Ecostat

Government of Kerala 	
 
 
 
 
 	
 	
 
 
 
 	
 	
 
Directorate of Economics & Statistics  	
March 2017 	
Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 5th Floor, Vikas Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram â695033. Telephone:0471 -
2305318,   Fax:0471 -2305317

Contributions 	
District Office (E&S)	 	Research Officer	 	
Kollam	 	Sri. Z.Shajahan	 	Sri.Felix Joy	 	
Thrissur	 	Sri.C.R.Viswanathan	 	Smt.Dhidhika.C	 	
Wayanad	 	Sri. E.V.Premarajan	 	Smt.Mumtuz Kazim (ADO)	
 	
Supervision 	- Dis	trict Level	 	Deputy Directors & Research Officers	 	
Supervision 	- Taluk Level	 	Taluk Statistical Officers & Statistical Inspectors	 	
Data Collection  and data entry	 	Statistical Investigators, Taluk Statistical Offices	 	
 
 	
Officers of Survey Design Division	 	
Joi	nt Director	 	Smt.C.S.Lathakumari	 	
Research Officer	 	Sri.Kiran.S	 	
Statistical Assistant 	- Grade.I	 	Sri.Manoj.K.R.	 	
Statistical Assistant 	- Grade.I	 	Smt.Shibi. C. R	 	
 
 	
Software development	 	
Sri.Abhilash K.V 	 	Research Assistant, Computer Division

Contents 	
 
 	
Executive Summary   1-7 	
Chapter-1  Introduction    9-14 
Chapter-2  Some basic characteristics of the dwellings  15-18 
Chapter
-3  Housing Status
 
19-28 
Chapter-4  Housing Conditions: Major facilities for living
 
29-40 
Chapter-5  Education
 
41-46 
Chapter-6  Generalised Deprivation   47-48 
Chapter
-7  Facilities and Availability of Major Amenities  49-50 
Chapter
-8  Observations for LIFE project  51-56 
Chapter
-9  Policy Context   57-61 
Appendix -I 
Detailed Tables    T1
-T96

Table Index 	
Table No.  Title 	Page 
Number 	
1 	Dwelling Characteristics	 	T. 1- T.12 	
1.1 
 Percentage distribution of type of ration card possessed  	T.3 	
1.2  Number 	of families living in the houses for each type of ration card 
possessed
 	
T. 4 	
1.3 
Percentage distribution of religion for each social group  	T.5 	
1.4  Per
centage of houses having at least one active fisherman  	T.6 	
1.	5 	Percentage 	of 	families residing in fisherman houses	 	T.7 	
1.6 	Percentage distribution 	of 	families according to 	number of 	
members  in the fisherman houses  	
T.7 	
1.7 	Percentage distribution of dist	ance of sea from the houses	 	
having  active fisherman in the sea shore region  	
T.8 	
1.8  Percentage distribution of housing status 
 	T.8 	
1.9  Percentage distribution of type of building
 	T.9 	
1.10 	Natural Region wise average living area (in sqr.ft.)	 	T.9 	
1.11 	Pe	rcentage 	of houses having girls in the age group 0	-15 years for 	
each social group	 	T.10 	
1.12  Number and percentage of permanently
 locked houses 	T.11-T.12 	
2 	Status of Houses constructed under Housing 
Schemes	 	
T.13-T.42 	
2.1  Number of households living per
 100 houses 	T.15 	
2.2 	Percentage distribution of families by	 type of household for 	
each household social group  	
T.16

Table No. Title 	Page 
Number 	
2.3 	Percentage distribution of families by status of ownership or 
construction of any house for each household social group  	
T.17 	
2.4 	Percent age distribution Status of House for each ration card type	  	T.18 	
2.5 	Percentage distribution 	of Status of house 	according to 	number of 	
members  in the house  	T.19 	
2.6 	Percentage distribution of status of house of fishermen families	 	T.20 	
2.7 	Percentage dis tribution of houseless families for each rations card 
type	
  	
T. 21 	
2.8 	Percentage distribution of houseless families according to 	number 	
of members  in the house	 	T.22 	
2.9 	Percentage distribution of houseless fishermen families	 	T.23 	
2.10 	Percentage distribu	tion of families by status of assistance from 	
any housing scheme for each household social group  	
T.24 	
2.11  Percentage distribution of families who were provided land 
along with housing scheme assistance for each household 
social group
 	T.25 	
2.12 	Percentag	e distribution of 	present 	status of house under 	
housing scheme  for each household social group  	
T.26 	
2.13 	Percentage distribution of 	present	 status of house	 constructed 	
with assistance from housing scheme  	
T.27 	
2.14A-2.14C	 Percentage distribution of Reason	 for incompletion of the 	
house  constructed with assistance  	
T.28-T.30 	
2.15A-2.15B	 Percentage distribution of Reason for incompletion of the 	fishermen	 	
house  constructed with assistance  	
T.31-T.32 	
2.16 	Percentage distribution of 	constructions used locally	 av	ailable 	
resources and adopted low cost building methods	 	
T.33 	
2.17 	Percentage distribution of constructions 	used locally	 available 	
resources and adopted low cost building methods  	T.34

Table No. Title 	Page 
Number 	
2.18 	
Percentage distribution of constructions by fishermen families 	who	 	
used  locally available resources and adopted low cost building 
methods  	T.35 	
2.19 	Percentage distribution of	 financial status after construction of 	
the house	 	
T.36 	
2.20 	Percentage distribution of financial status after construction of 
the house	 	
T.37-T.38 	
2.21 	Percentage 	of 	houseless families	 over total families surveyed 	
and sample number of houseless families identified	 	
T.39 	
2.22 	Percentage of houseless families having land and houseless 
and landless families	 	
T.40 	
2.23 	Percentage distribution of 	area of	 land 	possessed by	 houseless 	
families  having own land  	
T.41 	
3 	Major facilities for Living	 	T.43-T.78 	
3.1 	Percentage distribution of houses having only one room for each 
social group	 	T.45 	
3.2 	Percentage distribution of women only houses having only one 
roo m for each social group	 	T.45 	
3.3 	Percentage distribution of houses by 	facility	 of bathroom for each 	
social group	 	T.46 	
3.4 	Percentage distribution of houses having access to bathroom	 	T.47 	
3.5 	Percentage distribution of	 fisherman houses having 	facility of	 	
bathroom  	T.48 	
3.6 	Percentage distribution of fisherman houses	 having a	ccess to 	
bathroom  	T.48 	
3.7 	Percentage distribution of distance of the dwelling from the bathing 
place  	T.49 	
3.8 	Percentage distribution of d	istance 	of the fisherman houses	 from the 	
ba thing place 	T.49

Table No. Title 	Page 
Number 	
3.9 	Percentage distribution of houses by use of latrine 
T.50 	
3.10	 	Percentage distribution of reason for not using latrine	 	T.51 	
3.11	 	Percentage of	 fisherman houses by use of latrine	  	T.52 	
3.12 	Percentage of couples having separate	 room 	over no of couples 	
surveyed	  	T.53 	
3.13 	Percentage of aged persons having separate room over no of 	aged 	
persons	 	T.53 	
3.14 	Percentage distribution of houses having aged persons for each 
ration card type	 	T.54 	
3.15 	Percentage distribution of women only hous	es having aged persons 	
for each ration card type 	T.54 	
3.16	 	Percentage distribution of type of kitchen	 	T.	54	 	
3.17 	Percentage distribution of houses by first priority of usage of fuel	 	T.55 	
3.18 	Percentage distribution of houses by second priority of usage of fuel	 	T.56 	
3.19 	Percentage distribution of houses by type of floor	 	T.57 	
3.20 	Percentage distribution of houses by type of wall  T.
58 	
3.21 	Percentage distribution of houses by  type of roof	 	T.59 	
3.22 	Percentage of fisherman houses  by type of floor, wal l and roof	 	T.60 	
3.23 	Percentage distribution	 of houses by	 availability of doors for all 	
rooms  	T.61 	
3.24 	Percentage distribution	 of houses by	 availability of proper doors for 	
bathrooms  
 	
T.62 	
3.25 	Percentage distribution	 of houses by	 availability of stron	g front	 & 	
back doors  	T.63

Table No. Title 	Page 
Number 	
3.26 	Percentage distribution	 of houses by	 availability of doors for all 	
windows 	T.64 	
3.27 	Percentage distribution	 of houses by	 availability of courtyard for 	
children for playing  	T.65 	
3.28 	Percentage of women only houses  by priv acy and security  
T.66 	
3.29	 	Percentage of fisherman houses by 	privacy and security	 	T.66 	
3.30 	Percentage of fisherman houses by status 	of proper doors for 	
bathrooms  	T.67 	
3.31 	Percentage of fisherman houses by status of courtyard  
T.67 	
3.32 	Percentage dist	ribution of house	s by major source of drinking water 	
for each household social group  	T.68 	
3.33 	
Proportion of house	s getting sufficient drinking water from the 	
major source during the different months of the year for each 
household social group  	T.69 	
3.34 	Percentage of fisherman houses by p	rincipal source of drinking 	
water 	T.70 	
3.35 	Percentage of fisherman houses by a	vailability of sufficient drinking 	
water from the principal source  of drinking water 	T.70 	
3.36A-3.36C	 Percentage distribution of house	s by d	istance to the source of 	
drinking water  	T.71-T.73 	
3.37 	Percentage 	of 	fisherman houses 	by 	distance from house to the 	
principal source of drinking water  	T.74 	
3.38 	Percentage distribution of house	s by the facility of electricity for 	
each household social gr oup 	T.75 	
3.39 	Percentage distribution of house	s by the facility 	of 	Proper lightings 	
to children and aged for each household social group  	T.76 	
3.40 	Percentage of fisherman houses by status of electricity 
T.77 	
4 	Education	 	T.79-T.84

Table No. Title 	Page 
Number 	
4.1 	Percentage distrib	ution of gender of members in the age group 5	-25 	
years for each social group	 	T.81 	
4.2 	
Percentage distribution educational level of persons in the age 
group of 5 -25 years, who never attended or currently not pursuing 
education for each household social gro up	
 	
T.82 	
4.3 	Percentage distribution of students in the age group 5 -25 years by 
status of having separate study room for each social group  T.
83 	
4.4 	Percentage distribution of students in the age group 5 -25 years by 
status of having chair & book shelf for  each social group T.
84 	
5 	Facility and Availability of major Amenities	 	T.85-T.96 	
5.1-5.20 	Percentage distribution of Distance of the house to the nearest 
facility, availability of some amenities	 	T.87-T.96

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
1 	
Executive Summary 	
I.  Human settlements problems are of a multidimensional nature. They differ 
from individual to individual, rural to urban, and obviously from country to 
country both in terms of quantity and quality. The poor people in rural area 
with limite d income and know -how construct their own houses with 
available resources, as a result in most cases, the quality of housing is 
miserable with insufficient basic services, unhygienic surroundings, lack of 
access to safe water and proper sanitation. In Kera la the housing issues are 
more qualitative than quantitative.  
II.   Compared to the other states in India Kerala hold a better situation owing to 
many Kerala specific development schemes implemented by governments 
starting from land reforms. For the one lakh hou ses scheme to the people's 
plan campaign period Kerala  achieved tremendous progress in housing and 
even introduced total housing scheme by the local self governments. Unlike 
in other states, Kerala's people utilised the benefits of governmental housing 
sch emes more effectively. Unfortunately the benefits of state interventions not 
seems to have reached fully, at least to the people living in rural areas 
particularly the tribal areas and in sea -shore.  
III.   As the part of India Strengthening Statistical Project ( ISSP) MoSPI, GOI 	
directed to conduct a survey on housing sector of Kerala with 100% CSS. 
Accordingly, DES submitted a proposal to government and the same was 
approved vide G.O(Rt)No.417/16/Plg. dated 04/11/2016. Meanwhile, t o 
solve the housing problems of the poor, Kerala Government  has announced a 
new welfare and ambitious mission in the  state.	 â  Kerala  LIFE  - Here LIFE 	
Stands  for   âLivelihood,  Inclusion,  Financial  Empowerment	,â. To provide 
data support for the LIFE Mission Kerala, the Government direct ed DES to 
conduct the housing survey in line with the programme objectives of LIFE 
mission. Hence, this report.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
2 	
IV .  The time allowed for the study is only three months i.e.,   October -December 
2016. Due to the time constraint the study was limited   to three d istricts viz., 
Wayanad, Thrissur and Kollam bas ed on topographical importance i.e., the 
highland, the midland and the lowland plain, and the coastal plain. Wayanad 
district was taken as highland zone to ensure the representation of Tribals. 
The other two d istricts, Thrissur is considered for midland region, and 
Kollam district for low land region and coastal zone.  
V.  Of the 177 Panchayaths in the 3 selected districts 38 Grama Panchayaths were 
selected in the first stage, and from these local bodies, 136 wards  were 
selected in the second stage and all the residential houses in these wards were 
surveyed in detail. Thus primary data from 57,517 houses were collected and 
compiled using an online data entry software.  	
OBSERVATIONS OF THE STUDY	 	
i.  The data gathered fro m 57,517 sample houses reveal that 63,551 families are 
accommodated in the  total surveyed households  i.e. , 110  households per 
100 houses . Among the three regions surveyed   highland region has the 
highest occupancy ratio of 114 families per 100 houses (91%  of the houses 
are single family occupancy and 9% of the houses are more than one family 
occupancy). 	
(Refer Table â  2.1)	 	
ii. Another finding is that 15% of the households are houseless , of which 11% 
are  houseless and landless and 4% are houseless with own land . Region 
wise data show that houseless families are high in sea- shore (17.5%) and 
highland (17.2%).   In midland compared to the other two regions houseless 
are less (12.4%).  	
(Refer Table  â 2.3)	  
iii.  The social group wise data shows that houseless families are  slightly  high 
among fishermen  (17.8%) compared to SCs   (17.7%) and STs  (14.7%). 	
(Refer 	
Table â 2.4, 2.6)	 	
iv .  Of the houses surveyed 5.7% are women only houses. Out of this 6.7% is 
houseless (5.2% single woman member only households and 8.4% women

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
3 	
only houses w ith 2 or more members) 	(Refer Table â  2.5 & Statement -3.5)	 	
v.   In ST women only houses 5.4% are houseless and for SCs it is 8.3%. Which 
means in women only houses in respect of houseless SCs out number STs. 	
(Refer Table â  2.5)	 	
vi.  The data also shows that out of  the houses surveyed 3.1% families are single 
woman only houses among them 5.2% are houseless.  However in ST 
category no single woman only house is found houseless. But for SC 
Category it is 6.6%. 	
(Refer Table â  2.5 & Statement -3.5)	 	
vii.  Out of the total sample  families 4.6% do not possess Ration Card among 
them 29% are houseless.  On analyzing the houseless families with respect 
to type of ration card possessed, it is seen that around 11.9% are APL card 
holders and 17.8% are BPL card holders. 	
(Statement -3.4)	 	
viii.  Out of the families without ration  card 19.2 % STs, 36.9% SCs, 31.1% OBCs 
and 24.4% Others are houseless. 	
(Refer Table â  2.4) 	  
ix .  The status of ST families having  APL ration card 15% are houseless and in 
BPL families houseless are comparatively less (13.7%) .	
 (Refer Table â  2.4)	 	
x. In houseless single woman houses among SCs 84.6% are landless . The 
corresponding figure for the fishermen houses it  is 86.3%  which is higher 
than SCs. 	
(Refer Table â  2.8 & 2.9)	 	
xi.  It is also seen that among the houseless families 71.8% STs, 81.3% SCs. 
77.7% OBCs, 68.5% Others and 86.3% fishermen families are not having 
land . The incidence of landlessness is higher among Fishermen and SCs. 	
(Refer Table â  2.7 & 2.9)	 	
xii. Region wise data on houseless families  shows that in highland 58.4%, in 
mi dland 71.6%, in lowland 82.4% and in sea -shore 86.5% are landless also.	
 
(Refer Table â  2.22)	
 	
xiii.  Among STs 72.1% in highland and 66.7% in midland are landless families. 
In the case of SCs in highland 73.8%, in midland 78.8%, in lowland 83.2% 
and in sea -shore 88.7% are also landless families. 	
(Refer Table â  2.22)	 	
xiv. The data on area of land possessed by houseless families shows that 9.2% 
households  in  highland , 19% in midland, 19.6% in lowland and 33.6% in

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
4 	
sea -shore own  less than or equal to 4 cents. 	(Refer Table  â 2.23)	 	
xv.  Among houseless STs in highland17.5% STs possess land less than or equal 
to 4 cents but the figure in respect of SCs it is 4.8% in highland. These 
shows  in highland SCs have more area of land under their possession 
than STs.  	
(Refer Table â  2.23)	 	
xvi.  Out of the total 57,517 houses surveyed, 32% of the houses are reported to 
have girls in the age group 0â15 years.  23,699 girls in the age group of 0â15 
years are found in  the 18,258 sample houses. 	
(Refer Table â 1.11 & Statement -2.5)	 	
xvii.  The data reveal that the average living area in houses for all families is 830.7 
sq.ft. For  STs it is 415.7 sq.ft., which is much less  compared to the other 
social groups like  SCs (563.3 sq.ft.) ,OBCs (849.5 sq.ft.) and Others (922.3 
sq.ft.). 	
(Refer Table â  1.10)
(Refer Table â 1.1)	 	
xix. The data on availability of r ooms in households shows that 23.2% STs, 
19.5% SCs and 42.6% OBCs have  only one room in their houses. 	
(Refer Table 	
â  3.1)	 	
xx.  About  9% of the houses in the highland area are not electrified. In respect of 
ST  houses in  highland round 32% and 3.1 % SC houses in h ighland are 
found not electrified. 	
(Refer Table â  3.38)	 	
xxi. Also 15% of the women only houses in the highland region is not electrified 
and the figures for STs it is 26%.  In the case of women only houses around 
3% are not electrified. 	
(Refer Table â  3.38)	 	
xxii.   In  the households surveyed, 19.2% of the houses have aged persons out of 
which the presence of aged persons in ST houses is 1.8%, in SC houses 7.8% , 
in OBC houses 54.2% and in other houses  it is 36.3%. 	
(Refer Table â  3.14)	 	
xxiii. Around 23% of the women only hous es have aged persons and out of which 
the figure is 1.8% in ST families, 10.3% in SC families, 52.4% in OBC families 
and 36.5% in others families. 	
(Refer Table â  3.15)

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
5 	
xxiv.   Another observation is that 27.8% aged people have separate bath  attached 
rooms in thei r family , 55.5% have separate not bath attached rooms and 
16.7 % have no separate room for them. 	
(Refer Table â  3.13)	 	
xxv.  In security point of view strong doors at least in front and back entries of the 
building can provide protection to the women and childre n. The data shows 
that  many houses  are not fitted with strong doors or windows. Out of the 
total houses in highland 25.2%, in midland 17.6%, in lowland 13.4% and in 
sea -shore 17.2% houses have no strong doors. In fishermen families 18.2% 
houses have no str ong doors. 	
(Refer Table â 3.25, 3.29)	 	
xxvi.  In women only houses 25.8% houses have no doors for all rooms,   12% 
houses have no proper doors in their bathrooms, 25.1% houses have no 
strong doors in front and back of  the house and 22% have no shutters for 
windows.  In ST houses (59.6%) and SC houses (51.3%) have no strong d oors 
in their houses which show  the high deprivation in quality of housing of 
these communities. 	
(Refer Table â  3.28)	 	
xxvii. Data regarding the status of Kitchen shows that 67.2% houses have separate 
kitchen with water tap in their houses. 29.9% houses have kitchen attached 
with house without water tap. 2.8% houses have no separate kitchen in 
their house. 	
(Refer Table â  3.16)	 	
xxviii. The data on usage of cooking fuel in sample households reveal that among 
APL Ration Card holder families 53% are using LPG  and 47% Firewood. In 
BPL families 65% are using firewood  and 35% families  uses LPG.  In 
Anthyodaya 83% are using firewood as cooking fuel. 	
(Refer  Statement â  4.13)	 	
xxix. With respect to access to latrine in highland STs 19% families have no 
latrines  and  31.5% houses have no bath room of their own. 1.3% families 
are not using their latrines owing to many reasons. In fisherman households 
1.6% families have no latrine and 2.7% families have no bathroom facilities.	
 
(Refer Tab les â 3.3, 3.5, 3.9, 3.11)	
 	
xxx.   For the students of highland 68.2% have no separate study room in their 
houses, in the midland 75.1%, in lowland 75.7% and in sea- shore it is 74.7%. 	
(Refer Table â 4.3)

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
6 	
xxxi.  About the availability of chair, table and book shelf for the  students, in the 
highland 44.5%, in midland43.5%, in lowland 51.6% and in sea -shore 49.5% 
have no such facilities in their houses. The facilities in houses provided for 
the students are not conducive for their education.	
  (Refer Table â  4.4)	 	
xxxii.  The data reg arding status of construction of houses under various 
government housing schemes reveal that in highland 41.7%, in midland 
62.1%, in lowland 34.4% and in sea- shore 29.8% are incomplete due to 
various reasons. In midland region incomplete houses are more in  number 
compared to other regions. 	
(Refer Table â  2.12)	 	
xxxiii.  Of the houses availed government assistance before 1996 period, 4.5% are 
still remaining incomplete and for the period 1996 -2001 14.9% houses are 
incomplete. During the period 2002 -2007 incomplete houses are 19.6% and 
during 2008 -2012 the  incompletion is 33.2%  and after that the incompletion 
is 27.8%. 	
(Refer Table â  2.14-C)	 	
xxxiv.  It is seen that in midland locally available resources and low cost building 
methods were extensively utilised for construction of  houses. In midland 
56.1% houses utilised locally available resources and 19.1% adopted low 
cost building technology for housing construction. Among STs compared to 
the other social groups use of locally available resources (19.3%) and low 
cost methods of housing (7.2%) is not impressive.	
  (Refer Table â  2.16 & 2.17)	 	
xxxv. Considering the financial status after the construction of houses it is seen 
that 27% families became indebted to various financial agencies in highland. 
In midland 55.6%, in lowland 64.5% and i n sea-shore 42.3% became 
indebted. Indebtedness due to house construction with the assistance of 
government is high in lowland.  	
(Refer Table â  2.19)	 	
xxxvi. In respect of drinking water facilities in 68% of families have wells as 
principal source of drinking wate r and 25.9% have pipe water. In highland 
63% families have well water and 26.7% have pipe water. In sea- shore 72.5% 
are depended on piped water. 	
(Refer Table â  3.32 & Statement â  4.10)	 	
xxxvii. The deprivation index computed for five necessities for well being such   as

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
7 	
drinking water, sanitation, electricity, quality of housing and educational 
facilities reveal that incidence of deprivation is significantly high in respect 
to quality of housing and educational facilities. 	
(Refer Chapter 6)

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
8

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
9 	
Chapter 1  	
Introduction 	
1.1  Introduction   
1.1.1  The safety offered by the habitat, people desire to move up for meeting 
the demands of identity, status, aesthetics, emotional satisfaction, livelihood support 
systems, linkage with community etc. which make the home an organic entity. A 
well  designed home would be harmonious with nature and connected with social 
Infrastructural facilities, providing an enabling environment. Home sets the pattern 
in the development of the character of the individual as well as the value system 
which shapes the  society. Deprivation of a decent housing, in  fact, becomes a threat 
to social harmony and economic prosperity.   
1.1.2  Housing is also an investment activity and provides impetus to 
economic growth. It has both forward and backward linkages. Because of its forwa rd 
and backward linkages, even a small initiative in housing will propel multiplier 
effect in the economy through the generation of employment and demand.  This has 
been a rowing concern to address various forms of housing deprivation particularly 
in develo ping countries, here with the growing population pressure, meeting the 
housing needs of all families is a real challenge.  
1.2  Background: 
1.2.1  Recognizing the critical importance of human settlement in developing 
countries, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  and the International 
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, have recognized the right to 
housing as a human right.  It asked the states to take appropriate steps to ensure 
realization of this right. India is a signatory to both the Declaration and covenant. 
Article 19(1) (e) of the Constitution of India states as: âAll citizens shall have the 
right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.â This provision is 
construed as a right to residence / home / shelter. In pursuance of th is, India 
embarked on the path of  making âhousing for allâ a reality.  
1.2.2  In Kerala, t he rapid  urbanization , the service led growth pattern of the

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
10	 	
economy, the high density of  population, the inadequate supply -demand dynamics 
of the land, vital role of the lo cal bodies  consequent to the 73rd and 74th 
Constitution al amendments , weak regulatory structure  in the housing sector, distinct 
problems of the marginalized  sections of the society, geographic specificity of the 
regions, growth of the informal labour marke t, the livelihood concerns, the 
ecological and environmental sensitivity of the development activities etc are  some 
of the major factors calling for designing the housing policy of the State  and so  it 
was   announced  in 1994 and lat er modified in 2011. The legislations and initiatives by 
the state government after 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendments and the 
revision of Panchayat Raj, and Municipal Acts conferred the mandate for 
implementation of housing schemes to economically weaker sections  to the Loca l 
Self Government Institutions.  
1.2.3  At present, the major State government aided housing schemes for the 
economically  weaker sections are the EMS Total Housing Scheme, Tribal Housing 
Scheme, New  Suraksha Housing Scheme, schemes of SC & ST departments, 
Fisherme n Housing  Scheme, Bhavanasree, Asraya and MN Lakshamveedu Punar 
Nirmana Padhathi. Centrally  sponsored housing schemes such as Indira Awas 
Yojana, Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana  (VAMBAY), Integrated Housing and Slum 
Development Project (IHSDP), Basic Services  to Urban Poor (BSUP), National 
Fishermen Welfare Fund (NFWF), Interest Subsidy scheme  for Housing the Urban 
Poor (ISHUP), Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP) etc. are also  aimed at 
providing financial assistance for constructing houses to the poor and   economically 
weaker s ections in the State. Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal  Mission 
targets, acceleration of supply of land, shelter and infrastructure with special  
attention to provision of basic service to urban poor and upgradation of slums. The  
newly  introduced scheme of Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) also focuses on resolving the 
emerging  needs of poor people in slums due to urbanization.  However, a number of 
Government departments/agencies like Fisheries Department,  SC&ST Development 
Departments, Rur al Development Department, Revenue Department,  Kudumbasree, 
Local Self Government Institutions, KSHB, Co- operative institutions, NGOs, CBOs,

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
11	 	
Charitable Organisations etc. are also active in providing shelter to the economically  
weaker sections substantiall y. 
1.3  Relevance of the Study : 
1.3.1  Many researchers, agencies and institutes studied Keralaâs housing 
scenario , particularly the qualitative and quantitative shortage in housing and even 
critically evaluated the housing schemes but their data varies in many respec ts due 
to  many reasons including  technical grounds. The common finding was that even 
after governmental interventions th e social, economic, and ethnic groups depending 
on the primary sector for their livelihood are living in extremely poor quality houses. 
Their habitats are characterized  by overcrowding, lack of basic amenities and 
facilities such as drinking water and sanitation. The rich minority in the villages 
lives, on the other hand, in luxurious houses with all built -in facilities and 
conveniences co mparable to the standards observed in urban  centers of advanced 
market economies leading to large inequality.   
1.3.2  The public housing schemes launched by the State government from 
time to time have received wide acceptability among the people to the extensive 
awareness programmes of the Government and the literacy level of the population.  
Nevertheless, data sources reveal that about 2 lakh families are still landless and 5 
lakh families are houseless(EMS Housing Scheme). According to Census 2011 
houseless famil ies are only 5759 which is no doubt due to the concept or definition of 
Families they had adopted. The Socio Economic Caste Census 2011  reports  the figure 
as 2621 families.  This mismatch in data highlights  the need for a thorough survey on 
housing scenario  of Kerala. It may also  appear paradoxical that the governmental 
interventions in housing for the poor do not yield the desired results in a state like 
Kerala which is considered a s unique model of social  development all over the 
world.  This situation warr ants a study on the qualitative and quantitative shortage 
in Housing in the State and so the present survey was  conducted as a pilot and a 
detailed Housing survey  would be proposed latter if the government decides  so.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
12	 	
1.4   Objectives   
The main objectives of t he study were to:- 
ï¼  A ssess the landless and houseless families/households in rural areas. 
ï¼  Examine  the qualitative and quantitative shortage in Housing.  
ï¼  A nalyse regional inadequacies disparities, and inequalities in housing.  
ï¼  Record  the  status of houses sta rted construction under various housing 
schemes or f inancial support from gov ernment or other agencies and also 
to record the reasons for if the status of houses is incomplete , dilapidated, 
demolished  etc. 
ï¼  Trace the extent to which the ongoing housing sche mes make use of the 
capabilities  of the rural poor, locally available resources, and cost -effective 
technologies.  
ï¼  Identify  the facilities available in houses  in general and the  facilities 
available to women, children and aged people.  
ï¼  D iscuss the action pro grammes for solving the housing problems of the 
poor in the selected regions within a time frame.  
1.5  Design of the Study : 
1.5.1  In order to conduct the survey with limited resources and time it  was 
confined to three districts viz., Wayanad, Thrissur and Kollam . These districts  were 
selected  based on  topographical importance   i.e., the physiographic zones: the 
highlands, the midlands and the lowland plain, and the coastal plain  as the problem 
of housing differs in many respects depending on the topography of the place . The 
district of Wayanad  was taken as highland zone which also covers the Tribal 
population having acute problem of housing. Thrissur district is considered for 
midland region, and Kollam district for low land region and coastal zone.  
1.5.2  Primary  data  was  collected through field enquires from all the houses 
(the basic unit for collecting data) in the selected sample wards.  Discussions with the 
Local Self Government authorities and personnel having knowledge about the issue 
in the survey area w ere also done to en sure the reliability of the data gathered 
through field enquiry.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
13	 	
1.5.3  Data Collection : The method of data collection wa s direct enquiry 
method using a predesigned survey schedule. The field work was  conducted by the 
Statistical Investigators working in the Taluk Statistical Offices of the Department in 
addition to their normal duties.  
1.5.4  Sample : A three stage  sampling method wa s adopted for the survey. In 
the first stage, 20% of the Panchayat s from the three districts  were  selected using 
circular systematic samp ling method. In the second stage, 20% of the wards were  
selected from these  Panchayaths using circular systematic sampling method.  In the 
third stage, all the houses in the selected wards were  surveyed. 
1.5.5 	There are 1 77 Panchayaths  in the 3 selected districts , out of which 38 
Grama  Panchayaths  were  selected , and from these local bodies , a total of 136 ward s 
selected and all the residential houses in these wards were surveyed in detail. 	
Statement 1.1: Sample number of houses surveyed. 
Sl No  	District  	
Natural Region  	
Highland 	Midland 	Lowland 	
Lowland with  	
sea-shore  	Total 	
1 	Wayanad	 	        7,385 	 	            -	    	             -	    	                     -	           7,385 	 	
2 	Thrissur  	              -	         21,056 	 	       4,161 	 	               1,818 	      27,035 	 	
3 	Kollam	 	              	-                	37 	 	     	20,771 	 	               	2,289 	      	23,097 	 	
  	All	 	        7,385 	 	     21,093 	 	     24,932 	 	               4,107 	      57,517 	 	
1.6 Contents of this Report  
1.6.1  This report is spread out in nine  chapters and discuss i n detail the 
results of â Study on Qualitative and Quantitative condition in housing in rural 
Kerala 2016-17â. Information was  collected through a schedule of enquiry  which was 
broadly classified into  5 groups. Firstly, information on the general characteri stics of 
the house like its ownership, possession of ration card, religion , social group, living 
area, girls below 15 years of age  etc . which were collected from all the houses of the 
selected wards and detailed in chapter two of the report.  1.6.2 Secondly, info rmation on status of houses constructed under various 
housing schemes was collected . Details of houseless and landless families, scheme 
funding department, present  status of the house constructed under the housing 
scheme, reason for incompletion etc. were covered  and given in the third chapter.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
14	 	
1.6.3  In the fourth chapter, Major facilities for living like  facility of 
bathroom, access to bathroom, access to latrine, Particulars of housing characteristics 
and micro environment, such as living area,  number of marrie d couples having 
separate room, number of aged people having separate room, type of kitchen,  type  
of wall, floor and roof, particulars of living facilities, such as principal source of 
drinking water, sufficiency of drinking water from principal source during different 
seasons etc.  are included.  
1.6.4  In fifth  chapter , educational level, status of attendance and reasons for 
discontinu ance/dropping  out from studies,  availability of separate study room for 
students, availability of chairs, tables and book shelves f or students, were collected 
for all household members aged between 5 and 25 years . 
1.6.5  The natural regional and social group inequalities with respect to non -
income dimensions of social deprivation are computed out of the data gathered from 
the sample househol ds and included in the sixth chapter.  
1.6.6  Information  on distance to travel to avail some of the major   facilities 
l ike Gram Panchayath headquarters, Village Office, Bus stop, Railway Station, 
Metalled road, School s etc. were covered  and presented in the seven th chapter. 
1.6.7  Observations for LIFE project are included in the eighth chapter and 
policy conclusions are added in the ninth chapter.  
1.6.8  Since the tables, statements and charts in this report are presented as 
âpercentage distributionâ the figures are rounded -of f. Thus, while using the ratios 
from the survey results, it is to be noted that the accuracy of these derived 
aggregates will be limited to the number of significant digits available in the ratios. It 
may also be kept in mind that the sample sizes for some  characteristics may not be 
adequate enough for getting sufficiently reliable estimates and interpretation there of 
should be made with caution.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
15	 	
Chapter 2  	
Some basic characteristics of the dwelling s 	
2.1 Basic Characteristics  
2.1.1  House/Dwelling: Every structure, te nt, shelter etc. is termed as a 
house/dwelling, if it is used for residential  purpose.  All buildings exclusively used 
for economic activity were not included in the survey.   
2.1.2  It is seen that 5.7% of the houses have only women members. Highest 
percentage of  women only houses were seen in midland and sea shore regions. 
Among social groups, highest percentage of women only houses found in SC 
community.  
Statement 2.1: Percentage of women only houses over total houses surveyed. 
Sl No.   Natural Region  	
Social Group 	
ST 	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1  Highland  	6.0 	3.8 	4.5 	3.3 	4.4 	
2 Midland  	8.3 	8.0 	6.8 	5.8 	6.5 	
3 Lowland  	.0 	4.7 	5.1 	6.2 	5.3 	
4 Lowland with sea -shore 	-  	3.3 	6.9 	4.7 	6.5 	
   All 	6.1 	6.2 	5.7 	5.6 	5.7 	
2.1.3  An active fisherman is a fisherman (marine or inland) or allied w orker 
who has membership in the Fishermen Welfare Fund Board. Allied workers includes 
beach workers, small scale fish distributors, fish curers, peeling workers and small 
scale processing plant workers who are not members or not   eligible to get 
membership , in any other Statutory Welfare Scheme. As per the results of the 
survey,  around 37% of the houses in the sea shore   area have at least one active 
fisherman. Among those houses having atleast one fisherman in the sea shore  area, it 
is seen from the survey that around 22% of the houses in the Thrissur district are  
situated  within 50 meters from the sea  and in Kollam 46% of the houses are situated 
between 50 to 100 meters from the sea.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
16	 	
 Statement  2.2: Percentage  distribution  distance from the sea of house s (having at least one 
fisherman) located in the low land region having sea shore . 
Sl No.  District  Distance of house from the sea 
(in mtr) 
Sample 
houses 
having active  fisherman  	
Less 
than 50   50 to 100  101 to 
500  Above 
500  
Total 	
1 
Thrissur 
21.7 21.9 29.1 27.3  100         392  
2 
Kollam  
13.7  46.3 18.1 21.9  100      1,135  
3 
All 
15.7 40.0 21.0 23.3  100      1,527  	
 	
2.1.4 
Living area of a residential house  is the total floor area of each of the 
floor of the  house and it includes the square area of all utility roo ms where the 
members of that house can move freely . It is seen that living area changes from 
district to district and region to region.  Among the different regions, houses in the 
high land area were having comparatively lesser area.  	
Statement 2.3: District wise and natural region wise average living area ( in sqft.)  
Sl No.  District  Highland Midland  Lowland  	
Lowland with 	
sea-shore  	All 	
1 	Wayanad	 	648	 	- 	- 	- 	648	 	
2 	Thrissur	 	- 	876	 	920	 	734	 	873	 	
3 	Kollam	 	- 	802	 	852	 	728	 	839	 	
All	 	648	 	876	 	863	 	731	 	831	 
 	
2.1.5  It is seen that around 92% of the houses surveyed are owned/owner 
occupied. In midland region around 94% of the houses are owned. Table   1.6 in 
annexure gives details about natural region wise housing status.  	
Statement 2.4: Percentage distribution of status of house.  	
Sl No 	Housing status  	Percentage 	Sample Houses  	
1 	Owned	 	91.6	 	52,679	 	
2 	Leased/Rented	 	7.5	 	4,293	 	
3 	Others	 	.9 	545	 	
All	 	100	 	57,517	 
 	
2.1.6 Out of the total 57,517 houses surveyed, 23,699 girls in the age group of 
0â 15 years were present in the 18,258 sample houses. i.e . 32% of the houses were 
having girls in the age group 0 â15 years. On analyzing the data social group wise, it 
is seen that 36% of the total ST houses surveyed and 30% of the SC houses surveyed

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
17	 	
are having girls in the age group 0 â15 years. And on analyzing  this among the 
regions, 35% of the houses surveyed in highland region and 34% of the houses 
surveyed in sea -shore area are having girls in the age group 0 â15 years. A lso seen 
that   74% of the houses have only one girl in the age group 0 -15 years and three  or 
more girls were found in 3.3% of the houses.  
Statement 2.5: Percentage of houses having girls in the age group 0-15 years.  
Sl No.  	
Number of girls 
in a house  	
Sample houses 
having girls in the 
age group 0 -15 years 	
Total girls in the 
age group 0-15 
years 	
% of houses having 
girls in the age 
group  0 -15 years 	
1 	One 	13,554 	13,554 	74.2 	
2 	Two  	4,098 	8,196 	22.4 	
3 	Three or more  	606 	1,949 	3.3 	
  	All 	18,258 	23,699 	100 	
2.2  Permanently locked houses  	
2.2.1 	During the survey, it was noticed that a number of houses were found  
closed permanently over a period of time and number of such houses were counted 
for each surveyed ward.  	
 
Statement 2. 6: Number and percentage of permanently locked houses.  
District  Total Wards 
surveyed Total Surveyed 
Houses
  Total Locked 
House
   % over total 
houses
 	
(1)  (2)  (3)  (4)  (5)=4/(2+3)*100  	
Kollam  52 23,097  961 3.99 
Thrissur  66 27,035  1,114 3.96 
Wayanad  18 7,385  250 3.27 
All  136 57,517  2,325 3.89

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
18

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
19	 	
Chapter 3  	
Housing Status  	
3.1 Housing Status -Introduction:   
3.1.1  Lack of affordable housing is one of the m ost critical issues facing rural 
communities in the State. In Kerala, rural housing is provided through various 
housing schemes of the Government . In this chapter an effort is made to record the 
status of houses started/completed construction under various  housing schemes or 
financial support from government or agencies and also to record the reasons if the 
status of houses is incomplete, dilapidated, demolished etc. Data also collected to 
trace the extent to which the ongoing/completed housing schemes make  use of the 
locally available resources, and cost -effective technologies.  
3.1.2  Definition of family :  A traditional family  usually  consists of a father, 
mother and children. The parents and children make a family is a basic definition; 
however, in the purview of  the survey, a broader definition is necessary.  Social unit 
of  one  or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption and living  in  one 
roof , and who can or  eligible to go for a separate housing unit  at any time they wish , 
constitute a family.  We use the term household to represent such a family  in this 
chapter . 
3.1.3  It is seen from the results that 63,551 families or households are  found 
living in the total surveyed 57,517 sample houses. In other words 110 households are 
found living per 100 houses, the highest ratio is found  in highland region, where it is 
114 per 100 houses. 
Statement 3.1: Number of households living per 100 houses (region wise) 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
No of 	
households per 	
100 houses 	
No of sample 
houses visited 	
No of sample 	
families 	
1 Highland 	114 	7,385 	8,408 	
2 	Midland	 	110	 	21	,093	 	23,101	 	
3 	Lowland	 	110	 	24	,932	 	27,396	 	
4 	Lowland with sea	-shore	 	113	 	41	,07	 	4,646	 	
  	All	 	110	 	57,517	 	63,551	 
 	
3.1.4  It is seen from the survey  data  that 2 or more families are  found living

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
20	 	
in 9% of the houses and 91% of the houses are single  family occupied.   
Statement 3.2: Number of families living in the houses.  
Sl No. 	Number of families in a house  	Percentage 	Sample Houses 	
1 	One 	91.0 	52,345 	
2 	Two  	7.6 	4,383 	
3 	Three  	1.3 	724 	
4 	Four and above  	0.1 	65 	
  	All 	100 	57,517 	
3.1.5 Out of the  total houses surveyed, 1% of the houses are  single male only 
houses, 3.1% single female only houses and 5.7% of the houses are women only 
houses ( Single Female Houses  + Women Only âwith 2 or more members ). 
Statement 3.3: Number of houses 	
according t o members	 living in the houses.  	
Sl No. 	Type of house according to members  	Percentage 	Sample Houses 	
1 	Single Male Houses  	1.0 	589 	
2 	Women only 
houses 	
Single Female   	3.1 	1,802 	
3 	Two or more females  	2.6 	1,500 	
4 	Others 	93.2 	53,626 	
5 	All 	100 	57,517 	
 
3.2   Means of livelihood classes  
3.2.1  The households living in a sample house have been classified into 
some broad categories depending on their occupations. In case the members of a 
household have pursued more than one occupation, the broad categories have been 
determ ined on the basis of major source of income during the last 365 days. These 
categories are termed as means of livelihood classes or simply household type.   
3.2.2  Household type has been classified into 5 major categories viz. âSelf -
employed in agriculture, Self -employed in non -agriculture, casual labour in 
agriculture, casual labour in non -agriculture, regular wage/salary earning and 
others (which includes all types of remittances including pension)â . It is seen that

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
21	 	
around 45% of the households belong to the âca sual labour in non-agricultureâ  
category,  generally. In the case of highland areas specifically, around 21% of the 
households belong to âself -employed in agricultureâ category and 32% belong to 
âcasual labour in agriculture â category.   
3.3  Status of ownership of house  
3.3.1  Land ownership and a roof over ones head are the two most essential 
things to social transformation in rural Kerala . Owning an own house outright is one 
of the dreams and biggest challenge for every person in the universe. From the 
previous chapt er, we saw around 91% of the houses surveyed are owned houses. 
Apart from this, during the survey, data were collected from  those households who 
have  completed  construction  and from those  households who are presently 
constructing / initiated processes of construction of their home .  
3.3.2  It is seen that around 
54,066 of the total sample households 
of 63,551 (i.e. 85% of the total sample 
households) constructed/presently 
constructing/initiated the process of 
construction of a house. This implies 
that the rest 15% of the households 
are houseless. Out of this 15% 
houseless families (i.e. 9,485 sample households) 76% of the households do not own 
any land. More precisely, out of the total 63,551 sample households 15% are house 
less,  11% are houseless and landless  and   the rest of 4% are houseless but have own  
land.  
3.3.3  On analyzing the houseless families with respect to type of ration card 
possessed, it is seen that around 12% of APL card holders and around 18% of the 
BPL families are houseless. As we mentioned earlier, we  have 4.6% of the families 
(i.e. 2,940 sample families) donât have even a ration card. Out of those families not 
having ration card, 29% are houseless.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
22	 	
Statement 3.4.: Percentage of houseless families according to type of ration card.  
Sl No. 	Type of Ration 
Card possessed  	
Status of House 	
Either owned or 
constructing any 	
house 	
Houseless Families 	All 	
Sample 
Families	 	% 	
Sample 
Families	 	% 	
Sample 
Families	 	% 	
1 	APL  	31,995 	88.1 	4,326 	11.9 	36,321 	100 	
2 	BPL 	19,177 	82.2 	4,144 	17.8 	23,321 	100 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	819 	84.5 	150 	15.5 	969 	100 	
4 	No Ration Card  	2,075 	70.6 	865 	29.4 	2,940 	100 	
5 	All 	54,066 	85.1 	9,485 	14.9 	63,551 	100 	
 
3.3.4 In the case of women only families (with 2 or more  members ) 102 
families are living per 100 houses. (i.e. 1,530 families in 1,500 sample house s). It is 
seen from the survey  results  that 5.2% of the single fe male households and 8.4% of 
the women only households (with 2 or more members) are houseless. i.e. 13.6% (5.2 
+ 8.4) of the women only households are houseless.  
Statement 3.5.: Percentage of houseless families according to members.  
Sl No. 	Type of house 	
according to members  	
Status of House 	
Either owned or 
constructing any 	
house 	
Houseless 
Families  	All 	
Sample 
Families  	% 	Sample 
Families 	% 	Sample 
Families 	% 	
1 	Single Male Houses  	532 	90.3 	57 	9.7 	589 	100 	
2 	Women 
Only 
Houses  	 
Single 
Female  	1,708 	94.8 	94 	5.2 	1,802 	100 	
3 	Two or more 
females  	1,401 	91.6 	129 	8.4 	1,530 	100 	
 	All 	3,641 	92.9 	280 	7.1 	3,921 	100 	
3.4 Status of ownership of land 
3.4.1  Landlessness has been a key issue especially in a land dearth S tate like 
Kerala.  From the previous section we have the information that, out of the total

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
23	 	
63,551 sample households 15% are house less, 11% are houseless and landless  and 
t he rest of 4% are houseless but hav e own land.  
Statement 3 .6.: Percentage of housel ess and landless families (Households).  
Sl No. 	Status of surveyed families 	Percentage 	Sample 
households  	
1 	Either owned or constructing any house  	85.1 	54,066 	
2 	Houseless families having land 	3.6 	2,293 	
3 	Houseless and landless families  	11.3 	7,192 	
4 	All 	100 	63,551 	
 
3.4.2 Following statement gives percentage of houseless and landless 
families by type of ration card possessed for each social group.  According to the 
survey, most of the homeless and landless families belong  to the marginalised 
sections of  society:  SC, ST and OBC . It is also seen that around 86.3% of the 
homeless fisherman families are landless  and in case of women only houses, around 
2.6% of the homeless families are also landless . 
Statement 3.7.: Percentage of houseless and landless families (soci al group wise). 
Sl No. 	Social Group 	
Type of Ration Card possessed  	Sample No of 
Houseless & 	
landless 
families  	APL 	BPL 	AAY  	
No Ration 	
Card 	All 	
1 	ST	 	4.8	 	56.5	 	30.1	 	8.6	 	100	 	209	 	
2 	SC	 	26.5  62.1  1.8  9.6 100 	884 	
3 	OBC	 	44.1	 	45.4	 	0.7	 	9.8	 	100	 	4,627	 	
4 	Others	 	52.9	 	37.6	 	0.5	 	9.0	 	100	 	1,472	 	
5 	All	 	42.6	 	46.2	 	1.6	 	9.6	 	100	 	7,192	 	
Statement 3 .8.: Percentage of houseless and landless families according to members . 
Sl No. 	Type of house according to members  	Percentage 	
Sample No of 	
Houseless & landless 	
families  	
1 	Single Ma	le Houses	 	0.7	 	49	 	
2 	Women Only Houses   	Single Female	 	1.1	 	79	 	
3 	Two or more females	 	1.5	 	106	 	
4 	Other member houses	 	96.7	 	6,958	 	
All	 	100	 	7,192

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
24	 	
3.5  Status of Houses Constructed Under Housing Schemes  
3.5.1  The focus of the  study is on the suitability of housing sche mes for the 
rural poor. Presently  a number of  government and quasi -government agencies are 
providing different housing scheme for the rural poor (economically weaker 
sections) in the State. T he major departments involved in the promotion  of housing   
are  Department of Revenue, Rural  Development Department, SC/ST Development 
Department , LSGD, Fisheries Department etc .  
3.5.2  From the previous section we have the information that 85% (i.e. 54,066 
sample households) of the households either own or constructing a house. Out of 
this 85% households, 9,665 (i.e. 18% of 54,066 sample households) have 
constructed/have been constructing their house with the assistance of some housing 
schemes assisted by the departments mentioned in the previous paragraph. The 
break -up is giv en in the statement 3.9 below.  
Statement 3.9: Distribution of housing assistance  by funding department  
Sl No.   Fund providing 
department  	
Assistance from housing 	
scheme 	
Provided 	land also 	by	 	
funding dept.  	
Percentage 	sample 
households 	Percentage 	sample 
households  	
1 No housing schemes  82.1 	 44,401 	 	  -  	 	  -  	 	
2 SC development   0.6 	      311 	 	24.4       76  	
3 ST development   0.7 	      404 	 	22.3       90  	
4 Fisheries department  0.7 	      405 	 	5.7       23  	
5 Revenue   0.1 	        76 	 	34.2       26  	
6 LSGD  14.5 	   7,857 	 	13.1  1,032  	
7 Others  1.1 	      612 	 	25.2     154  	
  All  100.0 	 54,066 	 	14.5  1,401  	
 	
3.5.3  Out of those houses constructed/have been constructing with the 
assistance of various housing schemes, 55.4% of the houses are completed in all 
respect s. In the case of constructions funded by LSGD, 46.6% are incomplete and the 
figure for the same for SC developmen t department is 64%. Statement 3.10 below 
gives a detailed picture of this.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
25	 	
Statement 3.10:  Percentage distribution of status of houses constructed with the assistance of 
various housing schemes. 
Sl No.  Fund providing 
department
 	
Construction 
completed  
Incomplete  
Not started 
Construction /project 
abandoned 
All 
Number of  sample 
households * 	
1 SC development  35.4 64.0  0.6 0.0 100        311  
2  ST development  59.2 37.1  0.0 3.7 100        404  
3  Fisheries department  78.8 21.2  0.0 0.0 100        405  
4  Revenue   67.1 32.9  0.0 0.0 100          76   
5 LSGD  52.8 46.6  0.3 0.3 100     7,859  
6  Others   80.5 19.2  0.2 0.2 100        610  
  All  55.4 43.9  0.3 0.4 100     9,665  	
* constructed/constructing house with assistance of any of the housing schemes   	
3.5.4  From the previous section, it is seen that 44.6% of the houses 
constructed/constructing with assistance of housing scheme were either incomplete 
or not started/project abandoned. An effort was made to grab the reason for the in -
completion of the project. It is seen that insufficient fund for the prescribed area is 
the reason for incompletion of around 78% of the houses.  	
Statement 3.11: Reason for incompletion of the construction 
Sl No. Reason for incompletion  Percentage 	
Number of 
sample 
households	* 	
1 	Cost of materials increased	 	4.4	 	          	191 	 	
2 	Scarcity of materials	 	1.0	 	            	45 	 	
3 	Insufficient fund for the prescribed area	 	77.8	 	       	3,350 	 	
4 	Fund not released in time	 	4.3	 	          	187 	 	
5 	Legal problems	 	0.6	 	            	25 	 	
6 	Area more than prescribed area	 	1.3	 	            	55 	 	
7 	Work in progress	 	6.4	 	          	274 	 	
8 	Others	 	4.2	 	          	181 	 	
9 	All	 	100.0	 	       	4,308 	 	
*Where current status of  construction is incomplete/not started/abandoned      	
3.5.5  Statement  3.12 below gives the funding department wise distribution 
of reason for the incompletion of the construction. From the statement it can be seen 
that major reason for incompletion of constructions was insufficient fund received 
for the prescribed area. Reason for incompletion of 4.3% of the construction was 
â delayed release of fund â by the funding department. Also it is  seen that work is

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
26	 	
progressing in 6.4% of the constructions.  
Statement  3.12:  Percentage distribution of funding department wise reason for the 
incompletion of home  construction  
Sl No.  Reason for incompletion  	
SC 
development  
ST development  
Fisheries 
department  
Revenue  
LSGD 
Others  
All  	
1  Cost of materials 
increased
  3.0 
0.6 2.3  0.0 4.7 7.6 4.4 
2 Scarcity of materials  1.0 1.2 1.2  4.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 
3 Insufficient fund for the 
prescribed area
  86.1 
44.8 69.8  92.0 78.8 79.0 77.8 
4  fund not released in time  4.0 9.7 10.5  4.0 4.1 0.8 4.3 
5 Legal problems   0.5 4.8 0.0  0.0 0.4 0.8 0.6 
6 Area more than prescribed 
area
  0.5 
3.0 1.2  0.0 1.2 1.7 1.3 
7 Work in progress  2.0 24.8  11.6  0.0 5.8 3.4 6.4 
8 Others   3.0 10.9  3.5 0.0 4.0 5.9 4.2 
9 All  100 100 100  100 100 100 100 
10 Number of sample 
households*
 	        	
201 	 	
       	
165 	 	
         	
86  	
     	    	
25  	
    	
3,712  	
       	
119  	
    	
4,308  	
*Where current status of construction is incomplete/not started/abandoned      	
3.6 Saving cost of construction and indebtedness  
3.6.1  In addition to the financial assistance from the various housing 
schemes, households also  spend monetary and non -monetary resources to complete 
their construction. Non -monetary component includes materials from home, own 
labour, and free material including locally available resources. The cost of any 
construction can also be reduced by adopting any low cost housing methods. Kerala 
State Nirmithi Kendra and COSTFORD are the premier agencies involved in the 
promotion  of cost-effective and appropriate building technologies  in the State.  
3.6.2  As mentioned  earlier that  9,665 sample households (i.e. 18% of 54,066 
sample households) have constructed/have been constructing their house with the

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
27	 	
assistance of some housing schemes offered by various departments. Out of these, 
around 56% of the houses constructed in midland areas used locally available 
resource s for reducing the cost of the construction. Low cost methods were also 
adopted mostly by the constructions in midland regions.  Generally speaking only 
around 12% of the houses have adopted low cost building methods to reduce the 
cost of construction. In the case of fishermen houses, the said percentage is only 
around 5 %. 
Statement  3.13: Percentage of houses  availed locally available resources and  adopted low-
cost housing methods by the  households received assistance from housing schemes 
Sl No.   Natural Regi on 	
Figures in %	 	Number of 
sample 
households * 	Used 	locally 	
available resources  	
Adopted low	-cost 	
housing methods  	
1 	Highland	 	22.6	 	8.6	 	    	2,886 	 	
2 	Midland	 	56.1	 	19.1	 	    	2,729 	 	
3 	Lowland	 	27.5	 	7.7	 	    	2,960 	 	
4 	Lowland with sea	-shore	 	30.1	 	11.0	 	    	1,090	  	
  	All	 	34.4	 	11.6	 	    	9,665 	 	
*Which received assistance from any of the housing schemes        	
3.6.3 Additional m onetary component is financed by households through 
their own resources or through interest bearing or interest- free loans from 
institutional as well as non -institutional agencies.  As per the feedback from the 
beneficiaries of various housing schemes, the major reason for indebtedness was due 
to the insufficient fund received for the prescribed area. Also, they are forced to go 
for loans as the amount  is released only after the completion of the prescribed 
construction stage.  	
Statement 3.14: Percentage distribution of households by financial status on construction of a 
house with assistance of any of the housing scheme. 
Sl No. Natural Region  Households
 financial status on construction of house  	
Number of 
sample 
households * 	Indebted to 
institutional 
agencies  Indebted to 
non-
institutional  agencies  Both
  Not 
changed  All 	
1 
Highland   11.6  6.5 8.9 73.0 100.0      2,886  
2 
Midland   29.4 15.5 10.7  44.4 100.0      2,729  
3 
Lowland   33.2 17.6 13.6  35.5 100.0      2,960  
4 
Sea -shore   22.4 10.9 9.0 57.7 100.0      1,090  
 	All  24.5 12.9 10.9  51.7 100.0      9,665  	
*Which received assistance from any of the housing schemes

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
28

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
29	 	
Chapter 4 	
Housing Condition: Major Fac ilities for 
Living	
 
4.1  Facilities for living -Introduction  
4.1.1  For the formulation of an effective housing policy and for evaluation of 
various housing programmes as well, it is essential to have a basic data on living 
conditions and basic amenities available in th e housing sector of the  State. The 
details were collected during the survey period (November and December of 2016)   
4.1.2  The following section s present  the  findings of the  basic housing 
amenities like  facility of bathroom, access to bathroom, access to latrine,  Particulars 
of housing characteristics and micro environment, such as living area,  number of 
married couples having separate room, number of aged people having separate 
room, type of kitchen,  type of wall, floor and roof, particulars of living facilities,  such 
as principal source of drinking water, sufficiency of drinking water from principal 
source during different seasons etc.  
4.1.3  Throughout this chapter, it is to be kept in mind that, 5.7% (or 3,302 
sample houses) of the total houses surveyed were exclusive ly women only houses 
(3.1%  -  single female houses and 2.6% -  having 2 or more women member only 
houses).  
4.2  Bathroom facility  
4.2.1  Bathroom facility  available to the members of the house is considered 
as  one of the  important  indicator of sanitation. For the purpose of the study, a 
bathing place which does not satisfy the criteria of a room was not considered as a 
bathroom and hence an enclosed area without a roof used for bathing purposes, or 
any living room / kitchen used for bathing purpose were not considered a s a 
bathroom.  
4.2.2  In this survey, the facility of a bathroom in a house is recorded for 
those houses having either attached (i.e., with direct access from its rooms, veranda 
or corridor) or detached bathrooms.  About 10% of the houses in the highland region

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
30	 	
we re reported to have no bathroom facility in their premises.  It is also seen that 4.9% 
of the women only houses donât have facility of bathroom.  
Statement 4.1: Percentage distribution of facility of bathroom  
Sl No.   Natural Region  	
Attached 	
with 
house  	
Detache	d 	
from 
house  	No 
bathroom  All
  S
ample 
house s 	
1 	Highland	 	56.6	 	33.4	 	10.0	 	100	 	7,385	 	
2 	Midland	 	69.1	 	29.8	 	1.0	 	100	 	21,093	 	
3 Lowland   61.5 36.1  2.4 100  24,932 
4 	Lowland with sea	-	
shore	 	55.8  41.6  2.6 100  4,107 	
 	All	 	63.3	 	33.8	 	2.9	 	100	 	57,517	 	
4.2.3 Access to bathroom:  Ac cess to bathroom is defined in terms of the 
bathroom facility that can be used by the majority of the members of the house, 
irrespective of whether it is being used or not. For the houses with bathroom facility 
(i.e., with attached or detached bathroom), i nformation were collected on whether 
the householdâs bathroom facility is for its exclusive use or shared with one or more 
households in the building. Out of those who have bathroom facility, for 97% of the 
houses, bathroom facility is for their exclusive use. In other words, It is seen that 
only a meagre section of households do not have bathrooms for their exclusive use.  
4.2.4  Distance from the bathing place: The bathing place of the household 
refers to the place which is used by majority of the household membe rs for bathing 
purpose. It may be bathroom or any place other than bathroom. An enclosed area 
without a roof used for bathing purposes will also be considered as a bathing place, 
but not as a bathroom. The distance of the bathing place from the dwelling un it was 
ascertained and recorded in such a way that if the household members use more 
than one bathing place, the one used by majority of the household members will be 
its bathing place  
4.2.5  It is seen from the following  statement that bathing place is within th e 
premises (either within dwelling or outside but within the premises) for 98.5% of the 
houses.  Bathing place is outside their dwelling premises for 2.6% of the women only 
houses.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
31 	
Statement 4.2:  Percentage distribution of distance of the house from the bathing place 
Sl No.	 	Distance from the bathing place	 	Percent	 	Sample H	ouse	s 	
1 	Within dwelling 	 	67.0	 	  38,557 	 	
2 	Outside house but within the premises 	 	31.5	 	  18,144 	 	
3 	
Outside 
premises:  	
Less than 0.2 k.m.	 	1.2	 	       	686 	 	
4 	0.2 to 0.5 k.m. 	 	0.2	 	       	10	1  	
5 	0.5 to 1.0 k.m. 	 	0.0	 	         	18 	 	
6 	1.0 to 1.5 k.m. 	 	0.0	 	           	4  	
7 	1.5 k.m. or more 	 	0.0	 	           	7  	
  	All	 	100	 	  57,517 	 
 	
4.3 Latrine facility   
4.3.1  Latrines allow safer and more hygienic disposal of human excreta than 
open defecation. Use of   latrine is defined in terms of the latrine that can be used by 
the majority of the household members, irrespective of whether it is being used or 
not. In this item information was collected on whether the householdâs latrine 
facility is for its exclusive use or shared with one or more households in the building 
or for use of households in the locality/specific section of people with and without 
payment or whether the household does not have any latrine.   
4.3.2  It is seen that 18.8% of the households belonging  to s cheduled tribe 
communities have no latrine and 1.3% of them are not using it. Specifically in case of 
high land area, it is seen that 5.5% of the houses have no latrines.  In the case of 
women only houses, 2.3% have no latrines and among them also maximum h ouses 
belong to ST community.  
Statement 4.3: Percentage distribution of use of latrine for each household social group  
Sl No. Use of  latrine    ST  SC  OBC Others  All 	
1  Exclusive use of house   73.4  93.9  96.6  97.4  95.9 
2  Common use of houses in the building   3.9   3.0  2.4  2.0  2.4 
3  Public/community latrine without payment   0.7  0.2  0.1  0.1  0.1 
4  Public/community latrine with payment   0.1  0.1  0.0  0.0  0.0 
5  No latrine   18.8  2.1  0.6  0.4  1.3 
6  Not used    1.3  0.2  0.1  0.0  0.1 
7  Others    1.9  0.5  0.2  0.0  0.2 
   All  100  100  100  100  100 	
Sample Houses    1,716    5,501    33,266    17,034    57,517   	
 	
4.3.3  Reason for not using latrine: For the households which have access to

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
32	 	
latrine but it is not used, information on the reason for not using latrine was 
collected in terms of the reas ons: viz. no superstructure, not clean/insufficient water, 
malfunctioning of the latrine, personal preference, cannot afford charges for paid 
latrine and other reasons. Wherever more than one of the reasons were applicable, 
the reason appearing first in th e list was recorded. Major reason observed for not 
using latrine was lack of super structure and malfunctioning of the latrine.  
4.4  Particulars of the dwelling   
4.4.1  Out of the sample houses surveyed, 1.2% of them (i.e. 678 sample 
houses)  are single  room houses and  in  out of women only houses, 2.7% (i.e. 90 out of 
3,302) are single  room houses. 
4.4.2  Total number of married couples in the household irrespective of their 
ages was recorded along with number of couples having separate room.  In general it 
is found that 93% of  the married couples have separate rooms. In the case of social 
group, among scheduled tribes only 67% have separate room.  
Statement 4.4: Percentage of married couples having separate room for each household 
social group 
Sl No.	 	Social Group	 	
Percentage of m	arried couples having 	
separate room	 	
1 	Scheduled Tribe	 	67%	 	
2 Scheduled Caste   91% 
3 	Other 	Backward 	Communities	 	94%	 	
4 	Others	 	94%	 	
  	All	 	93%	 
 	
4.4.3 Total number of aged persons (having age more than 70 yrs) in the 
house  are also recorded along with the information on number of aged persons 
having separate attached/non -attached rooms.  It is seen that 19% of the total 
surveyed houses are having aged person and 23% of the women only houses also 
have aged person . As per the  survey results , 26% of the aged persons of  highland 
region do not have any separate rooms.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
33	 	
Statement 4.5: Percentage of aged persons having separate room  
Sl No.	 	Natural Region	 	
Percentage of aged persons  having separate room	 	
Attached  Non-attached  All 	
1  Highland   14% 59%  74% 
2 Midland   36% 50%  86% 
3 Lowland   24% 59%  83% 
4 Lowland with sea -shore  20% 65%  84% 
  	All	 	28%	 	55%	 	83%	 
 	
4.4.4 As mentioned earlier, Living area of a residential house  is the total 
floor area of each of the floor of the house  and it includes the square area of all utility 
rooms w here the members of that house can move freely . It is seen that average 
living area of houses having aged persons varies among different social groups.  	
Statement 4.6: Average living area of houses having atleast one aged person.  
Sl No  	
Social Group 	
All Hou	ses	 	Women only houses	 	
Average 
Living Area 
(in sqft.) 	
Sample 
Houses 	
having Aged 	
People  	
Average 
Living Area 
(in sqft.) 	
Sample 
Houses 	
having Aged 	
People 	
1 	ST 	414 	198 	368 	14 	
2 	SC 	602 	862 	462 	80 	
3 	OBC 	899 	5,985 	716 	406 	
4 	Others  	967 	4,007 	779 	275 	
5 	All 	892 	11,052 	706 	775 	
4.4.5  Floor, wall and roof type: Information on the basic building materials 
with which the floor, walls and roof of the dwelling unit are constructed were 
collected and recorded as Pucca, Semi -Pucca and Katcha. Definition and meaning of 
Pucca , Semi -pucca and Katcha type of floor, wall and roof (in the purview of the 
survey) are given below.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
34	 	
 
 	Pucca	 	Semi Pucca	 	Katcha	 	
Floor  	mosaic/tiles/ 
granites etc.  	brick / stone /cement  	
Mud/bamboo / log/	 	
wood / plank 	
Wall Burnt brick and 
plastered 	
iron or 	other metal 	
sheet/
Burnt brick, but 
not plastered  	
grass / straw / leaves / 
reeds / bamboo/mud /  
canvas / cloth  	
Roof cement   tiles / slate /
 
burnt brick / stone / 
limestone /  
iron/other metal sheet 
/asbestos sheet  grass / straw / leaves / 
reeds / bamboo/mud
 / 
unburnt brick /canvas / 
cloth  	
4.4.6  Statement 4.6 below gives the distribution of floor, wall and roof types  
and  Statement 4.7 gives the the number and percentage of women only houses 
having different types of floor, wall and roof . It is seen that 5.3% of t he fisherman 
houses have katcha wall and roof of 4.9% of the fisherman houses were of katcha 
type.  Detailed tables are included in the annexure.  	
Statement 4.6: Percentage of type floor, wall and roof.  	
Sl No. 	Type 	Floor 	Wall 	Roof 	
1 	Pucca  	48.3 	72.7 	66.3 	
2 	Semipucca  	46.4 	22.5 	29.8 	
3 	Katcha 	5.3 	4.9 	3.8 	
  	All 	100 	100 	100 	
 	
Statement 4.7:  N umber and percentage of women only houses having different types of 
floor, wall and roof.  	
Sl 
No 	Type  	
Floor type  	Wall type  	Roof type  	
Percentage  	
Sample 
Women 
Only  
Houses  	
Percentage  	
Sample 
Women 
Only  
Houses 	
Percentage  	
Sample 
Women 
Only  
Houses 	
1 	Pucca 	36.8 	1,215 	61.7 	2,037 	55.1 	1,819 	
2 	Semipucca  	54.7 	1,806 	30.0 	992 	38.3 	1265 	
3 	Katcha 	8.5 	281 	8.3 	273 	6.6 	218 	
4 	All 	100.0 	3,302 	100.0 	3,302 	100.0 	3,302

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
35	 	
4.5  Security and privacy  
4.5.1  Doors are used to screen areas of a house for aesthetics, keeping formal 
and utility areas separate. The availability of doors for all the rooms in the house, for 
all windows, bathrooms and availability of strong front and back doors to the house 
were surveyed.   
Statement 4.8: Percentage of houses not supporting security. 
Sl No.  Social Group 	
No doors 
for all 
rooms  	
No proper 
doors for 
bathroom  	No strong 	
doors (front & 
back doors)  	
shutters 
for all 
windows 	
Sample 
House s 	
1 	ST	 	55.0	 	19.0	 	46.6	 	43.6	 	    1,716 	 	
2 	SC	 	41.7	 	15.8	 	33.1	 	35.9	 	    	5,501 	 	
3 	OBC	 	16.2	 	6.7	 	14.9	 	13.5	 	  33,266 	 	
4 	Others	 	14.4	 	5.1	 	12.0	 	10.4	 	  17,034 	 	
  	All	 	19.3	 	7.5	 	16.7	 	15.6	 	  57,517 	 	
 	
4.5.2  Major security for a house can be considered as existence of proper 
doors.  Availability of doors  for all rooms in the house, proper doors for bathrooms, 
strong front and back doors and shutte rs for all windows were collected during the 
survey.  Statement 4. 8 above gives the percentage of houses not having the above 
security indicators. Generally, lack  of these security and privacy supporting 
elements are noticed for SC and ST category.  
4.5.3  In the introductory chapter, it was reported that around 6% of the 
houses have only women members. Statement 4. 9 below gives the same indicators 
for the women only house s. Lack of proper strong doors observed for all social 
groups . In the case of fisherman houses, 532 out of 2,929 fisherman houses donât 
have strong front and back doors.  	
Statement 4.9: Percentage of women only houses not  supporting security. 
Sl No.  Social 
Group
 	
No doors 
for all 
rooms 	
No proper 
doors for 
bathroom  	
No strong 	
doors (front & 
back doors)  	
for all 
windows 	
Sample 	
Women only 	
House s 	
1  ST 	59.6 	20.2 	44.2 	42.3 	       104  	
2  SC 	51.3 	20.9 	44.2 	46.3 	       339  	
3 OBC 	21.9 	10.8 	23.1 	19.4 	    1,910  	
4 	Others	 	20.9 	10.2 	20.1 	16.2 	       949  	
  	All	 	25.8 	12.0 	25.1 	22.0 	    3,302

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
36	 
 	
4.5.4  Electricity is considered as one of the most important living facilities. 
The use of electricity may be for lighting or cooking or for both.  Electricity may be 
used legally or illegally and electricity may be supplied to the houses either through 
public agencies, private suppliers or through generator or solar panel.   4.5.5  Survey results shows that about 9% of the houses in the highland area 
are  not  electrified. In the case of  social groups, around 31% of the houses of ST 
community  are not electrified and the same for SC community it is   2.5%. Also 15% 
of the women only houses in the highland region donât have electrified houses and 
the figures for the women only houses of ST co mmunity are 26%.    In the case of 
women only houses around 3% are no t electrified and 112 houses out of 11,052 
houses having aged persons are also no t electrified. Out of these  10,940 electrified 
houses  having aged persons, 91 houses (or 0.8% of houses havi ng aged persons) 
donât provided proper lightings to aged people.  
4.6  Drinking water facility  
4.6.1  Drinking water is water that is safe to drink or to use for food 
preparation, without risk of health problems. Drinking water accessibility is essential 
for every ind ividual. Different principal sources of drinking water, its sufficient 
availability and distance to travel to access principal source during the three major 
seasons (viz. November â  February, March â May and June â  October) were 
analysed through the study.  The major findings on these aspects are discussed in the 
following sub -sections.  
4.6.2  Principal source of drinking water: Information in respect of the 
householdâs principal source of drinking water was collected. Principal source of 
drinking water relate to that source of drinking water which is used most commonly 
(in terms of frequency) by the household during the last 365 days. Different sources 
identified are Piped water/ public tap 1, well, tube well/borehole, rainwater 
collection, surface water 2 and all other sources like tanker supply, bottled water etc.  	
                                                          	 	1 Piped water : If an arrangement is made by panchayat or other local authorities or any private or 
public housing estate or agency to supply water through pipe and if the sample household is availing 
such facility for drinking, then such sources of drinking water is considered as piped water. It is 
important to note that drinking water carried through pipe from sources like well,  tank, river, etc., by

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
37	 	
4.6.3  Form Statement 4. 10 below, it is clear that, 
for houses in the sea shore area, principal source of 
drinking water is piped- water/public tap. In midland 
area 81% of the houses use well water for drinking 
p urpose. Apart from the identified principal sources, 
some other common types were identified in some 
Panchayaths. e.g.:  In some Panchayaths of Thrissur 
district, a type of filter pipe, locally known as champ pipe, just 3 to 4 meters deep 
from the ground f itted with either motor or hand pump.   	
Statement 4.10: Percentage distribution of principal source of drinking water  
Sl 
No.   Natural Region  	
Principal source of drinking water  	
Sample 
no of 
houses 	Piped water/ 	public tap  	
Well 	Tube 	
well/borehole  	Rainwater 	collection 	Surface water  	
Others 	All 	
1  Highland   26.7 63.0  4.1 0.0 0.5 5.7 100  7,385 
2 Midland   15.9 80.6  3.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 100 21,093 
3 Lowland   26.4 66.3  3.2 0.0    4.1  100 24,932 
4 Lowland with sea -shore  72.5 22.6  0.6      4.3  100  4,107 
  	All	 	25.9	 	68.0	 	3.0 	0.0	 	0.1	 	3.0	 	100	 	57,517	 
 	
4.6.4 Sufficient availability of drinking water from the source during the 
three major seasons was ascertained in the survey. It is found that acute water 
shortage was felt during March -May especially in sea shore region.  	
                                                                                                                                                                                    	 	
the owner /occupants only for convenience of the household, however,  have not  been  treated as piped 
water Instead, such a source treated appropriate ly to the actual source  from which water is carried 
through pipe.	
 Public tap is a public water point in which water is supplied through pipe from which 
people can collect water	
. 	
2  Surface water: Surface water is water located above ground and includes rivers,  dams, lakes, ponds,  
streams, canals and irrigation channels.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
38	 	
Statement 4.11: Percentage of houses getting 	insufficient	  drinking water from principal 
source  
Sl No.   Natural Region  % of houses getting 	
Insufficient	 drinking water
 
Sample 
houses  	
November 	â 	
February	 	
March 	â 	
May	 	
June 	- 	
October	 	
1 Highland  
5.8 23.5  2.8     7,385  
2 
Midland  	3.4	 	19.7	 	1.5	 	  21,093  	
3 Lowland  
5.2 21.5  3.7   24,932  
4 
Lowland with sea -shore 	5.7	 	38.0	 	5.2	 	    4,107  	
   All 	4.6	 	22.3	 	2.9	 	  57,517  	
 	
4.6.5  Distance to the principal source of drinking water: The distance to the 
principal source of drinking water from the dwelling unit ascertained and recorded. 
This includes the case when the source of drinking water is within the dwelling unit. 
Principal source within the dwelling is defined as a piped drinking water connection 
to one or more taps to the dwelling unit (e.g., in the kitchen). Piped water to the 
premises of the house is defined as a piped water connection to a tap placed in the 
yard or plot outside the dwelling unit. Also drinking water carried through pipe 
from sources like well, tank, river, etc., by the owner /occupants only for 
convenience of the household, however, have not been treated as within the 
dwelling and the distance recorded appropriately to the actual source from which 
water is carried through pipe.  	
Statement 4.12: Distribution of distance of the house from the principal source of drinking 
water by  different seasons 
Sl No.  	
Distance to the principal source of drinking 	
water 	
November 	â 	
February  	
March 	â 	
May 	
June 	- 	
October 	
1 Within dwelling    16.0 14.3  16.2 
2 Outside house but within the p remises   71.4 64.3  71.9 
3 	
Outside premises: 	
Less than 0.2 k.m.  11.0 18.1  10.3 	
4  0.2 to 0.5 k.m.   1.2 2.4  1.1 
5  0.5 to 1.0 k.m.   0.3 0.3  0.2 
6  1.0 to 1.5 k.m.   0.1 0.1  0.0 
7  1.5 k.m. or more    0.1 0.4  0.1 	
  All  100 100  100

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
39	 	
4.6.6  From the Statement 4. 12 above , it is clear that the distance to the 
principal source of drinking water from the dwelling unit during the summer season 
differ significantly from the two other seasons. During summer period availability of 
drinking water within the dwelling and premises of the house is limited and the 
members of the house have to go out of the premises for fetching water.  
4.6.7  Around 3% of the houses surveyed were found not having any kitchen. 
The said percentage is around 21% within ST communities.  Regarding usage of 
co oking fuel, 65% of BPL and 83% of AAY card holders use firewood as their major 
cooking fuel. Biogas and electricity were seldom used.  	
Statement 4.13: Percentage distribution of usage of cooking fuel with first priority. 
Sl No. 	Type of Ration Card possessed  	Type of cooking fuel  	
LPG 	Biogas  	Firewood  	Electricity  	Kerosene 	
1 	APL	 	53  0  47  0 0 	
2 	BPL	 	35	 	0 	65	 	0 	0 	
3 	Anthyodaya	 	17	 	0 	83	 	0 	0 	
4 	No Ration Card	 	49	 	0 	50	 	1 	0

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
40

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
41	 	
Chap ter 5  	
Education 	
5.1 Introduction  
5.1.1  The term âeducationâ generally refers to developing knowle dge, skill or 
character of individuals through a process of learning such as self -study, attendance 
in formal or informal educational institutions, etc. For the purpose of the study, all 
household members aged between 5 and 25 years were surveyed to get th eir 
educational level, current status of attendance, current status of educational 
enrolment and reasons for discontinue/dropout from their studies, if any.  
5.1.2  Status of current educational attendance: The current attendance status 
indicates whether the perso n is currently attending any educational institution or 
not.  Details like availability of separate study room and availability of chairs, tables, 
book shelf  etc for those who are attending any educational institution were also 
recorded.  
5.1.3  Out of the total 57,517  sample houses surveyed, there were a total of 
61,521 persons in the age group of 5 to 25 years with male to female ratio 52:48. 
5.2  Particulars of Ever enrolled persons  
5.2.1  If the person under consideration (i.e. person in the age group of 5 to 
25 years) has ever enrolled in any course in his living time, his/her details such as 
whether discontinued/dropped out of last enrolled  course etc. were collected and 
studied separately.  
5.2.2  Whether discontinued or dropped out: It is to be ascertained at this 
stage,  whether  the household member  under consideration  has completed the level 
where he last enrolled  and decided to stop his/her studies as his/her desired level of 
education has been attained  and donât wish to pursue studies . Persons, who did not 
enroll  in a particular level after completing the previous level,  are termed as 
discontinued  if he wish to continue education but could not do it due to various 
reasons  whereas those who enrolled/attended a specific level but did not complete 
that level successfully are calle d drop-outs. For the purpose of this survey both the

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
42	 	
types were treated alike for recording information.  
Statement 5.1:  Percentage of students in the age group of 5 -25 years, by discontinued  or 
dropped out for each household social group  
Sl No.  	
Social Group  	% of students either dropped 
out or discontinued   	
Sample No of persons	 	
in the age group 5 -29 
years 	
1 	ST 	28.9 	    2,355  	
2 	SC 	9.0 	    5,494  	
3 	OBC 	6.2 	  36,804  	
4 	Others  	4.4 	  16,868  	
  	All 	6.8 	  61,521  	
5.2.3 As per  the   survey results, out of total pe rsons in the desired age group 
only 6.8% have either discontinued or dropout from studies. In the case of ST 
community, the said percentage is around 28.9%.  5.2.4 Age when discontinued/dropped out (years): The age at which the 
persons discontinued/dropped out wa s recorded in completed years. It is seen that 
maximum of the drop out/discontinuation effected in the age group 18 - 25. Also 
15.3% of the students were dropped out during secondary education (i.e. age group 
13-15).  From Statement 5.3, the maximum drop out /discontinuation in the ST 
community was in the age group of 5 -9 and 10- 12 (i.e. primary and upper primary 
level).  	
Statement 5.2: Percentage of  persons (age 5- 25 years) who never enrolled and dropped 
out/discontinued education by age -group of dropping out/ discontinuance 
Sl No.  Age group  Percentage 	
Sample No of persons either 
dropped out or discontinued	 	
1 05 - 09 	2.0 	84 	
2 10 - 12 	4.7 	199 	
3 13 - 15 	15.3 	642 	
4 16 - 17 	28.3 	1,192 	
5 18 - 25 	49.7 	2,088 	
  	All 	100 	4,205

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
43	 	
Statement 5.3: Percentage distributi on of persons (age 5-25 years) who never enrolled and 
dropped out/ discontinued education by age of dropp ing out/discontinuance for each social 
group  
Sl No.  Age group 
ST  SC  OBC Others All 	
Sample No of 
persons either 
dropped out or 
discontinued   	
1 05 - 09 	77.4 	3.6 	13.1 	6.0 	100 	         84  	
2 10 - 12 	81.9 	4.0 	10.6 	3.5 	100 	       199  	
3 13 - 15 	39.4 	12.9 	38.8 	8.9 	100 	       642  	
4 16 - 17 	11.7 	14.9 	58.7 	14.7 	100 	    1,192  	
5 18 - 25 	2.9 	10.6 	62.8 	23.7 	100 	    2,088  	
  	All 	16.2 	11.7 	54.5 	17.6 	100 	    4,205  	
5.2.5 Major  reason for never enroll ing/discontinuing/dropping out:  The 
major  reason for never enrolling/discontinuing/dropping out any educational 
institution was  recorded for each of ânever -enrolledâ  (i.e. never attended) and âever 
enr olled but discontinued/ dropped-outâ persons.  In the cases of multiple reasons for 
never enrolling/discontinuing/dropping out, then the major reason, reported by the 
respondent, were  taken.  	
Statement 5.4: Percentage of persons (age 5- 25 years) who never enrolled and dropped 
out/ discont inued education by major reason  
Sl 
No. 	
Major reason for never	- enrolling / 	
discontinuing / dropping out  	ST  SC  OBC  Others Total 	
1  Not interested in education  	55.4 	26.9 	21.8 	24.4 	27.7 	
2 Financial constraints 	18.3 	30.4 	23.8 	15.7 	22.3 	
3 Engaged in domestic activities 	6.1 	6.9 	7.7 	5.8 	7.0 	
4 Engaged in economic activities  	2.6 	14.6 	14.4 	18.0 	13.4 	
5 School is far off  	3.2 	  	0.3 	0.1 	0.6 	
6 	Language/medium of instruction used 
unfamiliar 	1.4 	0.7 	0.1 	  	0.4 	
7 	Unable to cope up with studies/ failure in 
studies 	5.2 	2.8 	3.2 	4.4 	3.7 	
8 Completed desired level/class  	0.3 	4.7 	4.4 	12.3 	5.3 	
9 Preparation for competitive examination 	0.6 	1.2 	3.1 	6.2 	3.1 	
10  Marriage 	1.8 	9.0 	16.9 	11.0 	12.7 	
11 Others  	5.1 	2.8 	4.2 	1.9 	3.7 	
12 Total 	100 	100 	100 	100 	100 	
13 	Sample No of per	sons either dropped out 	
or discontinued   	
       	
725  	
       	
569  	
    	
2,791  	
       	
908  	
    	
4,993

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
44	 	
5.2.6  Including never enrolled (never attended) persons, there is  a total of 
4,993 sample number of persons. Lack of interest in education is the m ajor reason 
rep orted by ST community for never - enrolling / discontinuing / dropping out  and 
financial constraints were the major reason for SC community as well as OBC group. 
Marriage was the major reason reported by around 17% of the OBC  students. 
5.3  Educational level  
5.3.1   Educational level refers to the different stages of educational 
attainment. It is the highest level a person has completed successfully. The levels are: 
not literate	
3, literate without any schooling, literate with formal schooling: below 
primary, primary, upper primary/middle, secondary, higher secondary, diploma 
/certificate course, graduate, post graduate and above and special school education.  
It may be noted that if a person has successfully passed the final year of a given 
level, then and only he/she wi ll be considered to have attained that level of 
education. For example, for a person studying in Class IX the educational level will 
be middle and not secondary.  	
Statement 5.5: Percentage of educational level of persons in the age group of 5- 25 years, who 
never attended any educational institutions or presently  not pursuing education.  
Sl No.  Educational Level   Percentage 	
Sample number of 
members * 	
1 	Not literate  	1.0 	72 	
2 	Literate without any schooling   	0.2 	16 	
3 	Below primary  	0.9 	64 	
4 	Primary 	2.7 	204 	
5 	Upper primary/middle   	9.3 	689 	
6 	Secondary 	24.7 	1,835 	
7 	Higher secondary   	26.4 	1,961 	
8 	Diploma /certificate course  	11.8 	879 	
9 	Graduate  	19.3 	1,436 	
10 	Post graduate and above  	3.5 	261 	
11 	Special school 	0.1 	10 	
All 	100 	7,427 	
* Who never attended any educational institutions or currently not pursuing education   	
                                                          	 	3 A person is considered literate if he/she can read and write a simple message in at least one language 
with understanding.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
45	 	
5.3.2  Educational level of persons never attended any educational 
institutions and that of persons  not pursuing education are  recorded.  Educational 
level of 26.4% of the persons was found as higher secondary. A meager 1% was 
illiterate and 2.7% have only primary level of education. Results highlighted the fact 
that among ST communities, 4.3%  are  illiterate, around 6% are primary and only 
1.5% have educational level graduation. Social group wise breaku p of educational 
level is presented in Table 4. 2 in annexure. 
5.3.3  Result shows that around 74% of the students donât have separate 
study room and 48% do not have chairs, tables, book shelf etc. The figures are higher 
in the case of ST communities followed by S C.  	
Statement 5.6: Percentage distribution of members in the age group 5 -25 years for each social 
group who do not have separate study room and chair & book shelf.  
Sl No.  	
Social Group 	
Percentage of persons DO NOT have  
Sample No of 
persons pursuing  educati on 
Separate study 	
room  	
Chairs, tables 
and book shelf  	
1 	ST 	88.6 	82.0 	    1,563  	
2 	SC 	86.4 	65.0 	    4,642  	
3 	OBC 	73.9 	47.4 	  32,650  	
4 	Others  	70.3 	39.1 	  15,239  	
  	All 	74.4 	47.5 	  54,094

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
46

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
47	 	
Chapter 6  	
Generalised Deprivation  	
6.1 Introduction  
6.1.1  The natu ral regional and social group inequalities with respect to non -
income dimensions of social deprivation are computed out of the data gathered from 
the sample households. The general deprivation indices are based on deprivation in 
five basic necessities for well -being, such as drinking water, sanitation, electricity, 
quality of housing and educational facilities owing to many constraints.  
Statement 6.1:Region-wise Index of Deprivation by Social Groups  
Sl No.  	
Region  	Indicators 	  
  	
ST 	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1 	
Highl and 	
Drinking Water	 	d1	 	10.3	 	9 	11.9	 	8.1	 	10.3	 	
2  Sanitation  d2  27  7.3  3.3  2.1 8.5 
3  Electricity  d3  31.9  3.1 2.1  1.6 8.8 
4  Quality of Housing d4  46.6  28 21.2  14.7 25.2 
5  Educational Facilities d5   83.1  50.8  43.4  20.1 44.5 
Deprivation index  	52.62 	31.36 	26.50 	13.33 	27.72 	
6 	
Midland 	
Drinking Water	 	d1	 	0 	2.5	 	3.9	 	3.5	 	3.5	 	
7  Sanitation  d2  4.2  4.7  3.1  1.6 2.7 
8  Electricity  d3  4.2  2.5  0.5  0.2 0.6 
9 	Quality of Housing	 	d4	 	62.5	 	37.4	 	17.9	 	11.2	 	17.6	 	
10  Educational Facilities d5   23.8  60.4  45.2  36.7 43.5 
Deprivation index  	37.22 	37.93 	26.98 	21.67 	25.99 	
11 	
Lowland 	
Drinking Water  d1  16.7  6.7 8.3  4.7 7.3 	
12  Sanitation  d2  0 7.2  4 4.2  4.4 
13  Electricity  d3  0  2 0.3  0.2 0.4 
14	 	Quality of Housing	 	d4	 	0 	29	 	11.5	 	12.4	 	13.4	 	
15  Educational Facilities d5   14.3  71.2  49.5  50.5 51.6 
Deprivation index  	11.49 	42.58 	29.12 	29.69 	30.39 	
16	 	
Lowland 
with sea-
shore 	
Drinking Water	 	d1	 	 ---	 	7.4	 	5.2	 	0.7	 	4.9	 	
17  Sanitation  d2   ---  7.8  1.7  3.8 2.3 
18  Electricity  d3   ---  5.6  0.4  1.6 0.8 
19  Quality of Housing d4   ---  34.2  16.5  10.1 17.2 
20  Educational Facilities d5    ---  68.5  47.3  63.3 49.5 
Deprivation index  	 --- 	41.70 	28.06 	37.07 	29.36 	
6.1.2  It is glaring to see the incidence of deprivation which is significantly

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
48	 	
high in respect to quality of housing and educational facilities though at the regional 
level no vide disparity. The social group differences in three natural regions as has 
been visible from the table is a bad mark in Kerala's development achievements in 
all sectors.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
49	 	
Chapter 7  	
Facilities and A vailability of Major 
Amenities 	
7.1  Introduction  
7.1.1  This section was aimed to collect information on the availability of 
some specific facilities	
4  like  Gram Panchayath headquarters, Village Office, Bus stop, 
Railway Station, Metalled road, School having primary level classes, School having 
secondar y level classes, Higher secondary school, Primary health centre, Community 
health centre, Government hospital, Private hospital/clinic, Anganwadi centre 
(ICDS), post office, Akshaya centre, Fair price shop (Ration shop), Medical shop, 
Commercial bank, Vete rinary hospital/ dispensary and Public comfort station.  	
Statement  7.1: Percentage distribution of Distance from  the house to the nearest facility, 
availability of some major amenities. 
Sl No   Type of facility/amenities  	
Distance from house	 (in k.m.)	 	
Less	 	
than 0.5  	0.5 to 1.0  1.0 to 1.5  	1.5	 or 	
more  	
1 	Gram Panchayath headquarters	 	3.9	 	9.2	 	11.6	 	75.4	 	
2 	Village Office	 	5.8	 	12.0	 	13.1	 	69.1	 	
3 Bus stop 	52.0 	27.1 	12.4 	8.5 	
4 	Railway Station	 	1.3	 	1.4	 	2.3	 	95.1	 	
5 	Metalled road	 	87.6	 	8.7	 	1.7	 	2.0	 	
6 	School having pri	mary level classes	 	14.1	 	29.4	 	21.6	 	34.9	 	
7 	School having secondary level classes	 	5.6	 	17.5	 	17.9	 	59.1	 	
8 Higher secondary school  	4.8 	13.3 	14.4 	67.5 	
9 	Primary health centre	 	7.5	 	14.2	 	16.6	 	61.7	 	
10	 	Community health centre	 	3.3	 	6.6	 	7.7	 	82.4	 	
11	 	Government hospita	l 	1.2	 	4.0	 	5.2	 	89.5	 	
12	 	Private hospital/clinic	 	5.2	 	9.8	 	12.3	 	72.7	 	
13	 	Anganwadi centre (ICDS)	
11.2 	23.4 	21.4 	43.9 	
15	 	Akshaya centre	 	7.2	 	14.4	 	20.6	 	57.9	 	
16	 	Fair price shop (Ration shop)	 	24.6	 	32.7	 	20.8	 	21.9	 	
17 Medical shop  	11.5 	21.7 	16.8 	50.0 	
18	 	Commercial bank	 	6.3	 	14.1	 	12.0	 	67.6	 	
19	 	Veterinary hospital/ dispensary	 	1.7	 	11.8	 	11.9	 	74.6	 	
20 Public comfort station  	1.4 	2.5 	1.5 	94.6 	
  	All	 	14.8	 	15.3	 	13.0	 	56.9	 	
                                                          	 	4 If a facility is available in general to the residents of the area, it is considered as a facility

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
50	 
 	
7.1.2  The required information collected in distance in kilometer  viz. les s 
than 0.5 k.m., 0.5 to 1.0 k.m., 1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. and 1.5 k.m. or more.   If a facility is 
available at two  different places, the distance of the nearest place  was considered for 
recording the distance . Statement 7.1 above gives a nutshell of all the m ajor facilities.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
51	 	
Chapter 8   	
Observations for LIFE project 	
8.1 Major Observations  
8.1.1  It is found from the survey that 63,551 families are residing in the 
selected 57 ,517 sample  houses. Also  observed that 9,485  families (15% of 63,551) are 
houseless ( either house less having land  or houseless and landless ). This shows there 
is an additional requirement of 16.5% of houses.  
Statement  8.1: Percentage of houseless families having land and houseless and landless 
families. 
Social group   % of houseless families 	
Sample No of 	
Houseless families  	% over total 
families	 	 having land 
landless 	
ST  14.7 28.2  71.8 	291 	
SC  17.7 18.8  81.3 	1,088 	
OBC  16.1 22.3  77.7 	5,957 	
Others  11.7 31.5  68.5 	2,149 	
8.1.2 Out of the total 57,517 houses surveyed, 7.5% houses are rented/leased 
houses.  The ratio is higher in lowland which is 9.0%.  Moreover  7.2% (i.e. 4,105 
houses) of the total houses are rented houses  occupied by single families. 	
Statement 8.2: Percentage distribution of single family occupied rented houses 
Sl No. 	
 	
Type of Ration 
Card posses sed 	
Social Group 	Sample  single 	
family 
occupied 
rented houses  	
ST 	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1 	APL  	0.5 	9.7 	64.2 	25.6 	100 	1,546 	
2 	BPL 	0.8 	15.3 	65.6 	18.3 	100 	1,672 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	7.1 	14.3 	53.6 	25.0 	100 	28 	
4 	No Ration Card  	0.8 	10.9 	66.2 	22.0 	100 	859 	
  	All 	0.8 	12.3 	65.1 	21.9 	100 	4,105

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
52	 	
8.1.3  From the survey it can be seen that a number of houses are still 
remaining incomplete due to many reasons. Out of the incomplete houses, reason for 
incompletion of 78.6%  constructions is insufficiency of fund for the prescribed are a. 
It may also be noted that financial status not changed after construction of major ity 
of the houses  (73.0%  i n highland,  44.4% in midland,  35.5%  in lowland and 57.7%  in 
Sea shore area ). Most of the households reported that they had constructed the 
house  with the allotted  fund only. Non usage of locally available resources and not 
adopting  low cost technologies  also resulted in  higher cost of construction and lead 
to  incompletion  thereof with the allotted fund. Only 4.7% and 23.6% constructions 
ado pted low  cost technology and mad e use of locally available resources 
respectively.  
8.1.4  It is seen  from the survey that in the sea shore  area 15.7% of fishermen 
are staying within 50  meters from the sea and 40% between 50 to 100 meters  off the 
sea.  
8.1.5  Regarding structure and type of house, it is seen that 2.6%  (or 1,470) of 
the total houses  surveyed  are exclusively  ka tcha  type  which means  having  katcha 
type of floor, wall and roof .  	
Statement 8.3: Percentage distribution of houses having Katcha type of Floor, Wall and Roof  
Sl No.  	
Type of 	
Ration Card 
possessed  	
Social Group 	
Sample Houses  	ST 	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1 	APL  	1.4 	17.2 	57.1 	24.3 	100 	366 	
2 	BPL 	15.0 	22.9 	44.4 	17.7 	100 	852 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	68.3 	11.0 	18.3 	2.4 	100 	82 	
4 	No Ration 
Card	 	25.9 	15.9 	44.1 	14.1 	100 	170 	
5 	All 	15.9 	20.0 	46.1 	18.1 	100 	1,470 	
 	
8.1.6  It is seen from the survey that 1.2% of the total houses surveyed have 
no  toilet and  bathroom. The ratio is higher in houses occupied by ST community 
(45.4%).

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
53	 	
Statement 8.4: Percentage distribution of houses not having bathro om and latrine 
Sl No.  	
Type of 
Ration Card 
possessed  	
Social Group 	Sample 
Houses  	
ST 	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1 	APL  	1.2 	24.4 	56.1 	18.3 	100 	82 	
2 	BPL 	45.7 	16.2 	28.1 	10.0 	100 	420 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	90.4 	3.6 	3.6 	2.4 	100 	83 	
4 	No Ration 
Card 	42.6 	19.1 	27.7 	10.6 	100 	94 	
5 	All 	45.4 	16.1 	28.4 	10.2 	100 	679 	
8.1.7  Presence of aged persons identified in 19.2% of the total houses 
surveyed. 16.7% of these houses donât  have  any  separate rooms for aged persons. 
The figure  is higher in OBC category where it is 55.2% 	
Statement 8.5:  Percentage distribution of houses having no separate room for aged person 
Sl No.  	
Type of 
Ration Card 
possessed  	
Social Group 	Sample 
Houses  	
ST 	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1 	APL  	0.5 	6.7 	57.3 	35.6 	100 	599 	
2 	BPL 	8.4 	14.0 	55.0 	22.6 	100 	729 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	64.5 	12.9 	12.9 	9.7 	100 	31 	
4 	No Ration 
Card 	18.2 	6.1 	60.6 	15.2 	100 	33 	
5 	All 	6.5 	10.6 	55.2 	27.7 	100 	1,392 	
8.1.8  Firewood is the primary fuel used for cooking by 54% of the houses . 
Among Anthyodaya  card holders  who use firewood as the primary fuel ,  60.8% 
belongs to ST  community. 	
Statement 8.6: Percentage distribution of houses  using firewood as fuel with first priority 
Sl No.  	
Type of 
Ration Card 
possessed 	 	
Social Group 	Sample 
Houses	 	ST	 	SC	 	OBC	 	Others	 	All	 	
1 	APL 	0.6 	6.6 	59.4 	33.4 	100 	15,486 	
2 	BPL 	7.7 	18.2 	53.4 	20.7 	100 	13,399 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	60.8 	9.4 	20.8 	9.0 	100 	715 	
4 	No Ration 
Card 	7.6 	13.0 	58.8 	20.6 	100 	1,445 	
5 	All 	5.4 	11.9 	55.9 	26.8 	100 	31,045

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
54	 	
8.1.9  Piped water /public tap is the source of drinking water for  78.3% of 
Fishermen houses  surveyed  and   25.9% of all houses . When re gion wise data is 
considered  well is the principal source of drinking water for  63% houses in highland, 
80.6% houses in midland, 66.3  % of houses in lowland and   22.6% of houses in sea 
shore . 
8.1.10  In highland region 31.9% of the ST houses are no n-electrified. 
On an overview it is  seen that in highland  region  percentage of non -electrified 
houses are considerably less compared  to other regions. 
8.1.11  Out of the total 57,517 houses surveyed, 23,699 girls in the age 
group of 0 â15 years were present in the 18,258 sample houses. i.e. 32% of the houses 
were having girls in the age group 0 â15 years.  	
Statement 8.7: Percentage of houses having girls in the age group 0-15 years.  
Sl No.  	
Social Group 	
Total girls in the 
age group 0 -15 	
years 	
Sample houses 
having girls in the 
age group 0 -15 	
years 	
Number of girls 
below 15 years age 
per 100 houses 
surveyed 	
1 	ST	 	875	 	624	 	51	 	
2 	SC	 	2,100	 	1,669	 	38	 	
3 	OBC	 	14,652	 	11,174	 	44	 	
4 	Others	 	6,072	 	4,791	 	36	 	
5 	All	 	23,699	 	18,258	 	41	 	
8.1.12  As per survey results, it is seen that only  around 25.6% of the 
stude nts have separate study room. In highland region, 26.4% students of ST 
families donât have separate study room.  	
Statement  8.8: Percentage distribution of members in the age group 5 -25 years  NOT having 
separate study room. 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Social Group	 	Sample No of persons 
pursuing education 
and NOT having 
separate study room 	
ST  	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1 	Highland  	26.4  3.8 46.9  22.9 100 	5,163 	
2 	Midland  	0.1 12.9  50.4  36.7 100 	14,737 	
3 	Lowland  	0.0 10.0  67.5  22.5 100 	17,465 	
4 	Sea -shore  	0.0  6.0 87.3  6.7 100 	2854 	
5 	All 	3.4  10.0  60.0  26.6 100 	40,219

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
55	 	
8.2  Major Observations on houseless families  
8.2.1  In the case of houseless women only families, around 84% of single 
female only families and 82% of women only houses with two or more female 
members are houseless and lan dless. In the case of houseless women only families 
having only one room in their currently occupied house, majority of them belong to 
OBC and General category.  
Statement 8.9: Percentage distribution of houseless women only families by status of 
possession of land  
Sl No  	
Type of house 
according to 
members  	
  
Social Group 	
Status of possession of land 	 	Sample No of 
Houseless 
Women Only   Families  	Having 
Land 	Landless  	All 	
1 	
Women Only Houses  	
Single 
Female  	
SC	 	15.4 	84.6 	100 	13 	
2 	OBC	 	15.3 	84.7 	100 	59 	
3 	Others	 	18.2 	81.8 	100 	22 	
4 	All	 	16.0 	84.0 	100 	94 	
5 	
Two or 
more 
females 	
ST	 	0.0 	100.0 	100 	3 	
6 	SC	 	16.7 	83.3 	100 	12 	
7 	OBC	 	13.8 	86.2 	100 	87 	
8 	Others	 	33.3 	66.7 	100 	27 	
9 	All	 	17.8 	82.2 	100 	129 	
 	
8.2.2 Around 1.2% of the houseless families are currently oc cupying one 
room only house (either rented or others).   Among BPL families 24% of them belong 
to SC category and 52% belong to OBC category and among Anthyodaya card 
holders, around 92% belong to ST category.  	
Statement 8.10: Percentage distribution of houseless families having only one room in the 
presently staying house  
Sl No  Type of Ration 
Card possessed  	
Social Group	 	Sample 	
houses having 
only one room  	ST 	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1 	APL  	0.0 	16.7 	50.0 	33.3 	100 	24 	
2 	BPL 	19.6 	23.9 	52.2 	4.3 	100 	46 	
3 	Anthyodaya 	91.7 	0.0 	8.3 	0.0 	100 	12 	
4 	No Ration Card  	25.9 3.7 44.4  25.9  100  27 	
5 	All 	24.8  14.7 45.0 15.6  100  109

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
56	 	
8.2.3  On considering the privacy and security measures, 81% of the 
houseless families are currently staying in houses that have strong front and back 
doors . In the case of ST houseless families the said percentage is 43 and 67 is the 
figure in the case of SC houseless families. In the case of kitchen, 27% of the ST 
houseless families are presently staying in houses that donât have any separate 
kitchen. 4% is the figure in the case of SC houseless families.  	
Statement 8.11: Percentage of houseless families by availability of privacy and security 
measures in their presently occupied house 
Sl No  	
Social 
Group  	
Availability of privacy and security indicators	 	Sample 
Houseless  families  	
 Strong front & 
back doors   	
Doors for all 	
rooms 	
Doors for all 
windows  	
1 	ST 	43.3 	42.3 	54.3 	291 	
2 	SC 	67.2	 	65.1 	67.1 	1,088	 	
3 	OBC 	84.0 	84.2 	87.1 	5,957 	
4 	Others  	84.3 	85.3 	88.7 	2,149 	
5 	All 	80.9 	81.0 	84.2 	9,485

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
57	 	
Chapter 9  	
Policy Context  	
9.1 Housing being a State subject, it is the primary responsibility of State 
Governments to ensure housing for all. Following important policy 
suggestions are given for the consideration of the State/ Local Bodies in this 
regard:  
9.1.1  The study indicates that  in many of the houses in the study area , more than 
one family is accommodated in a single house causing a higher occupancy  
ratio particularly in the highland region.  Government may  act as an enabler 
and facilitator to promote single occupancy houses stipulating  certain 
minimum quality housing standards through  policies and regulations. Also 
the government may invite private investment for  housing of the poor 
either as charity or pay back the amount by government/LSHs in easy 
instalments instead  of paying amounts to the people.   
9.1.2  The results shows that 15% of the households are houseless and this includes 
houseless and landless and certain others are with own land. The incidence of 
landlessness is higher among Fishermen and SCs.   Intervention proposed for 
ho using for these groups is assessment  of their preferences or demands for 
shifting their present area/house to another area/house mainly in the case of 
fishermen and tribes. Separate package providing incentives may be 
announced by government/LSGs.  
9.1.3  In house s surveyed 5.7% are found to be women only houses and out of this 
8.4% is houseless. In respect of women  only houses in SC and ST category 
houselessness is severe among SCs. Also seen that 3.1% families  are single 
women only houses and among them 5.2% is h ouseless. In houseless single 
woman  only  houses among SCs 84.6% are landless. The corresponding figure 
for the fishermen houses it is  86.3% which is higher than SCs. Considering 
these two aspects houselessness and landlessness government /LSGs may 
plan cluster housing schemes by protecting the livelihood necessities of 
those families who are ready to shift to the new proposed house.

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
58	 	
9.1.4  The fact is that in  women only houses many houses have no doors for all 
rooms,  no proper doors in their bathrooms, no strong doors in front and back 
of  the house and no  shutters for windows. It is also observed that certain 
women only houses  are not even electrified. The situation is much grave in SC 
and ST houses.  So for the protection of these families the intervention 
propose d is to frame a new strategy to construct houses which  provide 
privacy and security of women. In government funded housing schemes 
the privacy and security of women should be protected for that if necessary 
a separate enactment may be initiated.  
9.1.5  It is obse rved that many of the houses started construction with the assistance 
of government from 1996 onwards are still remain incomplete due to various 
reasons. Insufficient funds provided for a specific area of house, unscientific 
conditions prescribed for relea se of funds etc., are the major reasons observed 
for incompletion of houses.  The governmental intervention is highly 
essential in this matter. Additional funds shall be provided for the 
completion of these houses and a lump sum payment of money may be 
disb ursed to the beneficiaries.  
9.1.6  The study also identified certain houses with katcha roof and certain others 
with katcha wall and the condition of such houses are similar to 
dilapidated houses and so schemes may be initiated to rebuild  such houses.  
9.1.7  The study a lso explore that the availability of rooms in houses are less and in 
ST houses 23.2% , in SC houses 19.5% and in OBC houses 42.6% have only one 
room.  A family living in a single room house may lead to many social 
issues and so the government/LSGs should address this problem also as a 
serious one. These houses need  to be supported for extension of additional  
rooms for accommodating the others in the family for ensuring a decent 
living.  
9.1.8  After undertaking  the construction of houses with  the assistance of 
gove rnment many families became indebted to various financial institutions. 
Suitable measures may be initiated to settle this and make these families 
free from debt. Interest free loans may be arranged for the families or

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
59	 	
government may take steps to write off  these amounts if possible. 
9.1.9  It is also observed in certain cases houses constructed with the financial 
support of government /LSGs are seen rented out to others without using 
for own purpose and such practices should be discouraged. An assessment 
of such f amilies can be done so that it can ensure that no further assistance 
is given to the same family again.  
9.1.10  In houses in rural areas women spend more time in kitchen so that a 
minimum area for free movement in all government funded houses need to 
be earmarked for kitchen with ensured safety conditions.  The data revealed 
that 2.8% houses have no separate kitchen in their house.  
9.1.11  In many houses , due to drinking water scarcity, impurities in the pipe water 
etc.,  women are forced to go out searching for water.  So g overnmental/ LSGs 
intervention  is highly essential to protect the water sources and keep them 
clean. Long term plans should be prepared to protect these water sources.     
9.1.12  Another important information is that the firewood as major  fuel for cooking  
is exten sively using in sample houses. Among APL Ration Card holder 
families 47%, in BPL families 65% and in Anthyodaya 83% are using firewood 
as cooking fuel. Women in households are finding difficulty in collecting 
firewood and they are to go where it is available and for that they have to 
spend many hours in a day especially in tribal areas. Forest department may 
to a certain extend solve this issue by supplying firewood collected from 
forest through a collection mechanism. If an effective collection and 
distrib ution system is evolved by the Forest department without making 
any harm to the forest , this can be implemented smoothly. A 
feasibility/viability study is essential in this regard.    
9.1.13  For students no separate facility conducive for study purpose is not avai lable 
in most of the houses surveyed. Students are not provided with separate 
study  room,  chair, table and book shelf , which are essential things for the 
students. The data shows that in highland 44.5%, in midland 43.5%, in 
lowland 51.6% and in sea- shore 49.5% have no such facilities in their houses. 
The government /LSGs may plan for incorporating these things also as the

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
60	 	
part of housing schemes.   
9.1.14  Another observation is that for the  aged people, separate facilities are not seen 
provided in their houses.  No  proper  lighting,  no separate rooms or bath 
attached rooms in their family, causing serious problems to this group. 
Government/LSGs may consider these issues  and insist as a compulsory 
item in the design of houses with governmental support.  
9.1.15  Even after gove rnmental interventions for issuing ration card for all the 
present survey revealed that 4.6% sample families are not having Ration Card 
and among them 29% are houseless.   Intervention suggested is to take 
immediate steps by LSGs to arrange to issue ration cards to all those do not 
possess a ration card. The ration card being an important document for 
availing assistance from various departments this may be treated as urgent.  
9.1.16  The survey also explored that many houses are still lacking latrine facilities in 
their houses even after the governmental serious interventions. In highland 
STs 19%  houses have no latrines  of their own. 1.3% houses  are not using their 
latrines owing to many reasons. The reasons for keeping the latrines unused 
is mainly due to lack of water in the latrine or near to the  latrines and such 
other reasons and so LSGs may initiate immediate steps to create awareness 
to them for using latrines and also to settle the issues raised by the people 
regarding construction of latrines.   
9.1.17  Vast majorit y of the APL card holders, who are houseless,  complained that 
many of the BPL card holders are well off than the APL families and they are 
availing assistance which are really meant for the poor.  This disparity 
remains in all the regions studied and so an urgent intervention of 
government is required to   rectify the defects in ration cards and to ensure 
that the deserving people get the government  assistance.  
9.1.18  Utilising locally available resources and low cost building technology which 
are eco -friendly for  house construction is not common especially among STs. 
At least for the houses constructing with the financial support of 
government should insist for using locally available resources and a low 
cost housing technology. The resources locally available may be arranged to

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
61	 	
supply by LSGS based on local needs and demand assessment.  A standard 
design with adequate facilities may be asked to develop by any of the 
competent housing agency.  	
***

Report on âQualitative and quantitative condition in housing in rural Kerala 2016 -17â, DES, Kerala 
 	
62

Detaile	D	 	
 	t	ables

T-1 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 	
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 	
1.  Dwelling characteristics

T-2 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala

T-3 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 1.1: Percentage distribution of houses type of ration card possessed. 	
Sl No. 	Natural Region  	Social Group 	
Type of Ration Card possessed  	Sample 
Houses  	
APL 	BPL 	Anthyodaya  	
No Ration 	
Card 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	6.2 	61.0 	25.9 	6.9 	100 	1,686 	
2 	SC 	44.8 	40.9 	1.7 	12.6 	100 	286 	
3 	OBC 	61.3 	28.4 	1.0 	9.4 	100 	3,113 	
4 	Others  	71.1 	22.3 	0.8 	5.8 	100 	2,300 	
5 	All 	51.1 	34.4 	6.6 	7.9 	100 	7,385 	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	12.5 	75.0 	4.2 	8.3 	100 	24 	
7 	SC 	28.6 	65.5 	2.3 	3.6 	100 	2,591 	
8 	OBC 	60.2 	33.3 	1.1 	5.4 	100 	9,992 	
9 	Others  	70.3 	24.8 	0.6 	4.4 	100 	8,486 	
10 	All 	60.3 	33.9 	1.1 	4.8 	100 	21,093 	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	66.7 	16.7 	0.0 	16.7 	100 	6 	
12 	SC 	32.6 	61.6 	1.1 	4.8 	100 	2,355 	
13 	OBC 	59.2 	35.4 	0.5 	4.9 	100 	16,641 	
14 	Others  	66.3 	29.9 	0.4 	3.4 	100 	5,930 	
15 	All 	58.4 	36.6 	0.5 	4.5 	100 	24,932 	
16 	
Lowland with 
sea -shore  	
SC 	24.9 	66.9 	0.0 	8.2 	100 	269 	
17 	OBC 	53.0 	42.8 	0.4 	3.8 	100 	3,520 	
18 	Others  	44.0 	50.3 	1.3 	4.4 	100 	318 	
19 	All 	50.5 	44.9 	0.5 	4.1 	100 	4,107

T-4 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 1.2: Percentage distribution of number 	of families living in the houses  for each type of ration card possessed.  
Sl No.  Social Group  Type of Ration Card possessed  	
Number of families in a house  	
Sample 
Houses 	One 	Two  	Three  	Four and 
above 	All 	
1 	
ST 	
APL  	87.4 	10.8 	1.8 	0.0 	100 	111 	
2 	BPL 	86.5 	10.4 	2.7 	0.4 	100 	1,047 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	87.9 	9.8 	2.1 	0.2 	100 	438 	
4 	No Ration Card  	95.8 	1.7 	0.8 	1.7 	100 	120 	
5 	All 	87.6 	9.7 	2.3 	0.4 	100 	1,716 	
6 	
SC 	
APL  	92.0 	6.7 	1.2 	0.1 	100 	1,704 	
7 	BPL 	88.3 	9.8 	1.7 	0.1 	100 	3,444 	
8 	Anthyodaya  	85.6 	14.4 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	90 	
9 	No Ration Card 	97.0 	3.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	263 	
10 	All 	89.8 	8.6 	1.5 	0.1 	100 	5,501 	
11 	
OBC 	
APL  	91.0 	7.5 	1.4 	0.2 	100 	19,640 	
12 	BPL 	88.3 	10.0 	1.7 	0.1 	100 	11,610 	
13 	Anthyodaya  	90.7 	8.9 	0.4 	0.0 	100 	236 	
14 	No Ration Card  	98.6 	1.2 	0.2 	0.0 	100 	1,780 	
15 	All 	90.5 	8.0 	1.4 	0.1 	100 	33,266 	
17 	
Others  	
APL 	93.1 	6.0 	0.8 	0.1 	100 	11,670 	
18 	BPL 	91.2 	7.8 	1.0 	0.1 	100 	4,546 	
19 	Anthyodaya  	92.8 	6.2 	1.0 	0.0 	100 	97 	
20 	No Ration Card  	98.6 	1.4 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	721 	
21 	All 	92.8 	6.3 	0.8 	0.1 	100 	17,034

T-5 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 1.3 : Percentage distribution of houses by  religion for each social group  	
Sl No. 	Natural 
Region  	Social Group 	Religion	 	Sample 
Houses  	
Hinduism	 	Islam	 	Christianity	 	Others	 	All	 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	1,686 	
2 	SC 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	286 	
3 	OBC 	42.6 	52.4 	4.9 	0.1 	100 	3,113 	
4 	Others  	38.3 	9.3 	52.0 	0.5 	100 	2,300 	
5 	All 	56.6 	25.0 	18.3 	0.2 	100 	7,385 	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	24 	
7 	SC 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	2,591 	
8 	OBC 	78.4 	20.6 	0.9 	0.0 	100 	9,992 	
9 	Others  	39.5 	2.5 	57.9 	0.1 	100 	8,486 	
10 	All 	65.4 	10.8 	23.7 	0.1 	100 	21,093 	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	6 	
12 	SC 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	2,355 	
13 	OBC 	52.4 	37.1 	10.5 	0.0 	100 	16,641 	
14 	Others  	81.9 	2.6 	15.3 	0.2 	100 	5,930 	
15 	All 	63.9 	25.4 	10.6 	0.1 	100 	24,932 	
16 	
Lowland 
with sea -
shore 	
SC 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	269 	
17 	OBC 	41.8 	39.0 	19.2 	0.0 	100 	3,520 	
18 	Others  	92.8 	0.9 	6.3 	0.0 	100 	318 	
19 	All 	49.5 	33.5 	16.9 	0.0 	100 	4,107

T-6 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 1.4: Percentage of houses having at least one active fisherman 	
Sl No. 	Natural Region  	Social Group 	% of houses having active fish erman Sample Houses
 	
1 	
Highland 	
ST 	0.2 	1,686 	
2 	SC 	1.0 	286 	
3 	OBC 	0.3 	3,113 	
4 	Others  	0.1 	2,300 	
5 	All 	0.2 	7,385 	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	0.0 	24 	
7 	SC 	0.7 	2,591 	
8 	OBC 	0.4 	9,992 	
9 	Others  	0.5 	8,486 	
10 	All 	0.5 	21,093 	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	0.0 	6 	
12 	SC 	4.0 	2,355 	
13 	OBC 	6.2 	16,641 	
14 	Others  	2.5 	5,930 	
15 	All 	5.2 	24,932 	
16 	
Lowland with sea -shore 	
SC 	17.8 	269 	
17 	OBC 	37.5 	3,520 	
18 	Others  	50.0 	318 	
19 	All 	37.2 	4,107

T-7 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 1.5: 	Percentage distribution of families residing in fisherman houses 	
Sl No 	Type o f Ration Card possessed  	
Number of families residing in fisherman houses  	Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses  	
One 	Two  	Three  	Four and 
above 	All 	
1 	APL  	89.8 	9.1 	1.1 	0.1 	100 	1,235 	
2 	BPL 	85.9 	12.0 	2.0 	0.1 	100 	1,605 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	17 	
4 	No Ration Card 	98.6 	1.4 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	72 	
  	All 	87.9 	10.4 	1.5 	0.1 	100 	2,929 	
 
Table 1.6: Percentage distribution of families according to number of members  in the fisherman houses 	
Sl No 	Type of Ration Card possessed  	
Type of house according to members  	
Sample Fisherman 
Houses  	
Single Male 	
Houses	 	
Women only houses  	
All	 	Single Female 	 	
Two or more 	
females	 	
1 	APL 	0.2 	0.6 	0.2 	1.0 	15 	
2 	BPL 	0.5 	0.5 	0.1 	1.0 	28 	
3 	No Ration Card  	0.7 	0.3 	  	1.0 	3 	
  	All 	0.4 	0.5 	0.1 	1.0 	46

T-8 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 1.7: Percentage distribution of houses having active fisherman in the sea shore region  by distance from the sea 	
Sl No. 	Natural Region  	Social Group 	Distance of house from the sea  	
Sample 
Houses 
having active 
fisherman  	
Less than 50 	
mtrs 	
50 to 100 	
mtrs 	
101 to 500 	
mtrs 	
Above 500 	
mtrs 	All 	
1 	
Lowla nd with 
sea-shore  	
SC 	14.6 	37.5 	25.0 	22.9 	100.0 	48 	
2 	OBC 	16.6 	34.9 	22.8 	25.7 	100.0 	1,320 	
3 	Others  	8.8 	83.0 	4.4 	3.8 	100.0 	159 	
4 	All 	15.7 	40.0 	21.0 	23.3 	100.0 	1,527 	
 
Table 1.8: Percentage distribution of houses by  housing status  	
Sl No.  Natural Region 	Housing status  	Sample 
Houses  	
Owned 	Leased/Rented  	Others 	All 	
1  Highland 	90.3 	7.1 	2.5 	100 	7,385 	
2  Midland 	93.5 	5.7 	0.8 	100 	21,093 	
3  Lowland 	90.4 	9.0 	0.6 	100 	24,932 	
4  Lowland with sea -shore 	91.3 	7.9 	0.9 	100 	4,107 	
   All 	91.6 	7.5 	0.9 	100 	57,517

T-9 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 1.9: Percentage distribution of  houses by type of building  
 	
Sl No.   Natural Region 	
Type of the building  	Sample 
Houses  	
Independent house  	Others 	All 	
1  Highland 	93.8 	6.2 	100 	7,385 	
2  Midland 	99.1 	0.9 	100 	21,093 	
3  Lowland 	99.3 	0.7 	100 	24,932 	
4  Lowland with sea- shore 	99.3 	0.7 	100 	4,107 	
  All 	98.5 	1.5 	100 	57,517 	
 
Table 1.10: Natural Region wise average living area (in sqr.ft.) 	
Sl No.   Natural Region  ST  SC OBC Others  All 	
1  Highland 	411.9 	506.1 	666.8 	813.3 	648.0 	
2  Midland 	535.4 	567.0 	867.8 	980.5 	875.8 	
3  Lowland 	991.7 	568.5 	894.2 	893.0 	863.2 	
4  Lowland with sea -shore 	--  	543.4 	747.7 	699.9 	730.6 	
  All
 	415.7 	563.3 	849.5 	922.3 	830.7

T-10	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 1.11: Percentage of houses having girls in the age group 0 -15 years for each social group.  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	
Sample houses having 
girls in the age group 0 -	
15 years 	
Total girls in the age 
group 0-15 years 	Total Sample Houses 	
surveyed 	
% of houses having girls 
in the age group  0 -15 
years over All surveyed 
houses	 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST	 	616	 	866	 	1,686	 	36.5	 	
2 	SC	 	88	 	103	 	286	 	30.8	 	
3 	OBC	 	1,211	 	1,715	 	3,113	 	38.9	 	
4 	Others	 	706	 	913	 	2,300	 	30.7	 	
5 	All	 	2,621	 	3,597	 	7,385	 	35.5	 	
6 	
Midland 	
ST	 	7 	8 	24	 	29.2	 	
7 	SC	 	702	 	912	 	2,591	 	27.1	 	
8 	OBC	 	3,261	 	4,362	 	9,992	 	32.6	 	
9 	Others	 	2,392	 	3,078	 	8,486	 	28.2	 	
10	 	All	 	6,362	 	8,360	 	21,093	 	30.2	 	
11	 	
Lowland  	
ST	 	1 	1 	6 	16.7	 	
12	 	SC	 	787	 	969	 	2,355	 	33.4	 	
13	 	OBC	 	5,499	 	6,991	 	16,641	 	33.0	 	
14	 	Others	 	1,597	 	1,962	 	5,930	 	26.9	 	
15	 	All	 	7,884	 	9,923	 	24,932	 	31.6	 	
16	 	Lowland and 
sea-shore  	
SC	 	92	 	116	 	269	 	34.2	 	
17	 	OBC	 	1,203	 	1,584	 	3,520	 	34.2	 	
18	 	Others	 	96	 	119	 	318	 	30.	2 	
19	 	All	 	1,391	 	1,819	 	4,107	 	33.9

T-11	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 1.12:	 Number and percentage of permanently locked houses 	
Panchayath	 	Total Wards surveyed	 	Total Surveyed Houses	 	Total Locked House	 	 % over total houses	 	
Alappad	 	3 	833	 	58	 	6.51	 	
Chavara	 	5 	2,415	 	124	 	4.88	 	
Klappana  3 1,081  51 4.51 
Kulasekharapuram  5 2,824  99 3.39 
Manorothuruth  3 562  45  7.41 
Mayyanad  5 2,769  197  6.64 
Neendakara  3 1,052  19 1.77 
Ochira  3 1,295  68 4.99 
Panayam  3 1,406  26 1.82 
Panmana  5 2,569  112  4.18 
Perinad  4 1,924  32 1.64 
Thazhava  4 1,970  67 3.29 
Thekkumbhagam  3 1,053  27 2.50 
Thrikkaruva  3 1,344  36 2.61 
Kollam	 	52	 	23,097	 	961	 	3.99	 	
Anthikkad  3 1,118  76 6.37 
Desamangalam  3 930  78  7.74 
Eriyad  5 2,153  37 1.69 
Kadavallur	 	4 	1,416	 	96	 	6.35	 	
Kadukutty	 	3 	1,336	 	52	 	3.75	 	
Kaipparambu	 	4 	1,811	 	43	 	2.32	 	
Kuzhu	r 	3 	1,090	 	44	 	3.88	 	
Mathilakam	 	3 	1,310	 	14	 	1.06

T-12	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Panchayath	 	Total Wards surveyed	 	Total Surveyed Houses	 	Total Locked House	 	 % over total houses	 	
Mattathur 5 2,690  74 2.68 
Muriyad  3 1,336  32 2.34 
Nadathara	 	3 	1,530	 	90	 	5.56	 	
Nenmanikkara	 	3 	1,057	 	42	 	3.82	 	
Pazhayannur  4 1,624  62 3.68 
Vadakkekad  3 957  52  5.15 
Vadanappally  4 1,518  68 4.29 
Vallachira  3 1,056  60 5.38 
Velookkara  4 1,855  86 4.43 
Velur  3 1,205  69 5.42 
Venkidangu  3 1,043  39 3.60 
Thrissur	 	66	 	27,035	 	1,114	 	3.96	 	
Muppainadu  3 1,068  45 4.04 
Muttil  4 1,657  59 3.44 
Noolpuzha  3 994  68  6.40 
Panamaram  5 2,221  43 1.90 
Thirunelly  3 1,445  35 2.36 
W	ayanad	 	18	 	7,385	 	250	 	3.27	 	
Grand Total	 	136	 	57,517	 	2,325	 	3.89

T-13	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 	
 
 
 
 	
2. Status of Houses Constructed Under Housing Schemes

T-14	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala

T-15	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.1:	 Number of households living per 100 houses 	
Sl No. 	Natural Region  	Social Group 	No of households per 100 	
houses 	No of sample houses visited  	
1 	
Highland 	
ST 	116 	1,686 	
2 	SC 	111 	286 	
3 	OBC 	114 	3,113 	
4 	Others  	113 	2,300 	
5 	All 	114 	7,385 	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	113 	24 	
7 	SC 	111 	2,591 	
8 	OBC 	111 	9,992 	
9 	Others  	107 	8,486 	
10 	All 	110 	21,093 	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	100 	6 	
12 	SC 	113 	2,355 	
13 	OBC 	110 	16,641 	
14 	Others  	107 	5,930 	
15 	All 	110 	24,932 	
16 	
Lowland with sea -
shore 	
SC 	115 	269 	
17 	OBC 	113 	3,520 	
18 	Others  	117 	318 	
19 	All 	113 	4,107

T-16	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.2:.Percentage distribution of families by  type of household for each household social group.  
Sl No.  	
Natural 
Region  	
Social 
Group 	
% within Social Group	 	
Sample No. 
of families  	
Self	-	
employed 
in 
agriculture  	
 Self	-	
employed 
in non-
agriculture 	
Casual 
labour in 
agriculture 	
Casual 
labour in 
non-
agriculture 	
Regular 
wage/salary 
earning 	
Others 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST	 	                	6.0	                  	1.5	                	73.1	                  	9.5	  	                	4.8 	                 	5.1 	 	100	 	            	1,952	  	
2 	SC	 	                	8.5	                  	7.6	                	37.5	                	28.7	  	           	   11.7 	                 	6.0 	 	100	 	               	317	  	
3 	OBC	 	              	15.8	                	12.1	                	21.2	                	29.7	  	              	10.3 	               	10.9 	 	100	 	            	3,546	  	
4 	Others	 	              	40.5	                  	9.1	                	13.8	                	15.3	  	              	13.0 	                 	8.3 	 	100	 	            	2,593	  	
5 	All	 	              	20.8	                  	8.6	                	31.6	                	20.5	  	                	9.9 	                 	8.6 	 	100	 	            	8,40	8  	
6 	
Midland 	
ST	 	                	3.7	  	                 	-                     	-                  	63.0	  	              	18.5 	               	14.8 	 	100	 	                 	27	  	
7 	SC	 	                	1.8	                  	9.4	                  	8.7	                	54.6	  	              	11.0 	               	14.4 	 	100	 	            	2,870	  	
8 	OBC	 	                	5.7	                	15.8	                  	4.1	                	39.6	  	              	13.4 	               	21.3 	 	100	 	          	11,118	  	
9 	Others	 	                	9.2	          	      	15.8	                  	2.6	                	29.8	  	              	18.2 	               	24.3 	 	100	 	            	9,086	  	
10	 	All	 	                	6.6	                	15.0	                  	4.1	                	37.6	  	              	15.0 	               	21.6 	 	100	 	     	     	23,101	  	
11	 	
Lowland 	
ST	 	                 	-                     	-                     	-                  	16.7	  	              	83.3 	 	                 	-    100	 	                   	6  	
12	 	SC	 	                	1.6	                	11.2	                  	5.5	      	          	58.5	  	                	9.5 	               	13.7 	 	100	 	            	2,653	  	
13	 	OBC	 	                	2.8	                	13.2	                  	1.2	                	46.3	  	              	14.4 	               	22.1 	 	100	 	          	18,368	  	
14	 	Others	 	           	     	3.4	                	11.0	                  	1.7	                	38.5	  	              	21.8 	               	23.6 	 	100	 	            	6,369	  	
15	 	All	 	                	2.8	                	12.5	                  	1.8	                	45.7	  	              	15.7 	            	   21.6 	 	100	 	          	27,396	  	
17	 	Lowland 
with sea-
shore 	
SC	 	                	4.8	                	11.0	                  	0.6	                	69.0	  	                	2.6 	               	11.9 	 	100	 	               	310	  	
18	 	OBC	 	                	3.6	                	21.6	                  	0.2	                	48.9	  	                	8.9 	               	16.8 	 	100	 	            	3,965	  	
19	 	Others	 	                	5.1	                  	7.5	                  	0.3	                	63.1	  	                	8.1 	               	15.9 	 	100	 	         	      	371	  	
20	 	All	 	                	3.8	                	19.8	                  	0.2	                	51.4	  	                	8.4 	               	16.4 	 	100	 	            	4,646

T-17	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.3.  Percentage distribution of families by status of ownership or construction of any house for each household social group  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	
% within Social Group	 	  	
Either owned or 
constructing any 
house 	
 Houseless 
families  	All 	Sample No. of 
families 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST	 	              	85.3 	 	              	14.7 	 	       	        	100 	 	            	1,952 	 	
2 	SC	 	              	74.8 	 	              	25.2 	 	               	100 	 	               	317 	 	
3 	OBC	 	              	79.7 	 	              	20.3 	 	               	100 	 	            	3,546 	 	
4 	Others	 	              	86.3 	 	              	13.7 	 	               	100 	 	            	2,593 	 	
5 	All	 	              	82.8 	 	              	17.2 	 	               	100 	 	            	8,408 	 	
6 	
Midland 	
ST	 	              	88.9 	 	              	11.1 	 	               	100 	 	                 	27 	 	
7 	SC	 	              	86.2 	 	       	       	13.8 	 	               	100 	 	            	2,870 	 	
8 	OBC	 	              	85.7 	 	              	14.3 	 	               	100 	 	          	11,118 	 	
9 	Others	 	              	90.4 	 	                	9.6 	 	               	100 	 	            	9,086 	 	
10	 	All	 	              	87.6	  	              	12.4 	 	               	100 	 	          	23,101 	 	
11	 	
Lowland 	
ST	 	              	83.3 	 	              	16.7 	 	               	100 	 	                   	6  	
12	 	SC	 	              	79.6 	 	              	20.4 	 	               	100 	 	            	2,653 	 	
13	 	OBC	 	              	83.8 	 	              	16.2 	 	               	100 	 	          	18,368 	 	
14	 	Others	 	              	86.7 	 	              	13.3 	 	               	100 	 	            	6,369 	 	
15	 	All	 	              	84.0 	 	              	16.0 	 	               	100 	 	          	27,396 	 	
17	 	
Lowland with 
sea-shore  	
SC	 	              	77.1 	 	              	22.9 	 	               	100 	 	               	310 	 	
18	 	OBC	 	              	83.1 	 	              	16.9 	 	               	100 	 	            	3,965 	 	
19	 	Others	 	              	80.6 	 	              	19.4 	 	         	      	100 	 	               	371 	 	
20	 	All	 	              	82.5 	 	              	17.5 	 	               	100 	 	            	4,646

T-18	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.4.:	 Percentage distribution of families by Status of House for each ration card type. 
Sl No.   Social Group  Type of Ration Card possessed  	
Status of House 	
Sample 
Families 	
Either owned or 
constructing 
any house  	
Houseless 
families 	All 	
1 	
ST 	
APL  	85.0 	15.0 	100 	127 	
2 	BPL 	86.3 	13.7 	100 	1,226 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	84.3 	15.7 	100 	502 	
4 	No Ration Card  	80.8 	19.2 	100 	130 	
5 	All 	85.3 	14.7 	100 	1,985 	
6 	
SC 	
APL  	84.1 	15.9 	100 	1,863 	
7 	BPL 	82.7 	17.3 	100 	3,913 	
8 	Anthyodaya  	84.5 	15.5 	100 	103 	
9 	No Ration Card  	63.1 	36.9 	100 	271 	
10 	All 	82.3 	17.7 	100 	6,150 	
11 	
OBC 	
APL  	87.2 	12.8 	100 	21,747 	
12 	BPL 	80.5 	19.5 	100 	13,183 	
13 	Anthyodaya  	84.2 	15.8 	100 	259 	
14 	No Ration Card  	68.9 	31.1 	100 	1,808 	
15 	All 	83.9 	16.1 	100 	36,997 	
17 	
Others  	
APL 	90.3 	9.7 	100 	12,584 	
18 	BPL 	85.3 	14.7 	100 	4,999 	
19 	Anthyodaya  	86.7 	13.3 	100 	105 	
20 	No Ration Card  	75.6 	24.4 	100 	731 	
21 	All 	88.3 	11.7 	100 	18,419

T-19	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.5.:	 Percentage distribution of  families by Status of house according to number of members  in the house  
Sl No.  	
Type of house 
according to 
members  	
Social Group 	
Status of House 	
Sample 
Families 	
Either owned or 
constructing any 	
house 	
Houseless 
families  	All 	
1 	Single Male Houses	 	ST	 	89.6 	10.4 	100 	48 	
2 	SC	 	91.2 	8.8 	100 	68 	
3 	OBC	 	89.6 	10.4 	100 	241 	
4 	Others	 	90.9 	9.1 	100 	232 	
5 	All	 	90.3 	9.7 	100 	589 	
6 	
Women Only  Houses 	
Single 
female 	
ST	 	100.0 	0.0 	100 	49 	
7 	SC	 	93.4 	6.6 	100 	196 	
8 	OBC	 	94.1 	5.9 	100 	993 	
9 	Oth	ers	 	96.1 	3.9 	100 	564 	
10 	All	 	94.8 	5.2 	100 	1,802 	
11 	
Two or 
more 
females  	
ST	 	94.6 	5.4 	100 	56 	
12 	SC	 	91.7 	8.3 	100 	144 	
13 	OBC	 	90.7 	9.3 	100 	937 	
14 	Others	 	93.1 	6.9 	100 	393 	
15 	All	 	91.6 	8.4 	100 	1,530

T-20	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.6.:	 Percentage distribution of families  by status of house of  fishermen families   	
Sl No 	Type of Ration Card possessed  	
Status of House 	
Sample Fisherman 	
Families  	Either owned or 
constructing any 	
house 	
Houseless families  	All 	
1 	APL  	85.2 	14.8 	100 	1,376 	
2 	BPL 	80.7 	19.3 	100 	1,868 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	88.2 	11.8 	100 	17 	
4 	No Ration Card  	65.8 	34.2 	100 	73 	
5 	All 	82.2 	17.8 	100 	3,334

T-21	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.7.:	 Percentage distribution of houseless families for each rations card type. 
Sl No.   Social Group  Type of Ration Card possessed  	
Houseless families 	 	Sample No of 
Houseless 
families  	Having land 	
Not having 	
land 	All 	
1 	
ST 	
APL  	47.4 	52.6 	100 	19 	
2 	BPL 	29.8 	70.2 	100 	168 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	20.3 	79.7 	100 	79 	
4 	No Ration Card  	28.0 	72.0 	100 	25 	
5 	All 	28.2 	71.8 	100 	291 	
6 	
SC 	
APL  	20.9 	79.1 	100 	296 	
7 	BPL 	18.8 	81.2 	100 	676 	
8 	Anthyodaya  	0.0 	100.0 	100 	16 	
9 	No Ration Card  	15.0 	85.0 	100 	100 	
10 	All 	18.8 	81.3 	100 	1,088 	
11 	
OBC 	
APL  	26.7 	73.3 	100 	2,787 	
12 	BPL 	18.1 	81.9 	100 	2,567 	
13 	Anthyodaya  	24.4 	75.6 	100 	41 	
14 	No Ration Card  	19.6 	80.4 	100 	562 	
15 	All 	22.3 	77.7 	100 	5,957 	
17 	
Others  	
APL 	36.4 	63.6 	100 	1,224 	
18 	BPL 	24.6 	75.4 	100 	733 	
19 	Anthyodaya  	42.9 	57.1 	100 	14 	
20 	No Ration Card  	25.8 	74.2 	100 	178 	
21 	All 	31.5 	68.5 	100 	2,149

T-22	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.8.:	 Percentage distribution of houseless families according to number of members  in the house  
Sl No.  	
Type of house according to 	
members  	Social Group 	
Houseless families  	Sample No of 
Houseless 
families  	Having land 	Not having land 	All 	
1 	
Single Male Houses  	
ST 	0.0 	100.0 	100 	5 	
2 	SC 	16.7 	83.3 	100 	6 	
3 	OBC 	0.0 	100.0 	100 	25 	
4 	Other s 	33.3 	66.7 	100 	21 	
5 	All 	14.0 	86.0 	100 	57 	
6 	
Women Only  Houses 	
Single female  	
SC 	15.4 	84.6 	100 	13 	
7 	OBC 	15.3 	84.7 	100 	59 	
8 	Others 	18.2 	81.8 	100 	22 	
9 	All 	16.0 	84.0 	100 	94 	
10 	
Two or more 
females  	
ST 	0.0 	100.0 	100 	3 	
11 	SC 	16.7 	83.3 	100 	12 	
12 	OBC 	13.8 	86.2 	100 	87 	
13 	Others  	33.3 	66.7 	100 	27 	
14 	All 	17.8 	82.2 	100 	129

T-23	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.9.: 	Percentage distribution of houseless fishermen families 	
Sl No 	Type of Ration Card possessed  	Houseless families  	Sample No of 
Houseless 	
fishermen Families  	
Having land  	
Not having 	
land 	All 	
1 	APL  	17.2 	82.8 	100 	204 	
2 	BPL 	11.9 	88.1 	100 	361 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	.0 	100.0 	100 	2 	
4 	No Ration Card  	12.0 	88.0 	100 	25 	
5 	All 	13.7 	86.3 	100 	592

T-24	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.10.Percentage distribution of families by status of assistance from any hou sing scheme for each household social group. 
Sl No. 	Natural 
Region  	
Social 
Group 	
% within Social Group  	
Sample No. 
of families 	No housing 
schemes 	
SC 
development  	
ST 
development 	
Fisheries 
department 	Revenue 	LSGD 	Others  	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	               13.6  	                 -	                   23.7  	                 -	                    0.2   	              60.5  	                2.1   	100 	            1,665   	
2 	SC 	               39.2  	               10.5  	                 -	    	                 -	    	                 -	                   49.4  	                0.8   	100 	                237  	
3 	OBC  	               69.7  	                 -	    	                 -	    	                 -	                    0.2   	              29.2  	                0.8   	100 	            2,825   	
4 	Others 	               80.0  	                 -	    	                 -	    	                 -	                    0.6   	              18.2  	                1.2   	100 	            2,237   	
5 	All 	              58.6  	                0.4   	                5.7  	                 -	                    0.3  	              33.8  	                1.2   	100 	            6,964   	
6 	
Midland 	
ST 	               25.0  	                 -	                   41.7  	                 -	    	                 -	                   33.3  	                 -	    	100 	                 24   	
7 	SC 	               47.5  	                8.0   	                 -	                    0.1  	                0.4  	              43.1  	                0.9   	100 	            2,474   	
8 	OBC 	               89.9  	                 -	    	                 -	                    0.0   	                0.1  	                9.6  	                0.4  	100 	            9,533   	
9 	Others 	               94.5  	                 -	    	                 -	                    0.1   	                0.0  	                4.9  	                0.5  	100 	            8,213   	
10 	All 	               86.5  	                1.0   	                0.0  	                0.1  	                0.1  	              11.8  	                0.5   	100 	          20,244   	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	            100.0   	                 -	    	                 -	    	                 -	    	                 -	                     -	    	                 -	    	100 	                   5  	
12 	SC  	               49.1  	                4.0   	                 -	                    0.2  	                0.2   	              45.9  	                0.5   	100 	            2,112   	
13 	OBC  	               90.2  	                 -	    	                 -	                    0.7   	                0.2  	                8.1  	                0.9  	100 	          15,386   	
14 	Others  	               93.2  	                 -	    	                 -	                    0.4   	                 -	                    6.3  	                0.1  	100 	            5,521   	
15 	All 	               87.1  	                0.4   	                 -	                    0.6  	                0.1  	              11.1  	                0.7   	100 	          23,024   	
17 	
Lowland 
with sea -
shore 	
SC 	               35.1  	                1.7   	                 -	                    0.8  	                 -	                  61.5  	                0.8   	100 	                239  	
18 	OBC  	               74.7  	                 -	    	                 -	                    6.6   	                0.1  	              11.3  	                7.3   	100 	            3,296   	
19 	Others  	               66.6  	                 -	    	                 -	                   11.7  	                 -	                   12.4  	                9.4   	100 	                299  	
20 	All 	               71.6  	                0.1   	                 -	                    6.7  	                0.1  	              14.5  	                7.0   	100 	            3,834

T-25	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.11. Percentage distribution of families who were provided land along with housing scheme assistance for each household 
social group  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group  	
% within Social Group	 	Sample No. of 
families received 
assistance from 
housing scheme	 	
Land also 
provided 	
Land not 
provided 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST	 	13.3	 	86.7	 	100	 	            	1,439 	 	
2 	SC	 	23.6	 	76.4	 	100	 	               	144 	 	
3 	OBC	 	5.8	 	94.2	 	100	 	               	856 	 	
4 	Others	 	4.0	 	96.0	 	100	 	               	447 	 	
5 	All	 	10.2	 	89.8	 	100	 	            	2,886 	 	
6 	
Midland 	
ST	 	55.6	 	44.4	 	100	 	                 	18 	 	
7 	SC	 	19.3	 	80.7	 	100	 	            	1,298 	 	
8 	OBC	 	7.4	 	92.6	 	100	 	               	961 	 	
9 	Others	 	13.1	 	86.9	 	100	 	               	452 	 	
10	 	All	 	14.3	 	85.7	 	100	 	            	2,729 	 	
12	 	
Lowland 	
SC	 	26.5	 	73.5	 	100	 	            	1,074 	 	
13	 	OBC	 	17.0	 	83.0	 	100	 	            	1,509 	 	
14	 	Others	 	18.0	 	82.0	 	100	 	               	377 	 	
15	 	All	 	20.6	 	79.4	 	100	 	            	2,960 	 	
17	 	
Lowland wit h sea-
shore  	
SC	 	39.4	 	60.6	 	100	 	               	155 	 	
18	 	OBC	 	4.3	 	95.7	 	100	 	               	835 	 	
19	 	Others	 	10.0	 	90.0	 	100	 	               	100 	 	
20	 	All	 	9.8	 	90.2	 	100	 	            	1,090

T-26	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
 Table 2.12. Percentage distribution of houses received assistance from housing scheme by present status of house for each 
household social group  
Sl No.  	
Natural 
Region  	
Social 
Group 	
% within Social Group 	Sample No. of 
families received 
assistance from 
housing scheme  	
Construction 
completed 	 Incomplete 	Not started 	Construction/p roject 
abandoned 	All 	
1 	
Highland 	
ST 	              60.5 	               37.4  	                0.1 	 	                1.9 	 	               100 	 	            1,439  	
2 	SC  	              42.4 	               55.6  	                1.4 	 	                0.7 	 	               100 	 	               144  	
3 	OBC  	              54.3 	               45.1  	                0.4 	 	                0.2 	 	               100 	 	               856  	
4 	Others  	              54.8 	               44.7  	                0.2 	 	                0.2 	 	               100 	 	               447  	
5 	All 	              56.9 	               41.7  	                0.3 	 	                1.1 	 	               100 	 	            2,886  	
6 	
Midland 	
ST 	              33.3 	               66.7  	                 -	    	                 -	    	               100 	 	                 18  	
7 	SC  	              32.9 	               66.3  	                0.8 	 	                0.1 	 	               100 	 	            1,298  	
8 	OBC  	              36.4 	               62.7  	                0.4 	 	                0.4 	 	               100 	 	               961  	
9 	Others  	              51.3 	               48.5  	                0.2 	 	                 -	    	               100 	 	               452  	
10 	All 	              37.2 	               62.1  	                0.5 	 	                0.2 	 	               100 	 	            2,729  	
12 	
Lowland 	
SC 	              57.0 	               42.6  	                0.2 	 	                0.3 	 	               100 	 	            1,074  	
13 	OBC  	              68.9 	               31.0  	                 -	    	                0.1 	 	               100 	 	            1,509  	
14 	Others  	              75.1 	               24.4  	                0.5 	 	                 -	    	               100 	 	               377  	
15 	All 	              65.4 	               34.4  	                0.1 	 	                0.1 	 	               100 	 	            2,960  	
17 	
Lowland 
with sea -
shore 	
SC 	              25.8 	               74.2  	                 -	    	                 -	    	               100 	 	               155  	
18 	OBC  	              77.4 	               22.6  	                 -	    	                 -	    	               100 	 	               835  	
19 	Others  	              79.0 	               21.0  	                 -	    	                 -	    	               100 	 	               100  	
20 	All 	              70.2 	               29.8  	                 -	    	                 -	    	               100 	 	            1,090

T-27	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.13. Percentage distribution of houses received assistance from housing scheme by present  status of house . 
Sl No.  	
  	
Funding  Department  	
Present status of house  	Sample No. of 
families received 
assistance from 
housing scheme  	
Construction 
completed 	 Incomplete 	Not started 	
Construction
/project 
abandoned 	
All 	
1 	SC development  	                    35.4 	 	              64.0  	                0.6 	 	                 -	    	               100 	 	               311  	
2 	ST development 	                      59.2 	 	              37.1  	                 -	    	                   4 	 	               100 	 	               404  	
3 	Fisheries department  	                     78.8 	 	              21.2  	                 -	    	                 -	    	               100 	 	               405  	
4 	Revenue 	                      67.1 	 	              32.9  	                 -	    	                 -	    	               100 	 	                 76  	
5 	LSGD 	                     52.8 	 	              46.6  	                0.3 	 	                   0 	 	               100 	 	            7,859  	
6 	Others  	                     80.5 	 	              19.2  	                0.2 	 	                   0 	 	               100 	 	               610  	
  	All 	                      55.4 	 	              43.9  	                0.3 	 	                   0 	 	               100 	 	            9,665

T-28	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.14-A. Percentage distribution of 	incomplete houses	 (which received assista nce from housing scheme ) by reason for 
incompletion.  
Sl No.  	
Social 
Group  	
 Reason for incompletion of the house.  (% within Social Group)  	
of 	
incomplete 	
houses 	
Cost of 
materials 
increased  	
Scarcity 
of 
materials 	
Insufficie
nt fund 
for the 
prescribe
d area	 	
 fund not 
released 
in time 	
Legal 
problems  	
Area 
more 
than 
prescribe
d area	 	
Work in 
progress 	Others 	All 	
1 	ST 	                           	
0.7 	 	
                	
1.4  	
              	
57.6  	
                	
9.0  	
                	
3.1  	
                	
1.7 	 	
    	          	
13.4  	
              	
13.1  	100 	580 	
2 	SC  	                           	
5.4 	 	
                	
1.0  	
              	
84.4  	
                	
3.7  	
                	
0.3  	
                	
0.3 	 	
                	
2.5  	
                	
2.5  	100 	1,531 	
3 	OBC  	           	                	
5.6 	 	
                	
1.0  	
              	
79.3  	
                	
3.4  	
                	
0.1  	
                	
2.0 	 	
                	
5.9  	
                	
2.6  	100 	1,660 	
4 	Others  	                           	
2.2 	 	
                	
0.7  	
              	
82.5  	
                	
4.1  	
                	
0.2  	
                	
1.3 	 	
                	
4.5  	
                	
4.5  	100 	537 	
5 	All 	                           	
4.4 	 	
                	
1.0  	
              	
78.6  	
                	
4.3  	
                	
0.6  	
                	
1.3 	 	
                	
5.5  	
                	
4.2  	100 	4,308

T-29	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.14-B. Percentage distribution of 	incomplete houses	 (which received assistance from housing scheme) by reason for 
incompletion.  	
Sl No. 	Funding agency  	
Reason for incompletion of the house.  ( % within Social Group) 	
No. of 
incomple
te houses 	
Cost of 
materials 
increased  	
Scarcity 
of 
materials 	
Insufficie
nt fund 
for the 
prescribe
d area 	
 fund not 
released 
in time  	
Legal 
problems  	
Area 
more 
than 
prescribe
d area 	
Work in 
progress  	Others 	All 	
1 	SC development  	                           	
3.0 	 	
                	
1.0 	 	
              	
86.6 	 	
                	
4.0  	
                	
0.5  	
                	
0.5  	
                	
1.5  	
                	
3.0  	
               	
100  	
               	
201  	
2 	ST development  	      	                     	
0.6 	 	
                	
1.2 	 	
              	
44.8 	 	
                	
9.7  	
                	
4.8  	
                	
3.0  	
              	
24.8  	
              	
10.9  	
               	
100  	
               	
165  	
3 	Fisheries 
department 	
                      	     	
2.3 	 	
                	
1.2 	 	
              	
69.8 	 	
              	
10.5  	
                 
-    	
                	
1.2  	
              	
11.6  	
                	
3.5  	
               	
100  	
                 	
86  	
4 	Revenue 	                            
-    	
                	
4.0 	 	
              	
92.0 	 	
                	
4.0  	
                 
-    	
                 
-    	
                 
-    	
                 
-    	
               	
100  	
                 	
25  	
5 	LSGD 	                           	
4.7 	 	
                	
1.0 	 	
              	
79.7 	 	
                	
4.1 	 	
                	
0.4 	 	
                	
1.2 	 	
                	
4.9 	 	
                	
4.0 	 	
               	
100 	 	
            	
3,712 	 	
6 	Others 	                           	
7.6 	 	
                	
0.8 	 	
              	
80.7 	 	
                	
0.8  	
        	        	
0.8  	
                	
1.7  	
                	
1.7  	
                	
5.9  	
               	
100  	
               	
119  	
 	All 	                           	
4.4 	 	
                	
1.0 	 	
              	
78.6 	 	
                	
4.3  	
                	
0.6  	
                	
1.3  	
                	
5.5  	
                	
4.2  	
               	
100  	
            	
4,308

T-30	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.14-C. Percentage distribution of 	incomplete houses	 (which received assistance from housing scheme) by reason for 
incompletion.  	
Sl 
No.  	
Year of 
assistance 
availed ( First 
Installment) 	
Reason for incompletion  	Sample 
No. of 
incomple
te houses 	Cost of 
materials 
increased  	
Scarcity 	
of 	
materials 	
Insufficie
nt fund 
for the 
prescribe
d area 	
 fund not 
released 
in time  	
Legal 
problems  	
Area 
more 
than 	
prescribe
d area 	
Work in 
progress 	Others  	All 	
1 	Before 1996 	                           	
4.6 	 	
                	
0.5 	 	
              	
87.6 	 	
                	
1.5 	 	
                 
-    	
                 
-    	
                 
-    	
                	
5.7 	 	100	 	
               	
194 	 	
2 	1996 - 2001 	     	                      	
4.4 	 	
                	
0.8 	 	
              	
84.9 	 	
                	
3.1 	 	
                	
0.2 	 	
                	
1.1 	 	
                 
-    	
                	
5.6 	 	100	 	
               	
643 	 	
3 	2002 - 2007 	                           	
4.0 	 	
           	     	
1.1  	
              	
87.6  	
                	
2.9  	
                	
0.2 	 	
                	
1.2 	 	
                 
-    	
                	
3.0  	100 	
               	
842  	
4 	2008 - 2012 	                           	
5.5 	 	
                	
0.9  	
              	
84.4  	
        	        	
3.5  	
                	
0.7 	 	
                	
1.5 	 	
                	
0.6  	
                	
2.9  	100 	
            	
1,430  	
5 	2013 & above 	                           	
3.4 	 	
                	
1.4  	
              	
60.4  	
                	
7.5  	
                	
1.0 	 	
     	           	
1.4 	 	
              	
19.1  	
                	
5.7  	100 	
            	
1,198  	
6 	All 	                           	
4.4 	 	
                	
1.0  	
              	
78.6  	
                	
4.3  	
                	
0.6 	 	
                	
1.3 	 	
                	
5.5  	
            	    	
4.2  	100 	
            	
4,307

T-31	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.15-A. 	Percentage distribution of incomplete fishermen houses	 (which received assistance from housing scheme ) by 	reason for 
incompletion.  
Sl No.  	
Funding agency  	
Reason for incompletion  	Sample 
Incomplet	
e 	
Fishermen 
Houses  	
Cost of 
materials 
increased  	
Scarcity 	
of 	
materials 	
Insufficie
nt fund 
for the 
prescribe
d area 	
 fund not 
released 
in time  	
Area 
more 
than 	
prescribe
d area 	
Work in 
progress  	Others 	All 	
1 	SC development  	0.0 	0.0 	50.0 	50.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	2 	
2 	Fisheries department  	1.4 	1.4 	68.9 	9.5 	1.4 	13.5 	4.1 	100 	74 	
3 	Revenue 	0.0 	0.0 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	1 	
4 	LSGD 	2.1 	0.0 	91.8 	4.1 	1.0 	1.0 	0.0 	100 	97 	
5 	Others 	0.0 	0.0 	80.0 	20.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	5 	
6 	All 	1.7 	0.6 	81.6 	7.3 	1.1 	6.1 	1.7 	100 	179

T-32	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.15-B.: 	Percentage distribution of incomplete fishermen houses	 (which received assistance from housing scheme ) by 	reason for 
incompletion.  
Sl No.  	
Year of 
assistance 
availed (First 
Installment) 	
Reason for incompletion  	Sample 
Incomplete 
Fishermen 
Houses  	Cost of 
materials 
increased	 	
Scarcity of 
materials	 	
Insufficient 
fund for 	
the 	
prescribed 	
area	 	
 fund not 
released 
in time	 	
Area 	
more than 
prescribed 	
area	 	
Work in 
progress	 	Others	 	All	 	
1 	Before 1996 	0.0 	0.0 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	2 	
2 	1996 - 2001 	4.8 	0.0 	85.7 	9.5 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	74 	
3 	2002 - 2007 	0.0 	0.0 	97.2 	2.8 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	1 	
4 	2008 - 2012 	3.8 	0.0 	88.7 	5.7 	1.9 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	97 	
5 	2013 & above 	0.0 	1.6 	62.3 	11.5 	1.6 	18.0 	4.9 	100 	5 	
6 	All 	1.7 	0.6 	81.6 	7.3 	1.1 	6.1 	1.7 	100 	179

T-33	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.16.  Percentage distribution of constructions used locally available resources and adopted low cost building methods. 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	
Percentage of constructions 	 	Sample No. of 
houses received 
assistance from 
housing scheme  	
used	 locally available 	
resources 	
adopted low cost  
building methods  	
1 	
Highland 	
ST 	              18.6 	 	                7.3  	            1,439  	
2 	SC	 	              	24.3 	 	              	16.7 	 	               	144 	 	
3 	OBC	 	              	28.4 	 	              	10.9 	 	               	856 	 	
4 	Others  	              24.2 	 	                5.8  	               447  	
5 	All 	              22.6 	 	                8.6  	            2,886  	
6 	
Midland 	
ST	 	              	77.8 	 	                 	-    	                 	18 	 	
7 	SC	 	              	57.2 	 	              	20.7 	 	            	1,298 	 	
8 	OBC 	              55.8 	 	              17.7  	               961  	
9 	Others  	              52.9 	 	              18.1  	               452  	
10	 	All	 	              	56.1 	 	              	19.1 	 	            	2,729 	 	
12	 	
Lowland 	
SC	 	              	32.4 	 	              	  9.1 	 	            	1,074 	 	
13 	OBC 	              25.5 	 	                6.6  	            1,509  	
14 	Others  	              21.2 	 	                8.2  	               377  	
15	 	All	 	              	27.5 	 	                	7.7 	 	            	2,960 	 	
17	 	
Lowland with se a-
shore 	
SC	 	              	41.3 	 	              	24.5 	 	               	155 	 	
18 	OBC 	              23.0 	 	                8.5  	               835  	
19 	Others  	              72.0 	 	              11.0  	               100  	
20	 	All	 	              	30.1 	 	              	11.0 	 	            	1,090

T-34	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.17.  	Percentage distribution of constructions used locally available resources and adopted low cost building methods . 
Sl No.   Social Group  Type of Ration Card 
possessed   Percentage of constructions 	
Sample No. of 
houses re
ceived 
assistance from 
housing scheme	 	
used  locally available 
resources	 	
adopted low cost building 
methods	 	
1 	
ST 	
APL  	20.9 	7.0 	43 	
2 	BPL 	21.0 	4.3 	939 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	16.5 	15.3 	399 	
4 	No Ration Card  	11.8 	1.3 	76 	
5 	All 	19.3 	7.2 	1,457 	
6 	
SC 	
APL  	40.1 	13.6 	661 	
7 	BPL 	45.9 	16.9 	1,881 	
8 	Anthyodaya  	60.8 	21.6 	51 	
9 	No Ration Card  	39.7 	14.1 	78 	
10 	All 	44.6 	16.1 	2,671 	
11 	
OBC 	
APL  	31.5 	10.8 	1,754 	
12 	BPL 	33.2 	10.1 	2,254 	
13 	Anthyodaya  	44.6 	10.8 	74 	
14 	No Ration Card  	26.6 	11.4 	79 	
15 	All 	32.6 	10.4 	4,161 	
17 	
Others  	
APL 	34.9 	10.5 	562 	
18 	BPL 	36.9 	10.9 	759 	
19 	Anthyodaya  	42.4 	15.2 	33 	
20 	No Ration Card  	40.9 	13.6 	22 	
21 	All 	36.3 	10.9 	1,376

T-35	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.18.  	Percentage distribution of constructions by fishermen families who used locally available resources and adopted low cost building 
methods . 	
Sl No 	Type of Ration Card possessed  	
Percentage of constructions 	Sample No. of 
families received 
assistance from 
housing scheme  	
Used locally available 	
resources 	
adopted low cost 
building methods  	
1 	APL 	25.7 	3.9 	408 	
2 	BPL 	21.6 	5.3 	565 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	45.5 	.0 	11 	
4 	No Ration Card  	33.3 	.0 	3 	
5 	All 	23.6 	4.7 	987

T-36	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.19. Percentage distribution of houses received assistance from housing scheme  by financial status after construction of the 
house.  
Sl No.  	
Natural 
Region  	Social Group  	
Financial status after construction of the house  (% within Social Group)	
of houses 
received 
assistance 	
from 
housing 
scheme 	
Indebted to 
institutional 
agencies  	
Indebted to 
non-
institutional 
agencies 	
Both 	Not 
changed  	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	                3.7 	 	                2.6 	 	                2.6 	 	              91.2 	 	100 	            1,439  	
2 	SC	 	              	16.7 	 	              	13.2 	 	              	13.9 	 	              	56.3 	 	100	 	               	144 	 	
3 	OBC	 	              	18.8 	 	     	         	10.3 	 	              	15.9 	 	              	55.0 	 	100	 	               	856 	 	
4 	Others  	              21.7 	 	                9.6 	 	              14.3 	 	              54.4 	 	100 	               447  	
5 	All 	              11.6 	 	                6.5 	 	                8.9 	 	              73.0 	 	100 	            2,886  	
6 	
Midland 	
ST	 	              	11.1 	 	                	5.6 	 	              	44.4 	 	              	38.9 	 	100	 	                 	18 	 	
7 	SC	 	              	29.0 	 	              	15.9 	 	                	9.9 	 	              	45	.2 	 	100	 	            	1,298 	 	
8 	OBC 	              28.3 	 	              17.9 	 	              11.2 	 	              42.6 	 	100 	               961  	
9 	Others  	              33.8 	 	                9.3 	 	              10.6 	 	              46.2 	 	100 	               452  	
10	 	All	 	              	29.4 	 	              	15.5 	 	              	10.7 	 	              	44.4 	 	100	 	            	2,729 	 	
12	 	
Lowland 	
SC	 	              	29.9 	 	              	19.6 	 	              	16.9 	 	              	33.6 	 	100	 	            	1,074 	 	
13 	OBC 	              33.3 	 	              15.2 	 	              12.6 	 	              38.8 	 	100 	            1,509  	
14 	Others  	              41.9 	 	              21.5 	 	                8.8 	 	              27.9 	 	100 	               377  	
15	 	All	 	              	33.2 	 	              	17.6 	 	     	         	13.6 	 	              	35.5 	 	100	 	            	2,960 	 	
17	 	
Lowland with 	
sea-shore  	
SC	 	              	29.0 	 	              	17.4 	 	                	9.7 	 	              	43.9 	 	100	 	               	155 	 	
18 	OBC 	              22.8 	 	                7.7 	 	                5.3 	 	              64.3 	 	100 	               835  	
19 	Others  	                9.0 	 	              28.0 	 	              39.0 	 	              24.0 	 	100 	               100  	
20	 	All	 	              	22.4 	 	              	10.9 	 	                	9.0 	 	              	57.	7  	100	 	            	1,090

T-37	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.20.  Percentage distribution of  houses received assistance from housing scheme  by financial status after construction of the 
house  
Sl No.  	
Natural 
Region  	Funding agency  	
Financial status after construction of the house   	Sample No. of 
houses received 
assistance from 
housing scheme 	
Indebted to 
institutional 
agencies 	
Indebted to 
non-
institutional 
agencies	 	
Both 	Not 
changed  	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
SC development  	              16.0 	 	              16.0 	 	              16.0 	 	              52.0 	 	100 	                 25  	
2 	ST development 	                2.5 	 	                4.3 	 	                2.0 	 	              91.1 	 	100 	               394  	
3 	Revenue 	              16.7 	 	              16.7 	 	              12.5 	 	              54.2 	 	100 	                 24  	
4 	LSGD 	              12.5 	 	                6.8 	 	              10.1 	 	              70.5 	 	100 	            2,356  	
5 	Others  	              25.3 	 	                2.3 	 	                3.4 	 	              69.0 	 	100 	                 87  	
6 	All 	              11.6 	 	                6.5 	 	                8.9 	 	              73.0 	 	100 	            2,886  	
7 	
Midland 	
SC development  	              30.3 	 	              13.6 	 	                6.6 	 	              49.5 	 	100 	               198  	
8 	ST development 	                 -	                  10.0 	 	              40.0 	 	              50.0 	 	100 	                 10  	
9 	Fisheries 
department  	              40.0 	 	                 -	                  13.3 	 	              46.7 	 	100 	                 15  	
10 	Revenue 	              22.2 	 	                5.6 	 	              11.1 	 	              61.1 	 	100 	                 18  	
11 	LSGD 	              29.5 	 	              16.3 	 	              11.1 	 	              43.2 	 	100 	            2,389  	
12 	Others  	              29.3 	 	                4.0 	 	                6.1 	 	              60.6 	 	100 	                 99

T-38	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Sl No. 	Natural 
Region  	Funding agency  	
Financial status after construction of the house   	Sample No. of 
houses received 
assistance from 
housing scheme 	
Indebted to 
institutional 
agencies 	
Indebted to 
non-
institutional 
agencies	 	
Both 	Not 
changed  	All 	
13 	All 	              29.4 	 	              15.5 	 	              10.7 	 	              44.4 	 	100 	            2,729  	
14 	
Lowland 	
SC development  	              36.9 	 	                9.5 	 	              20.2 	 	              33.3 	 	100 	                 84  	
15 	Fisheries 
department 	              33.6 	 	              13.4 	 	              17.2 	 	              35.8 	 	100 	               134  	
16 	Revenue 	                 -	                  13.3 	 	              16.7 	 	              70.0 	 	100 	                 30  	
17 	LSGD 	              34.4 	 	              19.0 	 	              13.9 	 	              32.7 	 	100 	            2,557  	
18 	Others  	              17.4 	 	                3.9 	 	                1.9 	 	              76.8 	 	100 	               155  	
19 	All 	              33.2 	 	              17.6 	 	              13.6 	 	              35.5 	 	100 	            2,960  	
20 	
Lowland 
with sea -
shore 	
SC development  	                 -	                  50.0 	 	              25.0 	 	              25.0 	 	100 	                   4  	
21 	Fisheries 
department 	              28.5 	 	                8.6 	 	              15.6 	 	              47.3 	 	100 	               256  	
22 	Revenue 	                 -	    	                 -	                  25.0 	 	              75.0 	 	100 	                   4  	
23 	LSGD 	              26.4 	 	              14.7 	 	                8.1 	 	              50.8 	 	100 	               557  	
24 	Others  	                8.9 	 	                4.8 	 	                4.1 	 	              82.2 	 	100 	               269  	
25 	All 	              22.4 	 	              10.9 	 	                9.0 	 	              57.7 	 	100 	            1,090

T-39	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.21. Percentage of houseless families over total families surveyed and sample number of houseless families identified.  
Sl No. 	Natural Region  	Social Group 	
Percentage of houseless 
families over total 
families 	
Sample No. of  house 
less families identified 	
Sample No. of families 
surveyed 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	14.7 	287 	1,952 	
2 	SC 	25.2 	80 	317 	
3 	OBC 	20.3 	721 	3,546 	
4 	Othe rs 	13.7 	356 	2,593 	
5 	All  	17.2 	1444 	8,408 	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	11.1 	3 	27 	
7 	SC 	13.8 	396 	2,870 	
8 	OBC 	14.3 	1585 	11,118 	
9 	Others  	9.6 	873 	9,086 	
10 	All 	12.4 	2857 	23,101 	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	16.7 	1 	6 	
12 	SC 	20.4 	541 	2,653 	
13 	OBC 	16.2 	2982 	18,368 	
14 	Others  	13.3 	848 	6,369 	
15 	All 	16 	4372 	27,396 	
17 	
Lowland with sea -	
shore 	
SC 	22.9 	71 	310 	
18 	OBC 	16.9 	669 	3,965 	
19 	Others  	19.4 	72 	371 	
20 	All 	17.5 	812 	4,646

T-40	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.22: Percentage of houseless families having land and percentage of houseless and landless families  over total houseless 
families surveyed . 	
Sl No. 	Natural Region  	Social 
Group 	
Whether own any land   	
Houseless families having land	 	Houseless and landless families	 	
Sample No of 
house less 
families 	
Sample no of 	
families 	
Percentage over 
total house less 	
families 	
Sample no of 	
families 	
Percentage over 
total house less 	
families 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	80 	27.9% 	207 	72.1% 	287 	
2 	SC 	21 	26.3% 	59 	73.8% 	80 	
3 	OBC 	308 	42.7% 	413 	57.3% 	721 	
4 	Others  	192 	53.9% 	164 	46.1% 	356 	
5 	All 	601 	41.6% 	843 	58.4% 	1444 	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	1 	33.3% 	2 	66.7% 	3 	
7 	SC 	84 	21.2% 	312 	78.8% 	396 	
8 	OBC 	460 	29.0% 	1125 	71.0% 	1585 	
9 	Others  	267 	30.6% 	606 	69.4% 	873 	
10 	All 	812 	28.4% 	2045 	71.6% 	2857 	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	1 	100.0% 	  	.0% 	1 	
12 	SC 	91 	16.8% 	450 	83.2% 	541 	
13 	OBC 	482 	16.2% 	2500 	83.8% 	2982 	
14 	Oth ers 	196 	23.1% 	652 	76.9% 	848 	
15 	All  	770 	17.6% 	3602 	82.4% 	4372 	
17 	
Lowland with 	
sea -shore  	
SC 	8 	11.3% 	63 	88.7% 	71 	
18 	OBC 	80 	12.0% 	589 	88.0% 	669 	
19 	Others  	22 	30.6% 	50 	69.4% 	72 	
20 	All 	110 	13.5% 	702 	86.5% 	812

T-41	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 2.23. Percentage distribution of houseless families having own land by area of land possessed  
Sl No. 	Natural Region  	Social Group 	
Area of land in Cent.  	Sample No. of 
houseless  families 
having own land  	<=4  05 to 10  11 & above 	
1 	
Highland 	
ST 	17.5  62.5  20.0  80 	
2 	SC 	4.8 81.0  14.3  21 	
3 	OBC  	10.4  73.7  15.9  308 	
4 	Others 	4.2  45.3  50.5  192 	
5 	All 	9.2  63.4  27.5  601 	
6 	
Midland 	
ST 	100.0  0.0 0.0  1 	
7 	SC 	40.5 56.0  3.6  84 	
8 	OBC 	15.4 67.4  17.2  460 	
9 	Others 	18.0  58.1  24.0  267 	
10 	All 	19.0  63.1  18.0  812 	
11 	
Lowland 	
ST 	100.0  0.0 0.0  1 	
12 	SC 	48.4 42.9  8.8  91 	
13 	OBC 	15.8 60.6  23.7  482 	
14 	Others 	15.3  46.4  38.3  196 	
15 	All 	19.6  54.8  25.6  770 	
17 	
Lowland with sea-
shore 	
SC 	75.0  25.0  0.0  8 	
18 	OBC 	32.5 57.5  10.0  80 	
19 	Others 	22.7  54.5  22.7  22 	
20 	All 	33.6  54.5  11.8  110

T-42	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala

T-43	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
  
 
 	
3. Major  facilities for living

T-44	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala

T-45	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.1.Percentage distribution of houses having only one room for each social group.  	
Sl No. 	Type of Ration Card possessed  	
Social Group 	Sample Houses 
Having Only One Room 	
ST  	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1 	APL  	2.6 	16.0 	60.9 	20.5 	100 	156 	
2 	BPL  	22.5 	26.3 	38.6 	12.6 	100 	373 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	78.3 	8.7 	8.7 	4.3 	100 	46 	
4 	No Ration Card  	32.0 	4.9 	44.7 	18.4 	100 	103 	
  	All 	23.2 	19.5 	42.6 	14.7 	100 	678 	
 
Table 3.2. Percentage distribution of women only houses having only one room for each social group.  	
Sl No. 	Type of Ration Card possessed  	
Social Group 	Sample women 
only Houses 
Having Only 
One Room	 	
ST  	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1 	APL  	7.7 	15.4 	38.5 	38.5 	100 	13 	
2 	BPL 	9.8 	21.3 	50.8 	18.0 	100 	61 	
3 	Anthyodaya  	33.3 	33.3 	33.3 	0.0 	100 	6 	
4 	No Ration Card  	10.0 	0.0 	60.0 	30.0 	100 	10 	
  	All 	11.1 	18.9 	48.9 	21.1 	100 	90

T-46	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.3. Percentage distribution of houses by facility of bathroom for each social group. 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	
Facility of bathroom   	Sample 
Houses  	Attached with 	
house 	
Detached from 	
house 	No bathroom   	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	29.4 	39.1 	31.5 	100 	       1,686  	
2 	SC 	57.3 	35.7 	7.0 	100 	          286  	
3 	OBC 	61.6 	34.0 	4.3 	100 	       3,113  	
4 	Others  	69.7 	28.0 	2.3 	100 	       2,300  	
5 	All 	56.6 	33.4 	10.0 	100 	       7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	79.2 	16.7 	4.2 	100 	            24  	
7 	SC 	39.3 	57.1 	3.6 	100 	       2,591  	
8 	OBC 	68.0 	31.1 	1.0 	100 	       9,992  	
9 	Others  	79.6 	20.1 	0.3 	100 	       8,486  	
10 	All 	69.1 	29.8 	1.0 	100 	      21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	66.7 	33.3 	0.0 	100 	              6  	
12 	SC 	32.0 	61.4 	6.6 	100 	       2,355  	
13 	OBC 	65.1 	32.9 	2.0 	100 	      16,641  	
14 	Others  	63.3 	34.9 	1.8 	100 	       5,930  	
15 	All 	61.5 	36.1 	2.4 	100 	      24,932  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -
shore 	
SC 	34.9 	52.0 	13.0 	100 	          269  	
17 	OBC 	56.1 	42.5 	1.5 	100 	       3,520  	
18 	Others 	70.8 	23.0 	6.3 	100 	          318  	
19 	All  	55.8 	41.6 	2.6 	100 	       4,107

T-47	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.4.Percentage distribution of houses having access to bathroom. 
Sl No.  	
Natural 
Region  	Social Group 	
Access to bathroom 	Sample 
Houses  
having 
bathroom  	
Exclusive use 	
of house  	
Common use 
of houses in 
the building 	 	
public/comm	
unity use  	Others 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	96.5 	3.0 	0.1 	0.3 	100 	     1,155  	
2 	SC 	97.0 	2.3 	0.0 	0.8 	100 	        266  	
3 	OBC 	98.7 	1.2 	0.1 	0.1 	100 	     2,978  	
4 	Others  	98.8 	1.0 	0.0 	0.1 	100 	     2,246  	
5 	All 	98.3 	1.5 	0.1 	0.2 	100 	     6,645  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	          23  	
7 	SC 	97.5 	2.5 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     2,498  	
8 	OBC 	97.3 	2.7 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     9,896  	
9 	Others  	98.4 	1.6 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     8,464  	
10 	All 	97.8 	2.2 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	    20,881  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            6  	
12 	SC 	94.3 	5.6 	0.0 	0.1 	100 	     2,199  	
13 	OBC 	96.1 	3.9 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	    16,311  	
14 	Others  	96.0 	3.9 	0.0 	0.1 	100 	     5,823  	
15 	All 	95.9 	4.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	    24,339  	
16 	
Lowland 
with sea -
shore 	
SC 	97.0 	3.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	        234  	
17 	OBC 	98.8 	1.2 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     3,468  	
18 	Others  	99.3 	0.7 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	        298  	
19 	All 	98.7 	1.3 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     4,000

T-48	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.5. Percentage distribution of fisherman houses having facility of bathroom 	
Sl No 	Facility of bathroom   	Percentage 	Sample Fisherman Houses  	
1 	Attached with house 	50.8 	1,488 	
2 	Detached from house 	46.5 	1,362 	
3 	No bathroom  	2.7 	79 	
  	All 	100.0 	2,929 	
 
Table 3.6. Percentage distribution of fisherman houses having a ccess to bathroom  	
Sl No 	Access to bathroom  	Percentage 	Sample Fisherman Houses  	
1 	 No bathroom  	2.7 	79 	
2 	Exclusive use of house  	94.1 	2,756 	
3 	Common use of houses in the building   	3.1 	92 	
4 	Others 	.1 	2 	
  	All 	100.0 	2,929

T-49	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.7. Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the dwelling from the bathing place. 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from the bathing place 	
Sample 
Houses  	
Within 
dwelling   	
Outside 
house but 
within the 
premises   	
Outside premises: 	
All 	less than 
0.2 k.m. 	
 0.2 to 0.5 	
k.m.  	
 0.5 to 1.0 	
k.m.  	
 1.0 to 1.5 	
k.m.  	
 1.5 k.m. 
or more  	
1 	Highland  	66.0 	28.5 	4.2 	0.9 	0.2 	0.1 	0.1 	100 	     7,385  	
2 	Midland 	73.4 	26.1 	0.5 	0.1 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	    21,093  	
3 	Lowland  	62.4 	36.6 	0.9 	0.1 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	    24,932  	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	64.6 	34.6 	0.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     4,107  	
  	All  	67.0 	31.5 	1.2 	0.2 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	    57,517  	
 
Table 3.8. Percentage distribution of fisherman houses by  distance of the house from the bathing place 	
Sl No 	Distance from the bathing place 	Percentage 	Sample Fisherman Houses  	
1 	Within dwelling  	59.1 	1,731 	
2 	Outside house but within the premises 	 	39.7 	1,164 	
3 	Outside premises: less than 0.2 k.m.	 	1.1 	31 	
4 	Outside premises: 0.2 to 0.5 k.m. 	 	.1 	3 	
  	All	 	100.0 	2,929

T-50	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.9.Percentage distribution of houses by use of latrine. Sl No.  	
Natural 
Region  	Social Group 	
Use of latrine  	
Sample 
Houses  	Exclusive 
use of 
house 	
Common 
use of 
houses in 	
the 	
building   	
Public/community 	
latrine  	
No 
latrine 	
Not 
used  	Others  	All 	without 
payment  	
with 	
payment 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST	 	73.0	 	4.0	 	0.7	 	0.1	 	19	.0 	1.3	 	2.0	 	100	 	1686	 	
2 	SC 	92.7	 	1.4	 	0.3	 	0.0	 	2.4	 	0.7	 	2.4	 	100	 	286 	
3 	OBC 	96.7  1.1 0.1  0.0 1.7 0.0 0.3 100 	3113 	
4 	Others 	97.9	 	0.9	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	1.0	 	0.1	 	0.2	 	100	 	2300 	
5 	All 	91.5  1.7 0.2  0.0 5.5 0.4 0.7 100 	7385 	
6 	
Midland 	
ST 	95.8  0.0 0.0  0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 100 	24 	
7 	SC 	95.3	 	2.2	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	2.0	 	0.1	 	0.3	 	100	 	2591 	
8 	OBC 	96.9	 	2.5	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	0.4	 	0.0	 	0.1	 	100	 	9992 	
9 	Others 	98.4  1.4 0.0  0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100 	8486 	
10 	All 	97.3	 	2.0	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	0.5	 	0.0	 	0.1	 	100	 	21093 	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	100.0	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	100	 	6 	
12 	SC 	92.8  4.2 0.4  0.2 1.7 0.2 0.5 100 	2355 	
13 	OBC 	96.0	 	3.0	 	0.2	 	0.0	 	0.5	 	0.1	 	0.2	 	100	 	16641 	
14 	Others 	95.8  3.4 0.2  0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 100 	5930 	
15 	All 	95.6  3.2 0.2  0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 100 	24932 	
16 	
Lowland 
with sea-
shore 	
SC 	92.2	 	1.1	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	6.3	 	0.0	 	0.4	 	100	 	269 	
17 	OBC 	98.3	 	0.6 	0.1	 	0.0	 	0.9	 	0.1	 	0.1	 	100	 	3520 	
18 	Others  	96.2  0.9 0.0  0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 100 	318 	
19 	All 	97.7	 	0.6	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	1.4	 	0.0	 	0.1	 	100	 	4107

T-51	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.10.Percentage distribution of houses by reason for not using latrine. 
Sl No.  	
Natural 
Region  	Social Group 	
Reason for n ot using latrine 	Sample 
Houses  
not 
using 
latrine 	
No 	
superstructure  	
Not 	
clean/insufficient 	
water 	
Malfunctioning 
of the latrine  	
Personal 
preference  	
Cannot 
afford 
charges 
for paid 
latrine 	
Others 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	31.8 	18.2 	45.5 	0.0 	0.0 	4.5 	100 	          22  	
2 	SC 	50.0 	0.0 	50.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            2  	
3 	OBC 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            1  	
4 	Others  	0.0 	0.0 	50.0 	0.0 	0.0 	50.0 	100 	            2  	
5 	All 	33.3 	14.8 	44.4 	0.0 	0.0 	7.4 	100 	          27  	
6 	
Midland  	
SC 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            2  	
7 	OBC 	0.0 	0.0 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            1  	
8 	Others 	50.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	50.0 	0.0 	100 	            2  	
9 	All 	60.0 	0.0 	20.0 	0.0 	20.0 	0.0 	100 	            5  	
10 	
Lowland  	
SC 	60.0 	0.0 	40.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            5  	
11 	OBC 	62.5 	0.0 	31.3 	0.0 	0.0 	6.3 	100 	          16  	
12 	Others 	50.0 	0.0 	0.0 	50.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            2  	
13 	All 	60.9 	0.0 	30.4 	4.3 	0.0 	4.3 	100 	          23  	
14 	Lowland 
with sea -
shore 	
OBC 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            2  	
15 	All 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            2

T-52	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.11. Percentage of  fisherman houses by use of latrine 	
Sl No  	Use of  latrine  	Percentage 	Sample Fisherman Houses  	
1 	Exclusive use of house 	96.2 	2,817 	
2 	Common use of houses in the building   	1.7 	49 	
3 	Public/community latrine without payment  	0.1 	3 	
4 	Public/community latrine with payment   	0.1 	2 	
5 	No latrine 	1.6 	46 	
6 	Not used  	0.1 	3 	
7 	Others  	0.3 	9 	
  	All 	100 	2,929

T-53	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.12.Percentage of couples having separate room over no of couples surveyed. 
Sl No.  	
Natural Regio n 	Percentage of couples having separate room  Sample Houses having married couples  	
1 	Highland 	84.2 	     6,457  	
2 	Midland 	94.7 	    18,291  	
3 	Lowland  	94.3 	    21,850  	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	94.9 	     3,567  	
  	All  	93.2 	    50,165  	
Table 3.13.Percentage of aged persons having separate room over no of aged persons . 
Sl 
No.  	
Natural Region  	
Percentage of Aged persons having separate  	Percentage of Aged 
persons not having any 	
room  	
Sample Houses having 
aged persons  	
Bath Attached room  	Non Attached room 	
1 	Highland 	14.2 	59.3 	26.5 	1,151 	
2 	Midland 	35.6 	50.2 	14.2 	4,660 	
3 	Lowland  	24.4 	58.6 	17 	4,530 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	19.6 	64.7 	15.7 	711 	
  	All  	27.8 	55.5 	16.7 	11,052

T-54	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.14.Percentage distribution of houses having aged persons for each ration card type. 	
Sl No. 	Type of Ration Card possessed  	Social Group 	Sample Houses 
Having aged person  	
ST 	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1 	APL	 	0.2	 	3.8	 	53.5	 	42.4	 	100	 	6,493	 	
2 	BPL	 	3.0	 	13.8	 	55.7	 	27.5	 	100	 	4,259	 	
3 	Anthyodaya	 	28.2	 	14.1	 	35.3	 	22.4	 	100	 	156	 	
4 	No Ration Card	 	6.9	 	6.3	 	54.	9 	31.9	 	100	 	144	 	
  	All	 	1.8	 	7.8	 	54.2	 	36.3	 	100	 	11,052	 	
 
Table 3.15. Percentage distribution of women only houses having aged persons for each ration card type . 	
Sl No. 	Type of Ration Card possessed  	
Social Group 	Sample women only 
Houses Having aged 
persons  	ST 	SC 	OBC 	Others 	All 	
1 	APL	 	0.0	 	3.7	 	51.7	 	44.5	 	100	 	348	 	
2 	BPL	 	2.9	 	15.0	 	55.3	 	26.8	 	100	 	380	 	
3 	Anthyodaya	 	8.6	 	22.9	 	28.6	 	40.0	 	100	 	35	 	
4 	No Ration Card	 	0.0	 	16.7	 	50.0	 	33.3	 	100	 	12	 	
  	All 	1.8 	10.3 	52.4 	35.5 	100 	775 	
Table 3.16.Percentage distribution of houses by o f type of kitchen. 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Type of kitchen  	
Sample Houses 	Separate kitchen with 	
water tap  	
Separate kitchen 
without water tap  	
No separate 	
kitchen  	All 	
1 	Highland  	46.8 	45.5 	7.7 	100 	     7,385  	
2 	Midland 	65.9 	31.2 	3.0 	100 	    21,093  	
3 	Lowland	 	75.3	 	23.3	 	1.4	 	100	 	    	24,932 	 	
4 	Lowland with sea	-shore	 	61.9	 	35.6	 	2.5	 	100	 	     	4,107 	 	
  	All	 	67.2	 	29.9	 	2.8	 	100	 	    	57,517

T-55	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.17.Percentage distribution of houses by first priority of usage of fuel. Sl No.  	
Social Group 	
Type of Ration Card 	
possessed  	
Priority of fuel : First  	Sample 
Houses  	
LPG 	Biogas  	Firewood  	Kerosene 	Electricity  	
1 	
ST 	
APL  	18.0 	0.9 	81.1 	0.0 	0.0 	111 	
2 	BPL	 	1.2 	0.1 	98.7 	0.0 	0.0 	1,047 	
3 	Anthyodaya	 	0.5 	0.0 	99.5 	0.0 	0.0 	437 	
4 	No Ration Card	 	7.5 	0.0 	91.7 	0.8 	0.0 	120 	
5 	
SC 	
APL	 	40.4 	0.0 	59.6 	0.0 	0.0 	1,704 	
6 	BPL	 	29.2 	0.1 	70.8 	0.0 	0.0 	3,444 	
7 	Anthyodaya	 	25.6 	0.0 	74.4 	0.0 	0.0 	90 	
8 	No Ration Card	 	28.1 	0.0 	71.5 	0.4 	0.0 	263 	
9 	
OBC 	
APL	 	52.8 	0.2 	46.9 	0.0 	0.1 	19,640 	
10 	BPL	 	38.2 	0.1 	61.6 	0.0 	0.1 	11,609 	
11 	Anthyodaya	 	36.9 	0.0 	63.1 	0.0 	0.0 	236 	
12 	No Ration Card	 	51.3 	0.1 	47.8 	0.2 	0.7 	1,780 	
13 	
Others  	
APL	 	54.8 	0.8 	44.3 	0.0 	0.1 	11,670 	
14 	BPL	 	38.4 	0.4 	61.1 	0.0 	0.1 	4,546 	
15 	Anthyodaya	 	34.0 	0.0 	66.0 	0.0 	0.0 	97 	
16 	No Ration Card	 	57.3 	0.0 	41.2 	0.1 	1.4 	721

T-56	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.18.Percentage distribution of houses by second priority of usage of fuel.  
Sl No.  	
Social Group 	
Type of Ration Card 	
possessed  	
Priority of fuel : Second  	Sample 
Houses  	
LPG 	Biogas  	Firewood  	Kerosene 	Electricity  	
1 	
ST 	
APL	 	71.1 	1.3 	23.7 	3.9 	0.0 	76 	
2 	BPL	 	84.9 	0.4 	6.2 	5.8 	2.7 	225 	
3 	Anthyodaya	 	76.5 	0.0 	17.6 	5.9 	0.0 	17 	
4 	No Ration Card	 	61.1 	0.0 	22.2 	16.7 	0.0 	18 	
5 	
SC 	
APL	 	52.3 	0.1 	45.6 	1.3 	0.7 	1,411 	
6 	BPL	 	56.9 	0.1 	40.2 	1.2 	1.6 	2,404 	
7 	Anthyodaya	 	57.4 	0.0 	42.6 	0.0 	0.0 	54 	
8 	No Ration Card	 	52.0 	0.0 	38.7 	8.7 	0.7 	150 	
9 	
OBC 	
APL	 	46.6 	0.3 	51.6 	1.4 	0.2 	18,212 	
10 	BPL	 	57.9 	0.1 	40.7 	0.7 	0.6 	10,171 	
11 	Anthyodaya	 	56.3 	0.0 	42.6 	1.1 	0.0 	190 	
12 	No Ration Card	 	41.4 	0.1 	52.4 	5.4 	0.8 	1,318 	
13 	
Others  	
APL	 	44.7 	0.5 	53.1 	1.4 	0.2 	10,631 	
14 	BPL	 	56.6 	0.4 	41.7 	0.8 	0.4 	3,889 	
15 	Anth	yodaya	 	57.9 	1.3 	39.5 	1.3 	0.0 	76 	
16 	No Ration Card	 	36.8 	0.4 	54.7 	7.9 	0.2 	494

T-57	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.19.Percentage distribution of houses by type of floor. 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	Floor type  	Sample Houses  	Pucca 	Semipucca  	Katcha 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	5.0 	61.1 	33.9 	100 	       1,686  	
2 	SC 	14.7 	66.4 	18.9 	100 	          286  	
3 	OBC 	27.9 	61.0 	11.1 	100 	       3,113  	
4 	Others  	36.2 	56.9 	6.9 	100 	       2,300  	
5 	All 	24.8 	60.0 	15.3 	100 	       7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	25.0 	41.7 	33.3 	100 	            24  	
7 	SC 	21.4 	65.8 	12.9 	100 	       2,591  	
8 	OBC 	51.4 	44.7 	3.8 	100 	       9,992  	
9 	Others  	64.1 	33.6 	2.3 	100 	       8,486  	
10 	All 	52.8 	42.8 	4.3 	100 	      21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	66.7 	33.3 	0.0 	100 	              6  	
12 	SC 	25.2 	66.8 	8.0 	100 	       2,355  	
13 	OBC 	55.1 	42.1 	2.8 	100 	      16,641  	
14 	Others  	56.8 	40.0 	3.2 	100 	       5,930  	
15 	All 	52.7 	44.0 	3.4 	100 	      24,932  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -
shore 	
SC 	16.4 	68.4 	15.2 	100 	          269  	
17 	OBC 	40.9 	55.9 	3.2 	100 	       3,520  	
18 	Others  	61.6 	32.4 	6.0 	100 	          318  	
19 	All 	40.9 	54.9 	4.2 	100 	       4,107

T-58	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.20. Percentage distribution of houses by type of wall 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	Wall type  	Sample Houses  	Pucca 	Semipucca  	Katcha 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	41.6 	39.0 	19.5 	100 	       1,686  	
2 	SC 	58.7 	30.8 	10.5 	100 	          286  	
3 	OBC 	65.6 	26.7 	7.7 	100 	       3,113  	
4 	Others  	71.7 	23.3 	5.0 	100 	       2,300  	
5 	All 	61.7 	28.6 	9.6 	100 	       7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	33.3 	37.5 	29.2 	100 	            24  	
7 	SC 	39.9 	49.6 	10.5 	100 	       2,591  	
8 	OBC 	67.6 	28.0 	4.4 	100 	       9,992  	
9 	Others  	78.6 	19.0 	2.4 	100 	       8,486  	
10 	All 	68.6 	27.0 	4.4 	100 	      21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	83.3 	16.7 	0.0 	100 	              6  	
12 	SC 	56.3 	35.0 	8.6 	100 	       2,355  	
13 	OBC 	81.3 	15.6 	3.1 	100 	      16,641  	
14 	Othe rs 	79.3 	17.2 	3.5 	100 	       5,930  	
15 	All  	78.5 	17.8 	3.7 	100 	      24,932  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -
shore 	
SC 	38.3 	43.1 	18.6 	100 	          269  	
17 	OBC 	80.7 	15.0 	4.3 	100 	       3,520  	
18 	Others  	81.8 	9.7 	8.5 	100 	          318  	
19 	All 	78.0 	16.4 	5.6 	100 	       4,107

T-59	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.21. Percentage distribution of houses by type of roof 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	Roof type  	Sample Houses  	Pucca 	Semipucca  	Katcha 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	38.0 	46.9 	15.1 	100 	       1,686  	
2 	SC 	35.3 	56.6 	8.0 	100 	          286  	
3 	OBC 	44.3 	50.2 	5.5 	100 	       3,113  	
4 	Others  	49.0 	47.2 	3.9 	100 	       2,300  	
5 	All 	43.9 	48.8 	7.3 	100 	       7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	79.2 	16.7 	4.2 	100 	            24  	
7 	SC 	54.1 	39.4 	6.6 	100 	       2,591  	
8 	OBC 	67.0 	30.5 	2.5 	100 	       9,992  	
9 	Oth ers 	77.1 	21.8 	1.1 	100 	       8,486  	
10 	All  	69.5 	28.1 	2.4 	100 	      21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	83.3 	16.7 	0.0 	100 	              6  	
12 	SC 	52.5 	39.1 	8.4 	100 	       2,355  	
13 	OBC 	72.5 	24.5 	3.1 	100 	      16,641  	
14 	Others  	71.2 	24.8 	4.0 	100 	       5,930  	
15 	All 	70.3 	25.9 	3.8 	100 	      24,932  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -
shore 	
SC 	54.3 	28.6 	17.1 	100 	          269  	
17 	OBC 	66.6 	29.7 	3.6 	100 	       3,520  	
18 	Others  	74.2 	17.9 	7.9 	100 	          318  	
19 	All 	66.4 	28.7 	4.8 	100 	       4,107

T-60	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.22. Percentage of  fisherman  houses by type of floor, wall and roof   
Sl No 	Type  	
Floor type  	Wall type  	Roof type  	
Percentage  	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	Percentage  	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	Percentage  	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	
1 	Pucca 	41.1 	1,204 	78.6 	2,303 	63.1 	1,848 	
2 	Semipuc ca 	55.1 	1,614 	16.0 	470 	32.0 	938 	
3 	Katcha 	3.8 	111 	5.3 	156 	4.9 	143 	
4 	All  	100.0 	2,929 	100.0 	2,929 	100.0 	2,929

T-61	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
 
Table 3.23.Percentage distribution of houses by availability of doors for all rooms 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	Availability of doors for  all rooms 	Sample Houses  	Yes 	No 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	44.9 	55.1 	100 	     1,686  	
2 	SC 	59.8 	40.2 	100 	        286  	
3 	OBC 	72.5 	27.5 	100 	     3,113  	
4 	Others  	74.7 	25.3 	100 	     2,300  	
5 	All 	66.4 	33.6 	100 	     7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	41.7 	58.3 	100 	          24  	
7 	SC 	49.1 	50.9 	100 	     2,591  	
8 	OBC 	77.8 	22.2 	100 	     9,992  	
9 	Others  	86.4 	13.6 	100 	     8,486  	
10 	All 	77.6 	22.4 	100 	    21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	100 	            6  	
12 	SC 	67.9 	32.1 	100 	     2,355  	
13 	OBC 	87.8 	12.2 	100 	    16,641  	
14 	Others  	88.8 	11.2 	100 	     5,930  	
15 	All 	86.2 	13.8 	100 	    24,932  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -shore 	
SC 	61.7 	38.3 	100 	        269  	
17 	OBC 	91.8 	8.2 	100 	     3,520  	
18 	Others  	85.8 	14.2 	100 	        318  	
19 	All 	89.4 	10.6 	100 	     4,107

T-62	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.24. Percentage distribution of houses by availability of proper doors for bathrooms 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	Availability of proper doors for bathrooms /latrine 	Sample Houses  	Yes 	No 	N.A.  	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	49.5 	19.0 	31.5 	100 	       1,686  	
2 	SC 	76.9 	16.1 	7.0 	100 	          286  	
3 	OBC 	84.9 	10.8 	4.3 	100 	       3,113  	
4 	Others  	91.8 	5.8 	2.3 	100 	       2,300  	
5 	All 	78.7 	11.3 	10.0 	100 	       7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	70.8 	25.0 	4.2 	100 	            24  	
7 	SC 	81.4 	15.1 	3.6 	100 	       2,591  	
8 	OBC 	93.0 	6.0 	1.0 	100 	       9,992  	
9 	Others  	95.8 	3.9 	0.3 	100 	       8,486  	
10 	All 	92.7 	6.3 	1.0 	100 	      21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	              6  	
12 	SC 	77.3 	16.1 	6.6 	100 	       2,355  	
13 	OBC 	91.3 	6.7 	2.0 	100 	      16,641  	
14 	Others  	91.5 	6.7 	1.8 	100 	       5,930  	
15 	All 	90.0 	7.6 	2.4 	100 	      24,932  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -
shore 	
SC 	66.2 	20.8 	13.0 	100 	          269  	
17 	OBC 	93.6 	4.9 	1.5 	100 	       3,520  	
18 	Others  	90.3 	3.5 	6.3 	100 	          318  	
19 	All 	91.6 	5.8 	2.6 	100 	       4,107  	
*NA= Not having bathrooms

T-63	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.25. Percentage distribution of houses by availability of strong front & back doors  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	Whether fitted with strong front & back doors   	Sample Houses 	Yes 	No 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	53.4 	46.6 	100 	     1,686  	
2 	SC 	72.0 	28.0 	100 	        286  	
3 	OBC 	78.8 	21.2 	100 	     3,113  	
4 	Others  	85.3 	14.7 	100 	     2,300  	
5 	All 	74.8 	25.2 	100 	     7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	37.5 	62.5 	100 	          24  	
7 	SC 	62.6 	37.4 	100 	     2,591  	
8 	OBC 	82.1 	17.9 	100 	     9,992  	
9 	Others  	88.8 	11.2 	100 	     8,486  	
10 	All 	82.4 	17.6 	100 	    21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	100 	            6  	
12 	SC 	71.0 	29.0 	100 	     2,355  	
13 	OBC 	88.5 	11.5 	100 	    16,641  	
14 	Others  	87.6 	12.4 	100 	     5,930  	
15 	All 	86.6 	13.4 	100 	    24,932  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -shore 	
SC 	65.8 	34.2 	100 	        269  	
17 	OBC 	83.5 	16.5 	100 	     3,520  	
18 	Others  	89.9 	10.1 	100 	        318  	
19 	All 	82.8 	17.2 	100 	     4,107

T-64	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.26. Percentage distribution of houses by availability of doors for all windows 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	Availability of doors for all windows  	Sample Houses 	Available 	Not available 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	56.3 	43.7 	100 	     1,686  	
2 	SC 	69.6 	30.4 	100 	        286  	
3 	OBC 	78.9 	21.1 	100 	     3,113  	
4 	Others  	84.3 	15.7 	100 	     2,300  	
5 	All 	75.1 	24.9 	100 	     7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	45.8 	54.2 	100 	          24  	
7 	SC 	58.9 	41.1 	100 	     2,591  	
8 	OBC 	82.3 	17.7 	100 	     9,992  	
9 	Others  	91.0 	9.0 	100 	     8,486  	
10 	All 	82.9 	17.1 	100 	    21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	100 	            6  	
12 	SC 	69.9 	30.1 	100 	     2,355  	
13 	OBC 	89.9 	10.1 	100 	    16,641  	
14 	Others  	89.7 	10.3 	100 	     5,930  	
15 	All 	88.0 	12.0 	100 	    24,932  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -shore 	
SC 	56.1 	43.9 	100 	        269  	
17 	OBC 	89.4 	10.6 	100 	     3,520  	
18 	Others  	87.7 	12.3 	100 	        318  	
19 	All 	87.1 	12.9 	100 	     4,107

T-65	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.27. Percentage distribution of houses by availability of courtyard for children for playing  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	Availability of courtyard for children  for pla ying  	Sample Houses  	Available 	Not available 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	72.0 	28.0 	100 	     1,686  	
2 	SC 	71.0 	29.0 	100 	        286  	
3 	OBC 	75.2 	24.8 	100 	     3,113  	
4 	Others  	86.6 	13.4 	100 	     2,300  	
5 	All 	77.9 	22.1 	100 	     7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	37.5 	62.5 	100 	          24  	
7 	SC 	58.7 	41.3 	100 	     2,591  	
8 	OBC 	77.6 	22.4 	100 	     9,992  	
9 	Others  	80.6 	19.4 	100 	     8,486  	
10 	All 	76.4 	23.6 	100 	    21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	83.3 	16.7 	100 	            6  	
12 	SC 	54.4 	45.6 	100 	     2,355  	
13 	OBC 	75.5 	24.5 	100 	    16,641  	
14 	Others  	75.9 	24.1 	100 	     5,930  	
15 	All 	73.6 	26.4 	100 	    24,932  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -shore 	
SC 	42.0 	58.0 	100 	        269  	
17 	OBC 	68.4 	31.6 	100 	     3,520  	
18 	Others  	71.1 	28.9 	100 	        318  	
19 	All 	66.9 	33.1 	100 	     4,107

T-66	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.28: Percentage of  women only houses  by privacy and security indicators. 
Sl No.   Social Group 	
No doors for all rooms  	
No proper doors 
for bathroom 	No strong 	
doors 	
No doors for all 	
windows  	
Sample no of 	
houses 	
1  ST 	59.6 	20.2 	44.2 	42.3 	104 	
2  SC 	51.3 	20.9 	44.2 	46.3 	339 	
3 OBC 	21.9 	10.8 	23.1 	19.4 	1,910 	
4 	Others	 	20.9	 	10.2	 	20.1	 	16.2	 	949	 	
  All 	25.8 	12 	25.1 	22 	3,302 	
 
Table 3.29.  Percentage of fisherman houses by  privacy and security indicators. 	
Sl No 	Status 	
Doors for all rooms   Strong doors  Doors for all windows  	
Percentage 	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	Percentage  	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	Percentage  	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	
1 	Available 	85.1 	2,492 	81.8 	2,397 	83.5 	2,447 	
2 	Not Available 	14.9 	437 	18.2 	532 	16.5 	482 	
 	All 	100.0 	2,929 	100.0 	2,929 	100.0 	2,929

T-67	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.30. Percentage of fisherman houses by  status of proper doors for bathrooms . 	
Sl No 	Availability of proper doors for bathrooms  	
Percentage	 	Sample Fisherman Houses	 	
1 	Available 	87.1 	2,551 	
2 	Not Available 	10.2 	299 	
3 	No Bathrooms 	2.7 	79 	
  	All 	100.0 	2,929 	
 
Table 3.31.: Percentage of fisherman houses by  status of courtyard. 	
Sl No 	Availability of courtyard for children  for playing within the   	
Percentage 	Sample Fisherman Houses 	
1 	Available 	65.2 	1,909 	
2 	Not Available 	34.8 	1,020 	
  	All 	100.0 	2,929

T-68	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.32.Percentage distribution of houses by major source of drinking water for each household social group. 
Sl No.  	
Natural 
Region  	Social Group 	
Principal source of drinking water  	
Sample 
Houses  	Piped 
water/ 
public tap 	
Well 	Tube 	
well/borehole  	
Rainwater 
collection 	
Surface 
water 	Others  	All 	
1 	
Highland	 	
ST	 	34.7	 	55.0	 	0.7	 	0.0	 	0.3	 	9.3	 	100	 	1,686	 	
2 	SC 	45.5 	45.5 	4.2 	0.0 	0.7 	4.2 	100 	286 	
3 	OBC	 	28.1	 	60.0	 	5.4	 	0.0	 	0.6	 	5.9	 	100	 	3,113	 	
4 	Others  	16.7 	75.2 	4.8 	0.0 	0.4 	2.9 	100 	2,300 	
5 	All	 	26.7	 	63.0	 	4.1	 	0.0	 	0.5	 	5.7	 	100	 	7,385	 	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	20.8 	79.2 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	24 	
7 	SC	 	31.0	 	66.5	 	1.9	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	0.5	 	100	 	2,591	 	
8 	OBC 	17.7 	78.4 	3.2 	0.0 	0.0 	0.7 	100 	9,992 	
9 	Others	 	9.1	 	87.4	 	3.1	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	0.3	 	100	 	8,486	 	
10 	All  	15.9 	80.6 	3.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.5 	100 	21,093 	
11	 	
Lowland	 	
ST	 	33.3	 	50.0	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	16.7	 	100	 	6 	
12 	SC 	38.5 	54.8 	2.0 	0.0 	0.0 	4.8 	100 	2,355 	
13	 	OBC	 	28.7	 	63.0	 	3.9	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	4.4	 	100	 	16,641	 	
14 	Others  	15.2 	80.1 	1.6 	0.0 	0.0 	3.1 	100 	5,930 	
15	 	All	 	26.4	 	66.3	 	3.2	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	4.1	 	100	 	24,932	 	
16 	
Lowland 
with sea -
shore	 	
SC 	64.7 	27.9 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	7.4 	100 	269 	
17	 	OBC	 	73.6	 	21.2	 	0.7	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	4.4	 	100	 	3,520	 	
18 	Others 	66.0 	33.3 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.6 	100 	318 	
19	 	All	 	72.5	 	22.6	 	0.6	 	0.0	 	0.0	 	4.3	 	100	 	4,107

T-69	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.33.Proportion of houses getting sufficient drinking water from the major source during the differen t months of the year for each 
household social group.  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	
Availability of sufficient drinking water from the principal 	
source 	during	 	Sample Houses  	
November  February  	March  May 	June - October 	
1 	
Highland 	
ST 	94.0 	74.7 	96.2 	     1,686  	
2 	SC 	91.6 	66.4 	95.1 	        286  	
3 	OBC 	92.7 	72.6 	97.0 	     3,113  	
4 	Others  	96.7 	84.2 	98.4 	     2,300  	
5 	All 	94.2 	76.5 	97.2 	     7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	95.8 	50.0 	100.0 	          24  	
7 	SC 	93.1 	73.0 	97.2 	     2,591  	
8 	OBC 	95.9 	78.6 	98.1 	     9,992  	
9 	Others  	98.6 	84.6 	99.4 	     8,486  	
10 	All 	96.6 	80.3 	98.5 	    21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	100.0 	83.3 	100.0 	            6  	
12 	SC 	90.9 	69.7 	94.7 	     2,355  	
13 	OBC 	94.8 	78.8 	95.9 	    16,641  	
14 	Others  	96.5 	81.0 	98.0 	     5,930  	
15 	All 	94.8 	78.5 	96.3 	    24,932  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -
shore 	
SC 	65.4 	55.0 	68.0 	        269  	
17 	OBC 	96.9 	64.5 	97.0 	     3,520  	
18 	Others  	89.6 	39.9 	92.1 	        318  	
19 	All 	94.3 	62.0 	94.8 	     4,107

T-70	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.34. Percentage of fisherman houses by  principal source of drinking water. 	
Sl No  	Principal source of drinking water  	Percentage 	Sample Fisherman Houses 	
1 	Piped water/ public tap  	78.3 	2,293 	
2 	Well 	19.7 	577 	
3 	Tube well/borehole  	.8 	24 	
4 	Rainwater collection  	.0 	1 	
5 	Others  	1.2 	34 	
  	All 	100.0 	2,929 	
 
Table 3.35.  Percentage of fisherman houses by  availability of sufficient drinking water from the principal source  of drinking water 
Sl No 	Availability of sufficient drinking 
water from the principal source  	
November â February  March â May  June - October 	
Percentage 	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	Percentage 	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	Percentage 	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	
1 	Sufficiently Available  	91.2 	2,672 	56.7 	1,661 	93.4 	2,737 	
2 	Sufficiently Not Available 	8.8 	257 	43.3 	1,268 	6.6 	192 	
  	All 	100.0 	2,929 	100.0 	2,929 	100.0 	2,929

T-71	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.36-A.Percentage distribution of house s by distance to the source of drinking water.  
Sl No.  	
Natural 
Region  	
Social 
Group 	
Distance to the principal source of drinking water (November â February )  	
Sample 
Houses  	
Within 
dwelling   	
Outside	 	
house but 
within the 
premises   	
Outside premises: 	
All 	less than 
0.2 k.m. 	
 0.2 to 0.5 	
k.m.  	
 0.5 to 1.0 	
k.m.  	
 1.0 to 1.5 	
k.m.  	
 1.5 k.m. 
or more  	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	21.4 	39.0 	28.9 	7.9 	2.3 	0.3 	0.2 	100 	     1,686  	
2 	SC 	33.9 	41.6 	20.6 	3.8 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	        286  	
3 	OBC 	46.5 	30.8 	16.2 	4.7 	0.8 	0.4 	0.7 	100 	     3,113  	
4 	Others  	49.1 	31.5 	16.1 	2.7 	0.2 	0.0 	0.3 	100 	     2,300  	
5 	All 	41.1 	33.3 	19.2 	4.8 	0.9 	0.2 	0.4 	100 	     7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	4.2 	75.0 	20.8 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	          24  	
7 	SC 	13.6 	63.0 	22.2 	1.1 	0.1 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     2,591  	
8 	OBC 	15.2 	72.0 	12.1 	0.5 	0.1 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     9,992  	
9 	Others  	13.4 	79.8 	6.6 	0.2 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     8,486  	
10 	All 	14.3 	74.1 	11.1 	0.4 	0.1 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	    21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	16.7 	66.7 	0.0 	16.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            6  	
12 	SC 	8.4 	72.9 	15.7 	2.4 	0.3 	0.1 	0.3 	100 	     2,355  	
13 	OBC 	12.6 	79.2 	7.2 	0.6 	0.1 	0.0 	0.2 	100 	    16,641  	
14 	Others  	7.3 	85.3 	6.2 	0.8 	0.3 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     5,930  	
15 	All 	11.0 	80.1 	7.8 	0.8 	0.2 	0.0 	0.2 	100 	    24,932  	
16 	
Lowland 
with sea-
shore  	
SC 	4.1 	45.4 	37.9 	5.6 	5.9 	1.1 	0.0 	100 	        269  	
17 	OBC 	11.3 	78.2 	9.5 	0.7 	0.2 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     3,520  	
18 	Others  	6.3 	35.2 	56.3 	1.3 	0.9 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	        318  	
19 	All 	10.4 	72.8 	15.0 	1.1 	0.7 	0.1 	0.0 	100 	     4,107

T-72	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.36-B. Percentage distribution of house s by distance to the source of drinking water.  
Sl No.  	
Natural 
Region  	
Social 
Group 	
Distance to the principal source of drinking water (March â May ) 	
Sample 
Houses  	Within 
dwelling   	
Outside 
house but 
within the 
premises   	
Outside p remises: 	
All 	less than 
0.2 k.m. 	
 0.2 to 0.5 	
k.m.  	
 0.5 to 1.0 	
k.m.  	
 1.0 to 1.5 	
k.m.  	
 1.5 k.m. 
or more  	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	19.2 	37.7 	29.2 	9.1 	3.0 	0.4 	1.5 	100 	     1,686  	
2 	SC 	30.4 	28.0 	29.7 	10.5 	1.0 	0.0 	0.3 	100 	        286  	
3 	OBC 	39.5 	25.1 	23.2 	8.5 	1.2 	0.6 	1.9 	100 	     3,113  	
4 	Others  	44.6 	30.1 	20.0 	4.1 	0.3 	0.1 	0.7 	100 	     2,300  	
5 	All 	36.1 	29.7 	23.8 	7.4 	1.3 	0.4 	1.4 	100 	     7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	4.2 	29.2 	66.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	          24  	
7 	SC 	12.6 	55.6 	28.3 	3.1 	0.2 	0.0 	0.2 	100 	     2,591  	
8 	OBC 	13.8 	64.1 	20.2 	1.5 	0.2 	0.1 	0.2 	100 	     9,992  	
9 	Others  	12.6 	72.9 	14.1 	0.4 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     8,486  	
10 	All 	13.2 	66.6 	18.8 	1.2 	0.1 	0.0 	0.1 	100 	    21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	16.7 	66.7 	0.0 	16.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            6  	
12 	SC 	6.8 	65.0 	23.8 	3.0 	0.4 	0.2 	0.8 	100 	     2,355  	
13 	OBC 	11.3 	72.9 	14.0 	1.2 	0.2 	0.0 	0.5 	100 	    16,641  	
14 	Others  	6.2 	75.1 	16.4 	1.9 	0.3 	0.0 	0.1 	100 	     5,930  	
15 	All 	9.7 	72.6 	15.5 	1.5 	0.2 	0.1 	0.4 	100 	    24,932  	
16 	
Lowland 
with sea -
shore 	
SC 	3.7 	43.5 	35.3 	10.4 	5.9 	1.1 	0.0 	100 	        269  	
17 	OBC 	10.3 	69.0 	19.5 	1.0 	0.2 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     3,520  	
18 	Others  	5.0 	35.2 	11.0 	47.8 	0.9 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	        318  	
19 	All 	9.4 	64.7 	19.8 	5.2 	0.7 	0.1 	0.0 	100 	     4,107

T-73	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.36-C. Percentage distribution of house s by distance to the source of drinking water.  
Sl No.  	
Natural 
Region  	
Social 
Group 	
Distance to the principal source of drinking water (March â May ) 	
Sample 
Houses  	Within 
dwelling   	
Outside 
house but 
within the 
premises   	
Outside premises: 	
All 	less than 
0.2 k.m.  	
 0.2 to 0.5 	
k.m.  	
 0.5 to 1.0 	
k.m.  	
 1.0 to 1.5 	
k.m.  	
 1.5 k.m. 
or more  	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	21.4 	40.2 	28.5 	7.2 	2.3 	0.3 	0.2 	100 	     1,686  	
2 	SC 	36.0 	42.3 	18.9 	2.8 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	        286  	
3 	OBC 	47.9 	32.8 	13.4 	4.2 	0.7 	0.4 	0.7 	100 	     3,113  	
4 	Others  	49.5 	32.1 	15.2 	2.7 	0.2 	0.0 	0.2 	100 	     2,300  	
5 	All 	41.9 	34.6 	17.6 	4.4 	0.9 	0.2 	0.4 	100 	     7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	4.2 	79.2 	16.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	          24  	
7 	SC 	13.7 	64.5 	21.0 	0.7 	0.2 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     2,591  	
8 	OBC 	15.9 	72.6 	10.9 	0.5 	0.1 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     9,992  	
9 	Others  	13.4 	80.3 	6.2 	0.2 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     8,486  	
10 	All 	14.6 	74.7 	10.2 	0.4 	0.1 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	    21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	16.7 	66.7 	0.0 	16.7 	0.0 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	            6  	
12 	SC 	8.6 	72.9 	15.5 	2.5 	0.3 	0.1 	0.3 	100 	     2,355  	
13 	OBC 	12.6 	79.6 	6.9 	0.6 	0.1 	0.0 	0.2 	100 	    16,641  	
14 	Others  	7.2 	85.6 	6.1 	0.8 	0.3 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     5,930  	
15 	All 	10.9 	80.4 	7.5 	0.8 	0.2 	0.0 	0.2 	100 	    24,932  	
16 	
Lowland 
with sea -
shore 	
SC 	4.1 	45.0 	38.3 	5.6 	5.9 	1.1 	0.0 	100 	        269  	
17 	OBC 	11.3 	78.3 	9.4 	0.7 	0.2 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	     3,520  	
18 	Others  	6.3 	35.2 	56.0 	1.6 	0.9 	0.0 	0.0 	100 	        318  	
19 	All 	10.4 	72.8 	14.9 	1.1 	0.7 	0.1 	0.0 	100 	     4,107

T-74	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.37. Percentage of  fisherman houses  by distance from house to the principal source of drinki ng water  
Sl No 	
Distance to the principal source of 	
drinking water   	
November â February  March â May  June - October 	
Percentage 	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	Percentage 	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	Percentage 	
Sample 
Fisherman 
Houses 	
1 	Within dwelling   	11.5 	338 	10.4 	304 	11.8 	347 	
2 	Outside house but within the 
premises  	72.8 	2,131 	63.7 	1,865 	72.8 	2,133 	
3 	Outside premises: less than 0.2 k.m. 	14.4 	423 	19.7 	576 	14.1 	412 	
4 	Outside premises: 0.2 to 0.5 k.m.  	.9 	25 	5.7 	168 	.9 	25 	
5 	Outside premises: 0.5 to 1.0 k.m.  	.3 	9 	.3 	10 	.3 	9 	
6 	Outside premises: 1.0 to 1.5 k.m.  	.0 	1 	.1 	2 	.0 	1 	
7 	Outside premises: 1.5 k.m. or more  	.1 	2 	.1 	4 	.1 	2 	
  	All 	100.0 	2,929 	100.0 	2,929 	100.0 	2,929

T-75	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.38. Percentage distribution of houses by the facility of electricity for each household social group. 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	Electricity (including solar) for domestic use  	Sample Houses 	Have 	Donât have 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	68.1 	31.9 	100 	     1,686  	
2 	SC 	96.9 	3.1 	100 	        286  	
3 	OBC 	97.9 	2.1 	100 	     3,113  	
4 	Other s 	98.4 	1.6 	100 	     2,300  	
5 	All 	91.2 	8.8 	100 	     7,385  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	95.8 	4.2 	100 	          24  	
7 	SC 	97.5 	2.5 	100 	     2,591  	
8 	OBC 	99.5 	0.5 	100 	     9,992  	
9 	Others  	99.8 	0.2 	100 	     8,486  	
10 	All 	99.4 	0.6 	100 	    21,093  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	100 	            6  	
12 	SC 	98.0 	2.0 	100 	     2,355  	
13 	OBC 	99.7 	0.3 	100 	    16,641  	
14 	Others  	99.8 	0.2 	100 	     5,930  	
15 	All 	99.6 	0.4 	100 	    24,932  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -shore 	
SC 	94.4 	5.6 	100 	        269  	
17 	OBC 	99.6 	0.4 	100 	     3,520  	
18 	Others  	98.4 	1.6 	100 	        318  	
19 	All 	99.2 	0.8 	100 	     4,107

T-76	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 3.39 . Percentage distribution of houses by the facility of Proper lightings to children and aged for each household social group  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	Proper lightings provided to children and aged   	Sample Houses 	Have 	Donât have 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	93.9 	6.1 	100.0 	     1,149  	
2 	SC 	98.9 	1.1 	100.0 	        277  	
3 	OBC 	99.1 	0.9 	100.0 	     3,048  	
4 	Others  	99.4 	0.6 	100.0 	     2,263  	
5 	All 	98.3 	1.7 	100.0 	     6,737  	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	100.0 	          23  	
7 	SC 	97.5 	2.5 	100.0 	     2,525  	
8 	OBC 	99.0 	1.0 	100.0 	     9,944  	
9 	Others  	99.8 	0.2 	100.0 	     8,471  	
10 	All 	99.2 	0.8 	100.0 	    20,963  	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	100.0 	0.0 	100.0 	            6  	
12 	SC 	98.0 	2.0 	100.0 	     2,307  	
13 	OBC 	99.1 	0.9 	100.0 	    16,590  	
14 	Others  	99.2 	0.8 	100.0 	     5,917  	
15 	All 	99.0 	1.0 	100.0 	    24,820  	
16 	
Lowland with sea -shore 	
SC 	99.6 	0.4 	100.0 	        254  	
17 	OBC 	98.1 	1.9 	100.0 	     3,507  	
18 	Others  	97.4 	2.6 	100.0 	        313  	
19 	All 	98.2 	1.8 	100.0 	     4,074

T-77	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
 Table 3.40. Percentage of fisherman houses by status of electricity 	
Sl No 	Electricity (including solar) for domestic use  	Percentage 	Sample Fisherman Houses 	
1 	Available 	99.3 	2,908 	
2 	Not Available 	0.7 	21 	
  	All 	100 	2,929

T-78	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala

T-79	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
 
  
 
 	
4.Education

T-80	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala

T-81	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 4.1: Percentage distribution of members in the age group 5-25 years by gender.  
Sl No  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	Gender	 	Sample number of members	 in 	
the age group 5 -25 years 	Male	 	Female	 	All	 	
1 	
Highland 	
ST	 	52.2	 	47.8	 	100	 	     	2,325 	 	
2 	SC	 	55.7	 	44.3	 	100	 	        	305 	 	
3 	OBC	 	50.6	 	49.4	 	100	 	     	4,100 	 	
4 	Others	 	52.4	 	47.6	 	100	 	     	2,645 	 	
5 	All	 	51.7	 	48.3	 	100	 	     	9,375 	 	
6 	
Midland 	
ST	 	59.1	 	40.9	 	100	 	          	22 	 	
7 	SC	 	52.4	 	47.6	 	100	 	     	2,592 	 	
8 	OBC	 	52.4	 	47.6	 	100	 	   11,368 	 	
9 	Others	 	52.5	 	47.5	 	100	 	     	8,533 	 	
10	 	All	 	52.5	 	47.5	 	100	 	   22,515 	 	
11	 	
Lowland  	
ST	 	62.5	 	37.5	 	100	 	            	8  	
12	 	SC	 	51.4	 	48.6	 	100	 	     	2,330 	 	
13	 	OBC	 	52.2	 	47.8	 	100	 	   17,440 	 	
14	 	Others	 	51.9	 	48.1	 	100	 	     	5,386 	 	
15	 	All	 	52.1	 	47.9	 	100	 	   25,164 	 	
16	 	
Lowland with sea -shore 	
SC	 	53.2	 	46.8	 	100	 	        	267 	 	
17	 	OBC	 	52.6	 	47.4	 	100	 	     	3,896 	 	
18	 	Others	 	48.4	 	51.6	 	100	 	        	304 	 	
19	 	All	 	52.4	 	47.6	 	100	 	     	4,467

T-82	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 4.2: Percentage distribution of persons in the age group of 5-25 years (who never attended or currently not pursuing education ) by 
educational  level for each household social group.  
Sl No.   Educational Level 	
Social Group 	
ST 	SC 	OBC 	Others  	All 	
1 	Not literate  	4.3 	0.5 	0.6 	0.4 	1.0 	
2 	Literate without any schooling   	0.4 	0.1 	0.2 	0.2 	0.2 	
3 	Below primary  	5.8 	0.5 	0.2 	0.4 	0.9 	
4 	Primary 	20.6 	1.1 	0.6 	0.4 	2.7 	
5 	Upper primary/middle   	33.2 	12.3 	6.2 	3.9 	9.3 	
6 	Secondary 	26.6 	33.1 	25.4 	17.5 	24.7 	
7 	Higher secondary   	6.3 	24.6 	32.1 	22.7 	26.4 	
8 	Diploma /certificate course  	1.0 	11.4 	11.7 	17.6 	11.8 	
9 	Graduate  	1.5 	13.7 	19.5 	30.6 	19.3 	
10 	Post graduate and above  	0.1 	2.5 	3.3 	6.1 	3.5 	
11 	Special school 	0.1 	0.2 	0.1 	0.2 	0.1 	
12 	All 	100 	100 	100 	100 	100 	
13 Sample No of persons either never attended or not pursuing education         792         852      4,154      1,629       7,427

T-83	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 4.3: Percentage distribution of students in the age group 5-25 years by status of  having separate study room for each social group.  
Sl No  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	
Separate study room  	Sample No of 
persons pursuin g 	
education	 	Have 	Donât have 	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	11.1 	88.9 	100 	1,535 	
2 	SC 	22.7 	77.3 	100 	256 	
3 	OBC 	29.2 	70.8 	100 	3,421 	
4 	Others  	49.9 	50.1 	100 	2,353 	
5 	All 	31.8 	68.2 	100 	7,565 	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	19.0 	81.0 	100 	21 	
7 	SC 	11.3 	88.7 	100 	2,135 	
8 	OBC 	24.6 	75.4 	100 	9,841 	
9 	Others  	29.2 	70.8 	100 	7,631 	
10 	All 	24.9 	75.1 	100 	19,628 	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	42.9 	57.1 	100 	7 	
12 	SC 	14.1 	85.9 	100 	2,035 	
13 	OBC 	26.5 	73.5 	100 	16,036 	
14 	Others  	21.5 	78.5 	100 	5,004 	
15 	All 	24.3 	75.7 	100 	23,082 	
16 	
Lowland with sea -shore 	
SC 	20.8 	79.2 	100 	216 	
17 	OBC 	25.7 	74.3 	100 	3,352 	
18 	Others  	23.5 	76.5 	100 	251 	
19 	All 	25.3 	74.7 	100 	3,819

T-84	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 4.4: Percentage distribution of students in the age group 5-25 years by status of  having chair & book shelf for each social group.  
Sl No  	
Natural Region  	Social Group 	
Availability of chairs, tables and book shelf 	Sample No of 
persons pursuing 	
education	 	Have 	Donât have  	All 	
1 	
Highland  	
ST 	16.9 	83.1 	100 	1,535 	
2 	SC 	49.2 	50.8 	100 	256 	
3 	OBC 	56.6 	43.4 	100 	3,421 	
4 	Others  	79.9 	20.1 	100 	2,353 	
5 	All 	55.5 	44.5 	100 	7,565 	
6 	
Midland  	
ST 	76.2 	23.8 	100 	21 	
7 	SC 	39.6 	60.4 	100 	2,135 	
8 	OBC 	54.8 	45.2 	100 	9,841 	
9 	Others  	63.3 	36.7 	100 	7,631 	
10 	All 	56.5 	43.5 	100 	19,628 	
11 	
Lowland  	
ST 	85.7 	14.3 	100 	7 	
12 	SC 	28.8 	71.2 	100 	2,035 	
13 	OBC 	50.5 	49.5 	100 	16,036 	
14 	Others  	49.5 	50.5 	100 	5,004 	
15 	All 	48.4 	51.6 	100 	23,082 	
16 	
Lowland with sea -shore 	
SC 	31.5 	68.5 	100 	216 	
17 	OBC 	52.7 	47.3 	100 	3,352 	
18 	Others  	36.7 	63.3 	100 	251 	
19 	All 	50.5 	49.5 	100 	3,819

T-85	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
 
 
 
 
 
 	
5. Facilities  and Availability of  Major Amenities

T-86	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala

T-87	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 5.1: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = Gram Panchayath headquarters  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	4.3 	4.5 	5.1 	86.0 	100 	
2 	Midland 	4.7 	10.1 	10.2 	75.0 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	3.6 	11.2 	14.3 	70.9 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	0.3 	0.6 	13.3 	85.8 	100 	
 	All  	3.9 	9.2 	11.6 	75.4 	100 	
 
Table  5.2: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = Village Office  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	4.3 	5.8 	10.0 	79.9 	100 	
2 	Midland 	8.7 	15.6 	8.3 	67.4 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	3.2 	10.0 	19.3 	67.6 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	9.8 	15.9 	6.3 	68.0 	100 	
 	All  	5.8 	12.0 	13.1 	69.1 	100

T-88	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 5.3: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = Bus stop 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Hig hland  	41.6 	19.2 	18.6 	20.6 	100 	
2 	Midland  	53.6 	32.1 	7.6 	6.7 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	55.3 	23.7 	15.8 	5.2 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	43.0 	36.0 	5.6 	15.4 	100 	
 	All  	52.0 	27.1 	12.4 	8.5 	100 	
 
Table  5.4: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = Railway Station 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	0.7 	0.2 	0.1 	99.0 	100 	
2 	Midland 	0.6 	0.3 	0.1 	99.0 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	1.8 	2.8 	5.1 	90.4 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	3.1 	0.5 	0.0 	96.4 	100 	
 	All  	1.3 	1.4 	2.3 	95.1 	100

T-89	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 5.5: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities.  
Type of facility/amenity  = Metalled road 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	81.4 	9.6 	4.4 	4.7 	100 	
2 	Midland 	94.4 	4.4 	0.3 	0.9 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	84.1 	12.0 	1.7 	2.3 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	84.8 	9.7 	4.1 	1.3 	100 	
 	All  	87.6 	8.7 	1.7 	2.0 	100 	
 
Table  5.6: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = School having primary level classes 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	11.3 	15.2 	24.8 	48.8 	100 	
2 	Midland 	14.9 	32.2 	16.5 	36.4 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	13.7 	31.2 	23.3 	31.9 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	17.8 	29.8 	32.5 	19.9 	100 	
 	All  	14.1 	29.4 	21.6 	34.9 	100

T-90	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 5.7: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = S chool having secondary level classes 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	8.0 	11.2 	16.8 	64.1 	100 	
2 	Midland 	4.3 	20.4 	11.9 	63.4 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	4.8 	17.5 	23.2 	54.5 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	12.4 	13.3 	18.3 	56.0 	100 	
 	All  	5.6 	17.5 	17.9 	59.1 	100 	
 
Table  5.8: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = Higher secondary school  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	6.5 	7.1 	10.5 	75.9 	100 	
2 	Midland 	3.4 	14.3 	13.0 	69.3 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	4.5 	15.2 	17.7 	62.6 	100 	
4 	Lowland w ith sea-shore 	10.3 	8.0 	8.2 	73.5 	100 	
 	All 	4.8 	13.3 	14.4 	67.5 	100

T-91	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 5.9: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. Type of facility/amenity = Primary health centre  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	2.9 	5.1 	8.8 	83.2 	100 	
2 	Midland 	12.3 	17.3 	15.2 	55.2 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	4.4 	15.1 	20.5 	60.1 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	10.4 	8.9 	14.3 	66.3 	100 	
 	All  	7.5 	14.2 	16.6 	61.7 	100 	
 
Table 5.10: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = Community health centre  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more   	All 	
1 	Highland  	3.4 	3.7 	1.9 	91.0 	100 	
2 	Midland 	3.6 	8.8 	3.9 	83.6 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	3.5 	6.6 	13.8 	76.1 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	0.0 	0.2 	0.4 	99.4 	100 	
 	All  	3.3 	6.6 	7.7 	82.4 	100

T-92	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 5.11: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. Type of facility/amenity = Government hospital  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	0.2 	1.1 	0.3 	98.4 	100 	
2 	Midland 	1.0 	2.4 	2.6 	94.0 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	1.8 	6.2 	9.7 	82.3 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	0.0 	4.7 	0.4 	94.9 	100 	
 	All  	1.2 	4.0 	5.2 	89.5 	100 	
 
Table 5.12:  Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = Private hospital/clinic  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	6.3 	5.4 	5.8 	82.5 	100 	
2 	Midland 	2.6 	6.6 	10.3 	80.4 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	7.8 	14.5 	17.0 	60.8 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	0.5 	6.1 	6.3 	87.1 	100 	
 	All  	5.2 	9.8 	12.3 	72.7 	100

T-93	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 5.13: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. Type of facility/amenity = Anganwadi centre (ICDS) 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	24.9 	36.6 	23.3 	15.2 	100 	
2 	Midland 	44.9 	32.3 	12.8 	10.0 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	39.1 	34.8 	18.5 	7.7 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	38.8 	21.1 	26.1 	14.0 	100 	
 	All  	39.4 	33.1 	17.6 	9.9 	100 	
 
Table 5.14: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = post office  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	9.1 	16.9 	12.2 	61.8 	100 	
2 	Midland 	12.8 	29.3 	20.7 	37.2 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	9.7 	20.8 	26.1 	43.4 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	16.2 	21.1 	13.0 	49.7 	100 	
 	All  	11.2 	23.4 	21.4 	43.9 	100

T-94	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 5.15: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity  = Akshaya centre 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	5.5 	6.3 	16.4 	71.8 	100 	
2 	Midland 	6.6 	13.7 	15.6 	64.1 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	7.4 	17.6 	25.7 	49.2 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	11.4 	13.0 	22.5 	53.1 	100 	
 	All  	7.2 	14.4 	20.6 	57.9 	100 	
 
Table 5.16: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = Fair price shop (Ration shop) 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	13.5 	17.7 	26.5 	42.3 	100 	
2 	Midland 	19.9 	40.6 	19.8 	19.6 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	30.5 	31.9 	19.7 	17.9 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	33.4 	23.5 	22.3 	20.8 	100 	
 	All  	24.6 	32.7 	20.8 	21.9 	100

T-95	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 5.17: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. Type of facility/amenity = Medical shop  
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	8.0 	5.4 	7.0 	79.6 	100 	
2 	Midland 	9.7 	20.3 	16.2 	53.9 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	14.2 	30.2 	20.8 	34.7 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	10.6 	6.7 	12.9 	69.9 	100 	
 	All  	11.5 	21.7 	16.8 	50.0 	100 	
 
Table 5.18: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = Commercial bank 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	5.7 	5.3 	6.7 	82.3 	100 	
2 	Midland 	8.0 	15.4 	11.7 	64.9 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	4.2 	15.8 	14.2 	65.8 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea- shore 	11.9 	12.3 	9.1 	66.7 	100 	
 	All 	6.3 	14.1 	12.0 	67.6 	100

T-96	 	Report on âQualitative and quantitative 	condition	 in housing in rural Kerala 2016	-17â, DES, Kerala	 	
 
Table 5.19: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. Type of facility/amenity = Veterinary hospital/ dispensary 
Sl No.  	
Natural Region  	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	2.0 	6.1 	8.0 	83.9 	100 	
2 	Midland 	3.1 	15.6 	10.4 	71.0 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	0.8 	11.5 	14.6 	73.2 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -sho re 	0.0 	4.6 	10.2 	85.2 	100 	
 	All  	1.7 	11.8 	11.9 	74.6 	100 	
 
Table 5.20: Percentage distribution of houses by distance of the house to the nearest facility/availability of some major amenities. 
Type of facility/amenity = Public comfort station  
Sl No.  	
Natural Re gion 	
Distance from house  	
Less than 0.5 k.m 	0.5 k.m to 1.0 k.m 	1.0 k.m. to 1.5 k.m. 	1.5 k.m. or more  	All 	
1 	Highland  	3.8 	1.3 	1.6 	93.4 	100 	
2 	Midland 	1.1 	1.4 	2.0 	95.4 	100 	
3 	Lowland  	1.1 	3.5 	1.1 	94.3 	100 	
4 	Lowland with sea -shore 	0.0 	4.3 	1.0 	94.6 	100 	
 	Al l 	1.4 	2.5 	1.5 	94.6 	100
Population & Demographics

Agriculture

Industries

Socio-economic

Other data & insights

Price trends

RESEARCH IN STATISTICS

Population & Demographics

Agriculture

Industries

Socio-economic

Other Schemes/ Divisions

RECENT SURVEYS

Department Info

Contact

Directory

History

Organization

Announcements & Orders

Related Organisations

Acts and Rules

Public Portals

Official Login 1

Official Login 2

External Links

Latest Events

Miscellaneous

Employees' Portals

Site Administration

DATA ANALYTICS

OPEN DATA

DASHBOARDS

OTHER OPEN DATA PORTALS

Publications

Category: Socio-economic
