Housing Diagnostic in Greater Baku: Growing informality in The City of Winds
Preliminary FindingsWorld Bank Land and Poverty Conference– March 2015
Core team: Yarissa Sommer, Paula Restrepo Cadavid, Ashna Mathema, Hadji Huseynov, Luis Quintero, Mihir Prakash & Rodrigo Munoz
With support Poverty (Nishta Sinha, Nobuo Yoshida, Alexander Skinner & Mortiz Meyer), Land and Social teams
1. Context2. Research questions 3. Methodology4. Preliminary results 5. Conclusions
Caucasus – Caspian sea
Incorporated in Soviet Union in 1920 & proclaimed its independence in October 1991
Rich in oil and natural gas
GNI per capita 14,870 USD
54 percent of the population live in urban areas
1988-1994* Azerbaijan-Armenia war (Nagorno-Karabakh region) = IDPs
More than 25 percent of the country’s population lives in Greater Baku Region
• Newly created Housing Department in the Ministry of Economy (Client)
• Diagnostic of the Housing Sector in Greater Baku Region in two phases:
– Phase I: primary data collection through a household survey (Completed and financed under Norwegian MDTF) + land use assessment based on Google Earth.
– Phase II: qualitative assessment to further identify bottlenecks to access affordable housing (Inclusive cities TF …)
• This Presentation: Methodology and Results from Phase I with some preliminary conclusions
1. Context
1. Context2. Research questions 3. Methodology4. Preliminary results 5. Conclusions
• What is the current state of the housing stock?• What is the current access to basic services, neighborhood quality and
access to social and transport infrastructure?• What types of tenure are predominant in Greater Baku? (owners vs.
renters, informal vs. formal) : scale and type of informality• How do households finance the purchase of their dwellings and recent
housing improvements?….
…. Across population groups, tenure types and districts.
2. Research questions
1. Research questions 2. Methodology3. Results4. Conclusions and follow-up
1. Context2. Research questions 3. Methodology4. Preliminary results 5. Conclusions
• Household Survey designed is representative of the Greater Baku Region and covered:– Total 1,200 households over 14 districts– Included Internally Displaced People (IDPs) living in collective centers– Covered the spectrum of housing typologies – informal to formal
3. Methodology (household survey)
• A number of innovations were used to allow for better data collection and quality control: – Tablets (real time data) - Capi– Geo-referencing households– Pictures of housing structures
3. Methodology (household survey)
• Maps: – Google Earth – Time series analysis (2004 - 2009 - 2014)– Fourteen categories of development patterns = Greater Baku Region classified
3. Methodology (land use)
1. Context2. Research questions 3. Methodology4. Preliminary results 5. Conclusions
RESULTS HOUSEHOLD SURVEYHousing: Age, Type, Quality of Structures, access
and accesibility
The majority of the housing stock in GB was constructed in the early 70s. There was a sharp reduction in the construction of housing after 1990. Only around 8 percent of housing was constructed between 1990 and 1999 and around 3 percent after 2000.
4. Results: the majority of the housing stock was constructed in the early 70s
0.0
05
.01
.01
5.0
2D
en
sity
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Question: When was your house/apartment constructed approximately?
Year of construction.
On average, the housing stock in the eastern and western suburbs is younger than the one in Baku. However the majority of new housing units (After 2000) are being constructed in Baku and in the Eastern Suburbs.
4. Results: Eastern Sub. and Absheron have a younger housing stock
Baku
Sumgayit
Western
Absheron
Eastern
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Before 1940 Between 1940 and 1969 Between 1970 and 1989 Between 1990 and 1999 After 2000
Percentage of housing stock built in each time period
After 2000 (60 percent single family houses) which contrasts to that seen in earlier decades (25 percent). Most of the new single family houses are being constructed in the Eastern Suburbs or in Absheron district.
4. Results: Most of the new constructions are in the form of single family houses
Before 1940
Between 1940 and 1969
Between 1970 and 1989
Between 1990 and 1999
After 2000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE APARTMENT ROOM IN HOUSE/APARTMENT COLLECTIVE CENTER
Percentage of housing stock built in each time period
69 percent of households reported having one or more problems with housing structures and common areas.
The main issue reported was no- working lifts in multi-family buildings and issues with the maintenance of common areas: building façade, dirty common areas.
Buildings constructed between 1970 and 1989 were the worst performers in terms of quality of structure (78 percent reporting having one or more problems).
4. Results: Most households report having issues with structures and common areas
Leak roof, walls, floors or ceiling
broken windows, frames or floor
visible cracks in floor or walls
lift not workingcommon areas dirty
common areas in dilapidated state
building façade in a bad state
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Percentage of households reporting problems
Better of
Striking differences are visible between IDP and non-IDP households.
59 percent IDP report leaks in roof, wall or floors against 17 of non-IDPs
60 percent IDP reported visible cracks in floor or walls against 18 percent of non-IDPs
Similar patterns can be visible across different levels of informality. Those who do not have any proof of ownership reported having more issues with their structures compared to those having proof of ownership.
4. Results: Quality of housing structures and common areas is much worse for IDPs, informal…
Percentage of households reporting problems
Leak roof, walls, floors or ceiling
broken windows, frames or floor
visible cracks in floor or walls
lift not workingcommon areas dirty
common areas in dilapidated state
building façade in a bad state
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Non-IDP household IDP household
Better of
Overall access to most services in the Greater Baku Region is high but a large proportion of households reported having no heating.
Access to electricity, piped gas and sewer connection is almost universal…
But only 36 percent of households reported having heating (either central heating, public or private) and still 11 percent don’t have individual flush toilets.
4. Results: Almost universal access to water, electricity, sewer connection…
Percentage of households with access to…
Individual piped water connection
Electricity
Piped gas
Sewer connection Individual flush toilet
Heating (Private or public)
Solid Waste regularly collected
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Everyone
Better of
Differences in access are visible between IDPs and non-IDPsLargest differences are in access to individual flush toilets (Most IDPs still live in collective centers with shared sanitation facilities).
Similar patterns are visible across different levels of informality. Those who do not have any proof of ownership have overall lower access to basic services when compared to those having proof of ownership.
4. Results: but large disparities in access to services among IDPs and informal
Percentage of households with access to…
Individual piped water connection
Electricity
Piped gas
Sewer connection Individual flush toilet
Heating (Private or public)
Solid Waste regularly collected
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Non-IDP household IDP household
Secondary schools and bus stops are accessible to most of the population in Greater Baku within a 15 minutes distance*.
And most people feel it is safe to walk outside…
But only 49 percent of households reported having paved roads in good condition (outside their dwelling) and only 60 percent thought they had sufficient public spaces in their neighborhood.
4. Results: Most households have secondary schools and bus stops nearby…
Secondary school < 15 minutes
Bus stop < 15 minutes
Hospital < 15 minutes
Paved road and in good conditionSafe to walk outside
Street well lit at night
Sufficient public spaces
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Everyone
Better of
Differences in accessibility are visible across the territory…. Eastern suburbs are overall the worst performers (Figure on the left). and also between IDP and non-IDP households. Similar patterns are observed when comparing households with and without proof of ownership (Figure on the right).
4. Results: again, important differences in “accessibility” across the territory, IDPs & informals
Secondary school < 15 minutes
Bus stop < 15 minutes
Hospital < 15 minutes
Paved road and in good conditionSafe to walk outside
Street well lit at night
Sufficient public spaces
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Baku Eastern Suburbs
Secondary school < 15 minutes
Bus stop < 15 minutes
Hospital < 15 minutes
Paved road and in good conditionSafe to walk outside
Street well lit at night
Sufficient public spaces
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Non-IDP IDP
As expected the level of satisfaction with housing is correlated with the indicators mentioned in the previous slides. The Eastern suburbs, which are the worst performers in access, accessibility and quality of structures have the highest percentages of dissatisfied households. Higher levels of dissatisfaction are also found for IDPs and those who don’t have proof of ownership: 68 percent and close to 80 respectively.
4. Results: level of satisfaction with housing linked to access, quality, neighborhood indicators…
Western Suburbs
Absheron Sat. City
Sumgayit Sat. City
Baku
Eastern Suburbs
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Level of satisfaction by zone
RESULTS HOUSEHOLD SURVEYHousing: Tenure and access to finance
Results from the survey confirm high ownership rates. 92 percent of households reported being owners.
The highest levels of informality are found for housing units constructed between 1990 and 1999 and after 2000. 17 percent of households living in units constructed after 2000 don’t have any proof of ownership and an additional 31 percent have land documents but do not have extracts from the real estate Registry.
4. Results : High ownership rates and growing informality
before 1940
1940-1969
1970-1989
1990-1999
after 2000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Nothing Registration card Contract with builderNotarized contract on sales donation Certificate of homestead land title Extract from real Estate registry
Proof of ownership by year of construction
The highest levels of informality are found in Yasamal, Suraxani and Sabunchu districts. On the contrary Binagadi and Narimanov have the lowest levels of informality.
4. Results : Informality is spatially concentrated in some of the districts
Binagadi
Narimanov
Sabail
Nasimi
Sumgayit
Pirallahi
Absheron
Khazar
Khatai
Nizami
Garadagh
Sabunchu
Suraxani
Yasamal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Nothing Registration card Contract with builderNotarized contract on sales donation Certificate of homestead land title Extract from real Estate registry
Proof of ownership by district
Most households in Greater Baku obtained their housing units through the privatization process. But some differences can be observed across zones. In the Western Suburbs more than 20 percent of households reported received their dwelling from the State or company.
4. Results : There is [very] low access to mortgages
Baku
Eastern Suburbs
Absheron Sat. City
Sumgayit Sat. City
Western Suburbs
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Privatized Purchased without mortgage Inherited / Gift Provided by State / companyCooperative Occupied Other
How did you obtain the dwelling in which you are currently living?
None of the households reported having mortgages and most of those who purchased their homes did it using their own savings. 69 percent used own savings as the sole source of financing, 22 percent used a combination of savings, gifts and loans from family members or friends, around 4 percent exchanged their previous dwelling as a form of payment, 3 percent received dwelling as a gift from family or friends, and only 1 percent used microcredits.
Around 12 percent of households reported making a housing improvement in the past 12 months. 77 percent of housing improvements involved minor improvements (painting, sealing walls) and were financed using own savings (72 percent).
4. Results : Access to finance is limited both for buying and improving housing
Own savings70%
Savings + Gifts + Loans from
family/friends22%
Exchange for another dwelling4%
Gift from family/friends3% Microcredit
1%
Housing Finance sources
The rental market remains small (only 8.4 percent reported being renters) and mostly informal. Among all renters only around 28 percent have written contracts and 72 percent have verbal contracts which reflects the high level of informality of the rental housing market.
Most renters live in Baku City (72 percent) and to a lesser extent in the Eastern Suburbs (13 percent) and Sumgayit Satellite City (13 percent).
4. Results: limited and informal housing market
Most households are owners (from LITS survey)
4. Results : Findings in line with other studies
Uzbek
istan
Macedonia
Tajik
istan
Kosovo
Ukraine
Moldova
Lithuan
ia
Azerbaij
an
Kyrgyzs
tan
Romania
Georgi
aSe
rbia
Bulgaria
Armen
ia
Bosnia
and Herz
egovin
a
Kazakh
stan
Croati
a
Hungary
Poland
Slove
nia
Mongolia
Monteneg
roRussi
a
Slova
kia
Belaru
s
Estonia
Italy
Czech Rep
ublicLat
via
France
Swed
en
Great B
ritain
Turke
y
Turke
y
German
y0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
OtherOwnedRented
Very few have mortgages (from LITS survey)
4. Results : Findings in line with other studies
Azerbaij
an
Uzbek
istan
Kyrgyzs
tan
Georgi
a
Kazakh
stan
Belaru
s
Macedonia
Mongolia
Monteneg
ro
Slove
niaSe
rbia
Estonia
Slova
kia
Czech Rep
ublic
Albania
Hungary
Swed
enFra
nce0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not stateCOOPERATIINHERITEDPRIVATIZEPURCHASED BUILT WITHOUT MORTGAGAPURCHASED BUILT WITH MORTGAGE
RESULTS LAND USE ANALYSIS
4. Results: Land use typologiesConfirm a lot of urban growth is happening in the form of agricultural land subdivisions in the periphery and satellite towns
4. Results: Land use typologiesGrowth “unplanned/informal” plotted housing near hazardous surface Oil-Wells
4. Results: Land use typologiesInfill development I: growth of high rise apartments in Baku city
4. Results: Land use typologiesInfill development II: Inner courtyard squatter housing
1. Context2. Research questions 3. Methodology4. Preliminary results 5. Conclusions
2. Conclusions: Preliminary findingsThe household survey confirmed: - Poor state of the housing stock, in particular buildings constructed during the 70s and 80s- Growth and sprawl of informality – mostly following a sprawl-type development and to a
lower extent in the form of infill development- Almost universal access to services (Electricity, water supply…) and overall good levels of
“access/proximity” to social infrastructure and public transport infrastructure (bus stops). Roads are the worst performers in terms of “accessibility” indicators.
- High ownership rates and limited (and mostly informal) rental market + limited access to housing finance (buying housing and housing improvements)
- While the overall picture looks OK a more disaggregated analysis shows a different story: - High disparities in access to services, accessibility, quality of housing across groups
(IDP, non-IDP), across tenure types and across the city (Eastern Suburbs vs. Baku)- Broad spectrum of informality: new luxury buildings not registered (Contract with
Builder), squatter settlements occupying private and public land, land divisions…- Next steps: completion of Phase II (Identify bottlenecks of accessing formal affordable
housing, wrap up of study and dissemination).
2. Next steps: Phase II
While registering property has gotten easier, the country is still lagging behind in the Doing Business Ranking in terms of dealing with construction permits….
To be continued
Thanks!!!
IDPs and households and those who do not have ownership documents** have the lowest space available per person and the highest level of overcrowding* measured as people per room.
*We use two indicators for overcrowding: (i) Persons per Room (PPR) and (ii) Meters per person. A benchmark of 1.5 PPR is used to assess overcrowding levels. **Households were asked which documents they had as proof of ownership and classified across different levels of informality. Households having nothing are considered the most informal while households having an extract from real estate registry are considered as the most formal.
4. Results: Overcrowding indicators
IDP Nr. roomsSurface (sq.mts) Household size
Sq.mt per person
People per Room
Overcrowding (PPR >1.5)
NO 2.60 56.0 3.83 17.0 1.62 40%YES 2.04 43.1 4.18 11.5 2.53 69%
Proof of ownership Nr. roomsSurface (sq.mts) Household size
Sq.mt per person
People per Room
Overcrowding (PPR >1.5)
Nothing 1.80 37.3 4.20 9.8 2.89 76%Registration card 2.42 56.6 4.20 15.5 2.03 57%Contract with builder 3.00 75.0 4.00 18.8 1.33 0%Notarized contract on sales donation 2.52 27.2 3.83 12.1 1.50 39%Certificate of homestead land title 3.82 103.1 4.54 24.5 1.32 25%Extract from real Estate registry 2.65 56.8 3.85 17.1 1.57 38%
Differences in access are also visible across districts… Khazar is overall the worst performer in terms of access while Binagadi and Narimanov are the best performers.
4. Results: Access to services
Individual piped
water connection Electricity Piped gas Sewer
connection Individual flush
toilet
Heating (Private or
public)
Solid Waste regularly collected
Binagadi 97% 100% 96% 100% 92% 59% 84%Narimanov 98% 100% 91% 99% 92% 46% 93%
Khatai 99% 100% 98% 99% 88% 30% 96%Yasamal 99% 100% 96% 99% 79% 44% 83%Sumgayit 96% 100% 100% 100% 95% 7% 97%
Sabail 100% 100% 100% 98% 81% 56% 58%Nizami 84% 100% 82% 93% 86% 51% 84%Nasimi 100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 10% 69%
Suraxani 84% 100% 94% 77% 84% 46% 57%Absheron 100% 100% 100% 94% 88% 30% 30%Sabunchu 91% 100% 95% 88% 60% 24% 69%Garadagh 100% 100% 97% 100% 63% 0% 61%Pirallahi 100% 100% 100% 90% 10% 0% 100%Khazar 50% 96% 74% 65% 54% 45% 67%
Best performers
Worst performers
Percentage of households with access to…
4. Results: Land use typologiesGrowing spatially towards satellite towns: agricultural land subdivisions…