutrition, food security, water and sanitation,and medical programmes. In light ofthe returning population, a vulnerabilityassessment was undertaken by ACF betweenOctober and November 2003. The assessmentaimed to provide an overview of themain determinants of vulnerability 2 , as wellas map vulnerability in the city, and so providequalitative and quantitative informationthat could be used both by ACF and otheragencies, to guide programming. This type ofassessment has rarely been carried out in apost-conflict urban setting.% Malnutrition706050403020Figure 2 <strong>Nutrition</strong>al surveillance in Kabul, 1995 – 2003GlobalchronicSeverechronicGlobalacuteSevereacuteMapping methodVulnerability can be delineated by twotypes: structural vulnerability and inherentvulnerability. Structural vulnerability isdetermined geographically by where onelives, which affects access to, and availabilityof, health services and quality of services,including water and sanitation and housingconditions. Inherent vulnerability is determinedby the socio-economic characteristics ofa family or household, in particular, being awoman of childbearing age, lack of regularincome and renting accommodation.100Nov May Dec Jun Dec Feb Feb Oct Mar Aug Aug Nov95 96 96 97 97 99 00 00 01 02 03 03Time of Survey/Assessment1Kabul Vulnerability Mapping, January 2004, ActionContre la Faim, Afghanistan. Internal report.2In this article, vulnerability refers to the degree ofsusceptibility to a threat, risk or shock as well as theability to cope and recover from these threats, risksor shock without jeopardizing one's future well being.(Ref: Grace, 2003. One Hundred Households inKabul: a study of winter vulnerability, coping strategies,and the impact of cash-for-work programmes onthe lives of the ‘vulnerable.’ Afghanistan Research andEvaluation Unit (AREU), Kabul).20
In addition to reviewing ACF and externalagency reports on Kabul, two levels of mappingwere used to explore types of vulnerability in thecity:i) Mapping livelihood zones. Livelihoodzones are zones that share similar characteristicssuch as sources and level of income, access toservices and infrastructure, as well as the waypopulations respond to food insecurity orshocks, using the resources and opportunitiesavailable to them.ii) Mapping highly vulnerable gozars (neighbourhoods)within the city zones.The livelihood zone mapping was based onpurposive sampling of representative neighbourhoodsin the city. Unlike rural populations,where livelihoods are determined largely byagro-ecological factors and access to markets,urban livelihoods are also shaped by communityassets in a given neighbourhood, i.e. services,infrastructure and housing.Baseline information on the city’s infrastructure,including electricity coverage, water andsanitation, health centres, roads and markets,was aggregated to provide a score with which todelineate relatively homogenous livelihoodzones. Zones comprised of districts (numbered1-16). A series of workshops were then held withrepresentatives from ACF Kabul’s technicaldepartments, in order to define key criteria ofvulnerability for Kabul city. Using these criteria,the team ranked the different neighbourhoods inthe city through qualitative scoring, and delineatedrelatively homogenous zones.<strong>Field</strong>work<strong>Field</strong>work took place over a three weekperiod in October 2003. Depending on the size ofeach livelihood zone, one to two neighbourhoods(gozars) were selected to represent the zone.Once selected, the team then underwent furtherdata collection at the community and householdlevel. On average, 50 household interviews(randomly selected) were conducted in eachzone. A total of six extensive group discussionswere also held with women throughout the city,to gain an understanding of women’s specificvulnerability. At least one male focus groupdiscussion was also conducted in each livelihoodzone.The team identified the most vulnerablegozars, regardless of their zone location, to ensurea qualitative coverage of these areas. Focusgroup and semi-directive interviews wereconducted in these gozars, to develop a profile ofliving conditions and coping strategies.In parallel, discussions were also held withreturnee families in different parts of the city.ACF carried out a systematic screening at Pol ECharki encashment centre 3 and the team metwith several returnee families, to understandtheir living conditions upon arrival in Kabul.Main findingsThe assessment allowed ACF to draw a mapof the livelihood zones (see figure 1).Howeverwithin the livelihood zones, vulnerabilitiesvaried. The inner city area (Zone A-centralBazaar), for instance, had serious house destructionbut enjoyed nearby services and job opportunities.One of the most significant factorsdetermining the level of vulnerability of an areain the city of Kabul was its relation to the urbanplan, laid out in the late 1970s. This city ‘masterplan’, as it is known, determined the quality ofroads, drainage and sewage networks, the levelof water provision and the quality of housing.Under serviced areasEleven gozars stood out within their zones ashighly vulnerable. These neighbourhoods physicallylie outside the boundaries of the city‘master plan’ and are not, therefore, included inany present or future scheme to improve accessto basic services. However, the large number offamilies in these gozars rules out any possibilityof either expelling or relocating inhabitants. Theoriginal urban plan, laid out in 1978, was onlymeant for a population of 2 million people. Thesevulnerable gozars are not really targeted by themunicipal authorities, although exceptions havebeen made for drinking water projects. Currentwater access, and above all, sanitation conditionsin these areas raise serious public healthconcerns and need immediate intervention, e.g.water access, night soil and refuse collection.Within these 11 highly vulnerable gozars, fiveappeared to be specifically at risk due to theirphysical location, i.e. they were hillside communitiesor new settlements in dry riverbeds. Thelack of available land in the city has pushedpeople to settle in more and more precariouslocales. Hundreds of new houses being built illegallycan be seen all over the city, the majorityperched on steep hillsides. These are characterisedby greater exposure to environmentalhazards, poor water and sanitation, with latrinesbeing difficult to empty. They are also at higherrisk in case of earthquake or flooding.Status as a returnee does not seem to determinevulnerability. Indeed, many people returningfrom Pakistan and Iran arrived with assets. Theyalready had social networks in Kabul, they receivedsignificant assistance from international andnon-governmental organisations, and had atleast one able-bodied male in the household.Similarly, those in temporary settlements werefound to be no more vulnerable than othergroups.<strong>Field</strong> Article<strong>Nutrition</strong> and food security analysisIn November 2003, ACF conducted a nutritionand household food security survey. This confirmeda consistent decrease in levels of severemalnutrition (see figure 2), especially over thepreceding year. The survey also highlighted anannual peak in prevalence of malnutritionduring the summer months, which was probablylinked to the increase in diarrhoeal diseases alsoobserved at this time of year (see figure 3). Thechanges in prevalence of diarrhoea occur slightlyearlier than changes seen in prevalence of malnutrition.Food security had improved over the last year.Out of 526 households surveyed, 53% affirmedthey were able to eat more than the same timelast year. Yet food remained a significant concern,ranked third after income and owning one’s ownhouse as the main preoccupation. Food was alsothe primary reason people gave for taking loans.As the bulk of Kabul’s population is almostexclusively dependent on purchase of food, thelack of regular incomes directly affects food securityat a household level. People regularly reducefood quality, i.e. stop buying eggs or meat, whenfaced with insufficient income. In the poorestareas, i.e. central Bazaar (A), low serviced east(D), and in remote north (H) in figure 1, there arefewest vegetable gardens and therefore evenmore limited self- reliance. Indeed these threezones are also the most crowded, with some ofthe lowest average salaries.Household informationResults from the household level data collectionshowed an overwhelming reliance on dailywaged labour throughout the city. One third ofall primary income earners were unskilled,waged labourers. In seven of the nine zones, over30% of the household’s primary income earnersrelied on daily wage labour. Once again, zones A,D and H were more at risk compared to others,with more than 40% of family’s primary incomeearners being dependent on daily wage labour.In the areas with the poorest housing, like centralBazaar, or where there is a lack of services, likepoor serviced east (D), income levels werelowest. Besides the actual amount of earnings,the insecurity linked to daily labouring rendersthe household more vulnerable to unexpectedshocks and decreases coping capacity.Discussions with informants revealed that theirregularity of income was seen as even more ofa problem than the limited daily wage rate.3An encashment centre is a centre set up by UNHCRthrough which the entire returnee population should passin order to be registered for humanitarian assistance.Figure 3Comparison of number of admissions to ACF SFCs and the numberof diarrhoea cases diagnosed in ACF MCH (Aug 2001 – Aug 2003)30002500No. of admissions2000150010005000Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug.01 02MONTHS03Admissions in ACF SFCDiarrhoea cases in ACF MCH21
Change language