IOM_UKR_Winterization_Brief_December 2024_1

DECEMBER 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

The ongoing war, which escalated with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation in February 2022, has significantly disrupted the lives of the civilian population. Millions of people continue to endure the impact of displacement, both within Ukraine and abroad. As of October 2024, approximately 3,555,000 individuals remain internally displaced in Ukraine (IOM General Population Survey, Round 18), while another 6,752,000 are displaced internationally (UNHCR, 15 October 2024). Additionally, IOM estimates that 4,294,000 people have returned to their places of habitual residence after being displaced for at least two weeks since the beginning of the invasion.1

Entering the third winter under full-scale conflict conditions presents additional hardships for the entire population of Ukraine, including targeting of – and damage to – civilian infrastructure, protracted displacement, financial strain and extensive residential damage, and extensive residential damage in affected areas. Displaced individuals,

KEY FINDINGS

returnees, residents in frontline areas, as well as the broader civilian population, could face challenges in accessing essential winter-related resources, including electricity, heating, and adequate shelter. Economic pressures have been already exacerbating these difficulties, as reduced household income since the beginning of war and utilisation of negative coping mechanisms have left many people across Ukraine vulnerable.2

This report provides an in-depth analysis of winter-related needs and resilience across Ukraine, focusing on access to electricity and heating, availability of winter-related items, utility expenditures, adequate housing conditions and winter-related mobility. The aim is to identify gaps in access to critical winter supplies and services, and to highlight the most vulnerable groups.

By utilising data from the IOM General Population Survey, this report seeks to support evidence-based programming, policy-making, advocacy, and further research.

Only 41 per cent of respondents across the country reported access to backup power sources such as generators or batteries. It was lowest among IDPs - less than 1 in 3 IDPs reported access to back up power sources (28%).

When asked if their current residence was adequate for winter, the vast majority of individuals (97%) responded that it was, though 5 per cent lived in homes damaged as a result of the war. Regarding specific needs, one in three respondents across the country reported requiring insulation-based materials or repairs for their residence (32%) or other building or reconstruction materials (29%). Among those in need, over a third reported lacking the capacity to perform repairs independently, particularly female and elderly respondents.

Nearly a quarter of respondents reported a lack of heating appliances (23%) and solid fuel for heating (21%). IDPs were particularly vulnerable, with 38 per cent lacking heating appliances and 26 per cent lacking solid fuel. Respondents in rural areas were also more likely to report lack of winter-related items, with 36 per cent having reported lack of solid fuel and 15 per cent - a lack of winter clothing. Similarly, those in frontline areas were most affected, as 30 per cent of them reported lack of heating appliances, 28 per cent lacked solid fuel, 19 per cent lacked floor insulation, and 18 per cent lacked winter clothing.

Winter conditions - compounded by the impact of the war - are a significant influence on mobility intentions, potentially resulting in increased displacement. Among individuals considering leaving their current location in the next three to six months, 29 per cent (approximately 354,000 people) cited winter as a significant reason. To a lesser extent, utility disruptions can also contribute to considerations of relocation, particularly among IDPs, returnees, and urban residents. Exacerbating factors such as high housing and utility costs, employment challenges, and economic strain intensify the hardships faced during the winter months, driving a growing prevalence of negative coping strategies such as skipping rental payments, moving to less adequate housing or undertaking degrading or informal work.

1. ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY AND HEATING

ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY

Overall, 81 per cent of surveyed individuals reported having more than 18 hours of electricity per day in the 7 days prior to data collection, indicating a moderate stability in electricity supply across the vast majority of the population. Minor proportions (7%) reported access in lower hourly brackets, while no individuals reported no access at all.

At the same time, IDPs were less likely to report having access to electricity for more than 18 hours a day (49%). The remaining half of IDPs (48%) experienced shorter durations of electricity access, between 3 and 18 hours. Returnees also reported limited access, with only 45 per cent experiencing over 18 hours of electricity per day, while non-displaced individuals reported the highest stability, with 93 per cent enjoying extended daily electricity access.

Electricity availability also varied by settlement type. In rural areas, 85 per cent of respondents reported having more than 18 hours of access, while those in small towns had slightly lower access (82%). Large city residents were even less likely to report more than 18 hours of access (79%), while those in suburban areas were the least likely to report such levels of electricity access (72%).

Geographically, respondents residing in some oblasts exhibited high electricity stability, while others lagged behind. Oblasts such as Cherkaska, Ternopilska, Rivnenska, Kirovohradska and Ivano-Frankivska

1:

Chart 1: Proportion of individuals reporting they had access to electricity in the 7 days prior to data collection for more than 18 hours a day, by displacement

had over 90 per cent of individuals reporting more than 18 hours of electricity. In contrast, those in Kyiv City and Kyivska Oblast reported the lowest daily access (61% and 70%, respectively). IDPs in oblasts hosting the largest numbers of displaced persons were particularly exposed to limited electricity access. In Dnipropetrovska Oblast, only 20 per cent of IDPs reported having more than 18 hours of electricity per day compared to 78 per cent of the overall population - a striking disparity. Similar gaps were observed in Kyiv City (29% of IDPs vs. 61% overall), Kyivska Oblast (35% of IDPs vs. 70% overall), and Kharkivska Oblast (63% of IDPs vs. 80% overall).

individuals reporting they had access to electricity in the 7 days prior to data collection for more than 18 hours a day, by oblast

ACCESS TO BACKUP POWER SOURCES

Access to backup power sources, such as generators or batteries, is critical during potential power outages, particularly in winter. Among surveyed individuals, 41 per cent reported having access to backup power, while 59 per cent did not.

However, among IDPs, only 28 per cent reported having access to backup power, compared to 47 per cent of returnees and 42 per cent of non-displaced individuals.

Respondents in suburban areas were more likely to report access to backup power sources (51%), followed by rural areas (45%), whereas those in large cities and small towns were less likely - at 39 per cent and 38 per cent, respectively. Moreover, a higher proportion of male respondents claimed to have access to backup power sources (53%) compared to female respondents (33%). As for the age groups, younger and middle-aged respondents were more likely to report backup power sources access (respondents aged 25-35 and 36-4546% and 49%, respectively), compared to older individuals (only 31% of those aged 60 and above).

At the oblast level, respondents in Ivano-Frankivska and Kyivska oblasts were the most likely to report access to backup power sources (52%), while those in Zaporizka and Mykolaivska were the least likely (27% and 30%, respectively).

2: Proportion of individuals reporting their household to currently have access to any backup power sources such as generator, batteries when there are electricity cuts, by oblast

Income levels appear to impact backup power access, with 36 per cent of individuals earning up to UAH 6,317 per household member3 having reported such access, compared to 48 per cent for those earning UAH 6,318 or more per member. In addition, respondents in frontline areas4 were less likely to report such access (33%) compared to those non-frontline areas (43%).

Among those with access to backup power sources, the most commonly reported types included power banks and portable chargers (59%), batteries or battery storage systems (54%), and portable generators (49%). Inverters were used by 23 per cent, while uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) and solar panels were reported by 12 per cent

3 The threshold of monthly income per household member amounting to UAH 6,318, i.e. the Minimum Expenditure Basket for Ukraine, was used to disaggregate respondents between the lower and higher income individuals.

4 The list of raions designated as front-line areas for the purposes of analyses is determined based on the Government of Ukraine’s Resolution on “Regulations on the approval of the list of territories on which the Russian Federation is (was) or temporarily occupied”, updated as of September 25, 2024. This list includes raions that are either bordering, adjacent to or in proximity to active conflict zones, where there is ongoing fighting, hostilities, or a high likelihood of such activities.

and 6 per cent, respectively. IDPs were more likely to report having access to power banks and portable chargers (66%) compared to the overall population, while non-displaced respondents - to portable generators (51%). In rural areas, portable generators were the most common backup power source (67%), whereas power banks and portable chargers were predominant in large cities (69%).

HEATING AVAILABILITY

The most common heating types available in the respondent’s current residence were gas boilers (39%), centralized heating (36%), and wooden stoves (30%). Electric heaters were available for 22 per cent of respondents, while solid fuel boilers - by 14 per cent. Less common methods included electric boilers (6%) and underfloor heating systems (7%).

IDPs had higher access to centralized heating (45%) compared to nondisplaced individuals (31%), while returnees had the highest access to centralized heating (53%).

Urban-rural differences were significant. In large cities, centralized heating was predominant, with 86 per cent of respondents indicating its availability, while rural residents were more likely to report availability of wooden stoves (63%) and gas boilers (45%), highlighting their reliance on solid fuels.

Respondents in frontline areas were more likely to report having access to centralized heating (40%) but less likely to other modern heating

methods. The availability of centralized heating was more frequently cited in the East (44%), whereas the West had more usage of wooden stoves (38%).

Another factor influencing heating availability was income, as 48 per cent of individuals earning above UAH 6,317 per household member reported centralized heating availability, followed by 28 per cent having reported electric heaters. At the same time, individuals earning up to UAH 6,317 per household member were more likely to report the availability of wooden stoves (37%).

2. HOUSING ADEQUACY AND SHELTER CONDITIONS

HOUSING TYPES AND CONDITIONS OF LIVING

The majority of individuals reported residing in conventional housing, with 46 per cent living in apartments and 51 per cent in houses. While most dwellings were solid or finished (89%), 8 per cent of respondents reported living in homes that are damaged but still livable.

The ongoing conflict has emerged as a central factor affecting housing conditions. Among those reporting dwelling damage, 63 per cent attributed the damage to the current war; returnees were particularly affected, as among them, 85 per cent attributed the damage to the current war.

HOUSING ADEQUACY

An overwhelming majority of individuals (97%) reported considering their current housing adequate for the upcoming winter period. This confidence was consistent across most demographics and regions. IDPs and returnees were slightly less likely to report housing adequacy (94% and 95%, respectively). Individuals considering leaving their current location were slightly less likely to report their house to be adequate (93%), compared to those not considering relocation (97%).

92 per cent of residents in Khersonska Oblast reported feeling that their housing is adequate.

MATERIAL SHORTAGES AND REPAIR CAPACITY

At the same time, respondents expressed concerns regarding winter preparedness relating to insulationbased repairs, shortages of building materials, and the capacity to perform necessary repairs independently. Overall, 32 per cent of individuals reported that their current residence requires insulation-based repairs (such as fixing windows or doors) to ensure a safe stay during the winter months.

IDPs were slightly more likely to report that their residence requires insulation repairs (38%). Moreover, the same proportion of residents in rural areas reporting such a need, followed by those in small towns or urban-type villages (34%). In contrast, 27 per cent of individuals living in large cities indicate a need for insulation-based repairs.

Compounding the issue, 29 per cent of individuals reported currently experiencing or anticipating a shortage of building or reconstruction materials necessary for repairs. This shortage was more acute in rural areas, where 38 per cent reported material shortages, compared to 23 per cent in suburbs and 22 per cent in large cities.

The capacity to perform repairs independently is another critical factor affecting winter preparedness. Among those experiencing or expecting a lack of materials, 45 per cent stated that they can perform the repairs themselves if materials are provided. An additional 18 per cent claimed they can arrange for someone else to do the repairs, while 36 per cent said that they require assistance from organizations to complete the repairs. Male respondents were more likely to perform repairs themselves (60%) compared to female respondents (38%). Consequently, 41 per cent of women respondents reported requiring assistance from organizations.

Age also plays a role in both the need for repairs and the capacity to perform them. Younger respondents aged 25-35 and 36-45 were more likely to report an ability to perform repairs themselves, at 59 per cent and 60 per cent, respectively. Elderly respondents aged 60 and above were less likely to perform repairs independently, with only 36 per cent able to do so and 49 per cent requiring assistance.

3. WINTER-RELATED ITEMS

LACK OF WINTER ITEMS

A significant proportion of individuals reported experiencing or anticipating a lack of essential items for the upcoming winter. Specifically, 23 per cent of respondents across Ukraine reported lacking heating appliances such as electric heaters, boilers, and stoves. Additionally, 21 per cent of individuals reported a lack of solid fuel for heating, such as coal, firewood, pellets, and briquettes, while 14 per cent reported lacking floor insulation, and 12 per cent lacked winter clothing.

Moreover, the Rapid Needs Assessment (RNA) conducted by IOM together with REACH has identified a consistent issue of distribution of repair materials by humanitarian organisations without accompanying technical assistance. This approach often excludes the elderly and individuals with disabilities from receiving prompt and sufficient assistance, as they may be unable to conduct repairs themselves.

Economic stress is compounding in households employing coping strategies. Those utilizing emergency coping strategies5 were more likely to report the need for repairs (41%) and material shortages (45%). At the same time, they were also more likely to perform repairs themselves (54%). In contrast, households not employing any coping strategies were less likely to report the need for repairs (18%) and material shortages (13%).

IDPs were more likely to report lack of winter necessities than the overall population. Among IDPs, 38 per cent lacked heating appliances, 26 per cent lacked solid fuel, 27 per cent lacked floor insulation, and 26 per cent lacked winter clothing. Returnees also faced challenges, with 32 per cent lacking or expecting to lack heating appliances and 21 per cent - solid fuel.

Individuals in rural areas were more likely to report the lack of solid fuel (36%) and winter clothing (15%), while large city residents - lack of heating appliances (26%). Moreover, women were more likely to report experiencing or anticipating lack of winter necessities. Among them, 27 per cent reported lack of heating appliances, compared to 17 per cent of men.

The level of winter preparedness was lower in frontline areas than in non-frontline areas. In frontline areas, 30 per cent of individuals reported experiencing or anticipated lack of heating appliances, 28 per cent - solid fuel, 19 per cent - floor insulation, and 18 per cent winter clothing. Individuals in non-frontline areas were less likely to report experiencing or anticipating lack of winter necessities, as 21 per cent of them indicated heating appliances, 19 per cent - solid fuel, 12 per

HEATING APPLIANCES

Among those having reported experiencing or anticipating a lack of heating appliances, electric heaters were the most frequently indicated (62%). Stoves, including the locally known burzhuika were mentioned by 31 per cent of respondents, while 28 per cent indicated solid fuel boilers.

Settlement type affected heating appliance access. Individuals in rural areas were more likely to mention solid fuel boilers (50%) and stoves (41%), while those in urban areas, particularly in large cities, predominantly reported a lack of electric heaters (69%).

Respondents in frontline areas were particularly vulnerable, experiencing higher deficiencies across all types of heating appliances. In these areas, 66 per cent indicated electric heaters, 34 per cent – stoves, and 31 per cent - solid fuel boilers.

SOLID FUEL

The availability of solid fuels, including firewood, coal, briquettes, and pellets, is also crucial for winter preparedness. Among those who reported a lack of solid fuel, 92 per cent indicated a shortage of firewood, making it the most commonly unavailable resource. Coal was the second most lacking fuel, with 46 per cent of individuals reporting shortages, while briquettes and pellets were also frequently reported (58% and 53%, respectively).

Rural areas were more affected by solid fuel shortages, with 96 per cent of individuals that reported lack of solid fuel mentioning firewood and 52 per cent indicating coal, compared to 78 per cent and 31 per cent in urban areas, respectively.

Similarly, those in frontline areas were more affected, with 93 per cent lacking firewood, 55 per cent lacking coal, 61 per cent - pellets, and 67 per cent - briquettes.

cent - floor insulation, and 10 per cent - winter clothing. This highlights the compounded challenges faced by those residing in conflict-affected regions during winter months.6

Income status also appears to impact winter preparedness. Individuals from lower-income households (with income up to UAH 6,317 monthly per household member) were more likely to report lacking or expecting to lack essential items. Specifically, 24 per cent lacked heating appliances, 28 per cent lacked solid fuel, 17 per cent lacked floor insulation, and 15 per cent lacked winter clothing. In comparison, higher-income individuals (earning UAH 6,318 and more per household member) were less likely to report it: 22 per cent indicated heating appliances, 11 per cent - solid fuel, 9 per cent - floor insulation, and 6 per cent - winter clothing.

6: Proportion of respondents who reported types of heating appliances they currently lacked or expected to lack

Chart 7: Proportion of respondents who reported types of solid fuel they currently lacked or expected to lack

4. EXPENDITURE OF UTILITIES DURING THE HEATING SEASON

The national median monthly expenditure on key utilities (including gas, electricity, water, and heating) during the heating season amounted to UAH 3,000.

The highest median expenditure was reported for returnees (at UAH 3,500), compared to UAH 3,000 for both IDPs and non-displaced individuals. Individuals residing in large cities and suburbs claimed to have higher median expenditures of UAH 3,500, while those in rural areas and small towns reported slightly lower figure of UAH 3,000.

Household composition also impacted expenditure levels. Individuals in households with at least one child reported higher median expenditures of UAH 4,000, compared to UAH 3,000 for those without children. Households without elderly members spent more (UAH 3,500) than those with elderly members (UAH 3,000). Single-parent households also reported a higher expenditure (UAH 3,500).

The highest utility expenditure was reported in Kyivska Oblast (UAH 3,902), followed by the Eastern macro-region and Kyiv city (UAH 3,500). Other regions, such as the Center, South, and West had a median expenditure of UAH 3,000.

THE SITUATION OF IDPS RENTING THEIR ACCOMMODATION

Rent and utility costs represent a particularly heavy financial burden for IDPs, many of whom rely on rented accommodation due to displacement. This subsection draws on data from the Ukraine Housing Brief: Living Conditions, Rental Costs, and Mobility Factors , collected in March and April 2024. Nationally, 54 per cent of renters reported spending more than half of their household income on housing (rent plus utilities), with 31 per cent spending over 70 per cent (during warmer months). IDPs were disproportionately affected, with 60 per cent spending more than half of their income on housing and 38 per cent - spending over 70 per cent. This economic strain has forced a significant number of IDPs to adopt crisis coping strategies, such as skipping rent payments (18%) and moving to poorer quality dwellings (17%), compounding their vulnerability during the winter months.

Consequently, IDPs face a higher risk of eviction, especially if they are unable to sustain rental payments due to their lower reliance on regular salaries compared to other groups,7 or due to inconsistent social assistance (following changes to the IDP allowance implemented in March 2024).8 Security of tenure remains a critical issue, with 37 per cent of IDP respondents having reported lack of legal documentation for their current tenure. IDPs also reported the highest levels of eviction experiences since the invasion (one in five IDPs reported this experience) and expressed the greatest fear of future evictions among all population groups.

This situation has driven some IDPs toward premature returns to conflict-affected areas, where they may own property but face challenging living conditions. One in five returnee respondents cited the unaffordability of housing during displacement and the financial necessity of moving back to their own homes as primary reasons for their return.9

5. MOBILITY INTENTIONS INFLUENCED BY WINTER CONDITIONS AND UTILITY DISRUPTION

WINTER CONDITIONS

The arrival of winter appears to, to some extent, influence the decisions of individuals considering leaving their current location within the next three to six months from the data collection that took place between 12 August and 15 October 2024. Overall, 29 per cent of those contemplating relocation in this time period cited winter as a significant reason for their decision, amounting to approximately 354,000 individuals. At the same time, the vast majority (69%) did not view winter as a significant factor.

Among returnees, 34 per cent reported consider winter a significant reason to leave, which is higher than the overall average. IDPs were slightly less likely to consider relocation due to winter (27%).

Settlement type also affects perceptions. In small towns or urbantype villages, 35 per cent of residents reported considering winter a significant reason to relocate, compared to 22 per cent of those living in rural areas and 28 per cent of residents of large cities.

In frontline areas affected by conflict, 32 per cent considered winter a significant reason to relocate, higher than the 26 per cent of respondents in non-frontline areas. The combination of conflict and winter conditions likely exacerbates hardships, influencing the decision to move. Consequently, in the Eastern macro-region, 32 per cent of individuals viewed winter as a significant reason to relocate, higher than in other macro-regions (for example, 21 per cent in the Western macro-region).

Winter-related mobility intentions are further influenced by several exacerbating factors, notably financial burdens associated with housing and utilities. These factors are particularly severe among IDPs and returnees, who often face heightened economic vulnerabilities.

Access to affordable housing significantly influenced the mobility dynamics and intentions of the displaced population across Ukraine, impacting decisions related to displacement, re-displacement, and returns. The perceived availability of affordable housing was a crucial factor for IDPs when selecting and residing in their location of displacement, while its lack remained a key reason for leaving previous locations. Returnees often cited the unaffordability of housing during displacement and the financial necessity of moving back to their own homes as reasons for their return. As two-thirds of returnees reported owning their houses, not having to pay rent in their area of displacement was a significant factor in their decision to return, even if it means moving back to heavily conflict-affected areas.

UTILITY DISRUPTIONS

At the same time, utility disruptions - specifically electricity, gas, and water supply interruptions - could also influence mobility intentions, although to a lesser extent than winter conditions. Overall, one in five per cent of respondents indicated they would consider leaving their current location if these essential services were disrupted for more than three months.

In the case of electricity outages, approximately one in five respondents reported they would leave if faced with prolonged disruptions. IDPs and returnees were more likely to consider (re-)displacement under any scenario of electricity outage. Respondents residing in cities were also more inclined to consider relocation, especially in the event of shorter-duration outages. Conversely, older individuals were less likely to report that they would leave due to electricity disruptions.

Similarly, one-fifth of respondents stated they would consider leaving if their household gas supply was disrupted. The largest shares of

7 https://dtm.iom.int/reports/ukraine-thematic-brief-economic-resilience-wartime-income-employment-and-social-assistance

8 https://dtm.iom.int/dtm_download_track/63296?file=1&type=node&id=43116

9 https://dtm.iom.int/reports/ukraine-housing-brief-living-conditions-rental-costs-and-mobility-factors-july-2024

individuals would leave if disruptions lasted at least one month. IDPs and returnees were again more likely to report intentions to (re-) displace. Urban residents were also more likely to consider relocation.

Regarding household water supply, also approximately one-fifth of respondents indicated they would leave if faced with disruptions.

6. WATER ACCESS AND QUALITY

The stability of electricity supply is crucial not only for household comfort but also for the functioning of essential infrastructure, such as water treatment facilities and household pumps. Electricity outages threaten the continuous functioning of these facilities, which can impact the quality and quantity of water and the availability of household central heating and hot water.

WATER SUPPLY

Overall, 87 per cent of individuals reported having access to water supply for more than 18 hours per day during the week prior to data collection, indicating near-continuous availability for most. However, 7 per cent of individuals reported no access to water supply at all, while small percentages experienced limited access ranging from one to 18 hours per day.

Water supply access varied by the displacements status, as 78 per cent of IDPs reported having water supply for more than 18 hours (7% reported no access at all), compared to 81 per cent of returnees having reported more than 18 hours of water supply access (4% having reported no access and 89 per cent of non-displaced individuals having more reported than 18 hours of water supply access (similarly, 7% reporting no access).

Similar to gas supply, the largest shares of individuals would consider leaving after at least one month of water supply interruption. IDPs and returnees were again more likely to report intentions to (re-)displace due to water disruptions. Respondents in cities were particularly affected, with proportions reaching up to almost half of returnees who would consider leaving urban areas.

Urban-rural differences were also present, as 79 per cent of respondents in rural areas reported having access to water for more than 18 hours a day, while 16 per cent reported having no access to water supply. At the same time, 85 per cent of individuals in suburbs of large cities, and 86 per cent of those in small towns or villages, respectively, reported enjoying more than 18 hours of water supply a day, compared to 93 per cent of individuals in large cities.

Map 3: Proportion of individuals reporting they had access to water supply in their current dwelling in the 7 days prior to data collection for more than 18 hours a day

Water access varied across the country. Four in five (80%) respondents in the frontline areas reported having access to water for more than 18 hours a day and 8 per cent reported no access at all, compared to 89 per cent and 6 per cent in non-frontline areas, respectively. The highest proportion of individuals with no water access in frontline areas was recorded in Donetska Oblast (15%), where only 59 per cent had access for more than 18 hours.

WATER QUALITY

Water quality concerns were also reported, as a quarter (25%) of respondents indicated issues with the quality, taste, or smell of their water supply in their dwelling during the 30 days prior to data collection.

IDPs and returnees were more likely to express water quality concerns, as 30 per cent and 34 per cent of them, respectively, reported experiencing such unease. In contrast, non-displaced individuals were less likely - only 23 per cent of them indicated such concerns.

Intentions to leave their current area of residence also appear to correlate with water quality concerns. Those considering leaving were more likely to report water quality concerns (38%) compared to those

ACCESS TO ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES

Overall, three quarters (75%) of individuals across Ukraine reported having access to alternative technical water10 sources during supply interruptions, while 83 per cent - access to alternative drinking water sources. This indicates that most individuals can meet their water needs even when the primary supply is disrupted. However, 24 per cent reported lacking access to alternative technical water sources, and 16 per cent - lack of alternative drinking water sources, highlighting a significant minority that remains vulnerable during interruptions.

Displacement status influenced access to alternative water sources. Specifically, 69 per cent of both IDPs and returnees had access to alternative technical water sources, compared to 78 per cent of nondisplaced individuals. For alternative drinking water sources, access was reported by 79 per cent of IDPs and 80 per cent of returnees, while 85 per cent of non-displaced individuals had such access.

Access also varied by settlement type. Individuals in rural areas reported the highest access to alternative water sources, with 88 per cent having technical and 92 per cent having drinking water alternatives. In contrast, individuals in large cities reported the lowest access (67% for technical and 79% for drinking water sources).

ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES

Among those with access to alternative technical or drinking water sources, the most commonly reported ones included bottled water (54%) and wells or spring water (53%) - a dual reliance on both commercially available water and natural sources when regular supply is disrupted.

IDPs and returnees were more likely to report access to bottled water, with 67 per cent and 69 per cent respectively reporting it as an alternative source, compared to 49 per cent of non-displaced individuals. On the other hand, non-displaced individuals had greater access to wells or spring water (58%) than IDPs (36%) and returnees (37%).

not considering leaving (24%). This suggests that poor water quality may be a factor motivating people to relocate.

Water quality concerns also varied by settlement type. Urban residents, who typically rely on centralized (piped) water supply systems, reported higher levels of concern - 30 per cent in large cities and 28 per cent in suburban areas - compared to rural residents, where decentralized sources like wells or boreholes are more common and perceived to have better water quality, as only 15 per cent of rural respondents reported water quality concerns.

Moreover, households, with chronically ill members were more likely to report concerns (29%) than those without (22%), while singleparent households also slightly more likely to report concerns (30%), compared to 25 per cent in other households.

In frontline areas affected by the ongoing conflict, 38 per cent of individuals reported concerns about water quality, compared to 20 per cent in non-frontline areas. Consequently, the East macro-region saw the highest percentage of individuals reporting water quality concerns (41%). Specific oblasts with the highest proportion of respondents expressing such concerns included Dnipropetrovska (49%), Mykolaivska (45%), Zaporizka (39%), Donetska (41%), and Kharkivska (32%).

9: Proportion of individuals having access to alternative technical and drinking water sources during supply interruptions, by displacement status

for non-drinking purposes such as cleaning, sanitation, or industrial needs.

Moreover, the situation differed across the country. For example, respondents in Zaporizka Oblast were the least likely to report access to alternative technical water sources (60%), while only 71 per cent of them reported access to alternative drinking water sources. In contrast, individuals in Zhytomyrska Oblast reported higher access levels (86% for technical and 92% for drinking water sources).

In rural areas, a vast majority of individuals (83%) relied on wells or spring water, and only 30 per cent reported access to bottled water as an alternative water source. Conversely, in large cities, 73 per cent of individuals depended on bottled water, while just 23 per cent - on wells or spring water.

As for the geographical differences, 69 per cent of individuals in the Center macro-region reported access to wells or spring water, whereas in the East, only 41 per cent did so. Bottled water access was highest in Kyiv (74%) and the East (66%), while natural water bodies were more commonly accessible as an alternative source in the East (20%) and Center (24%).

Income status influenced alternative water source access. Higher-income individuals (earning UAH 6,318 and more per member) were more likely to rely on bottled water (64%) compared to lower-income individuals

(48%). Conversely, lower-income individuals relied more on wells or spring water (59%) than those in higher income households (43%).

Map 4: Proportion of individuals reporting whether or not their household has access to alternative drinking water sources during supply interruptions, by oblast

METHODOLOGY

The data presented in this report was commissioned by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and collected by Multicultural Insights as part of Round 18 of the General Population Survey (GPS). Data was collected by Multicultural Insights through screener phone-based interviews with 40,002 randomly selected respondents and follow-up interviews with 1,421 IDPs, 1,185 returnees, and 1,804 residents, using the computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) method, and a random digit dial (RDD) approach, with an overall sample error of 0.49 per cent [CL95%]. Round 18 of data collection was completed between 12 August and 15 October 2024. IDPs are defined as people who left their homes or are staying outside their habitual place of residence due to the full-scale invasion in February 2022, regardless of whether they hold registered IDP status. Returnees are defined as people who returned to their habitual place of residence after a significant period of displacement (minimum of two weeks since February 2022). All remaining individuals are considered nondisplaced.

The survey included all oblasts in Ukraine, excluding the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) and the areas of Donetska, Luhanska, Khersonska, and Zaporizka Oblasts under the temporary military control of the Russian Federation where phone coverage by Ukrainian operators is not available.

Limitations: The exact proportion of the excluded populations is unknown. Those currently residing outside the territory of Ukraine were not interviewed, following active exclusion. Population estimates assume that children (those under 18 years old) are accompanied by their parents or guardians. The sample frame is limited to adults that use mobile phones. It is unknown if all phone networks were fully functional across the entire territory of Ukraine for the entire period of the survey; therefore, some respondents may have had a higher probability of receiving calls than others. Residents of areas with a high level of civilian infrastructure damage may have a lower representation among the sample – likely resulting in an under-representation in the report. Those residing in the ARC or areas of Donetska, Luhanska, Khersonska, and Zaporizka Oblasts under temporary occupation by the Russian Federation are not included in the survey.

https://dtm.iom.int/ukraine