Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities

Oleksii Kutsalo

doi:doi:10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities

Oleksii Kutsalo^*

Published in Urban and Regional Planning (Volume 10, Issue 3)

Received: 24 July 2025 Accepted: 6 August 2025 Published: 21 August 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive statistical analysis of the regional features of housing provision for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine. The issue is particularly urgent in the context of large-scale population displacement caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war, which has resulted in several million IDPs, while the demand for housing units is estimated to exceed 500,000. The aim of the study is to assess regional housing needs for IDPs and the available capacities for their provision through an analysis of territorial, economic, and infrastructural factors. The research methodology is based on the integrated use of statistical modeling, cartographic analysis, and data clustering methods, which allowed for a comparative analysis of housing provision across different regions of Ukraine. The findings of the study reveal significant territorial disparities in housing provision for IDPs. The highest demand for housing units was recorded in Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Dnipropetrovsk regions. At the same time, the existing housing stock for social needs is critically insufficient at the national scale. The analysis of the institutional capacity of the regions showed that the greatest potential for adapting existing premises lies in Ternopil, Vinnytsia, and Chernivtsi regions. Based on the developed Social Housing Provision Index, a five-level classification of regions was proposed—from critical shortage to relative stability—which allows for differentiated approaches to solving the housing problem of IDPs. Calculations indicate that tens of billions of euros are needed to create the required number of housing units, necessitating the involvement of both state and international funding sources. The practical value of the study lies in the development of scientifically grounded recommendations for optimizing regional housing policy and in the creation of a methodological toolkit for assessing the territorial potential for the placement of IDP housing. The study results may be used in the development of national and regional programs for housing provision for internally displaced persons.

Published in	Urban and Regional Planning (Volume 10, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15
Page(s)	138-152
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Internally Displaced Persons, Housing Provision, Regional Analysis, Statistical Modeling, Social Housing, Territorial Disparities, Social Housing Provision Index

1. Introduction

The issue of housing provision for internally displaced persons (IDPs) has gained unprecedented relevance for Ukraine as a result of the full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war. According to the International Organization for Migration, as of December 2023, the number of IDPs in Ukraine reached 3.7 million people

[22]

, a figure also confirmed by UNHCR data

[2]

. The scale of this challenge necessitates a systemic approach to its resolution, taking into account regional specificities and the availability of local resources.

An analysis of recent research highlights the multidimensional nature of the housing problem for IDPs. A particularly noteworthy study by Hines and Balleto (2002), based on the example of Colombia, identifies a critical vulnerability period for IDPs between the 4th and 24th months following displacement

[1]

. During this period, displaced individuals often find themselves in a “support vacuum”: initial emergency aid from governments and international agencies has already ended, while sustainable self-sufficiency mechanisms have not yet been established. Families at this stage typically suffer from limited income, asset depletion, rising debt, and insufficient access to basic needs, including housing and food. The researchers also point out that individuals in this intermediate phase are often in a worse situation than newly displaced persons who are still covered by emergency programs, and even worse off than those who have been displaced for longer periods and have had time to adapt. This experience is particularly relevant to Ukraine, given the parallels of prolonged conflict and the pressing need for systemic solutions that go beyond short-term relief and address medium-term vulnerabilities in housing provision.

Recent studies by Ukrainian analysts from the Cedos think tank emphasize the necessity of a systematic approach to resolving the housing crisis. As of January 1, 2021, Ukraine had only 1,098 units of social housing and 1,997 units of temporary accommodation — clearly insufficient to meet current demands

[10, 29]

. According to estimates by Lawson and colleagues

[12]

, approximately 1.42 million IDPs are in need of housing support, requiring the provision of about 500,000 housing units. The highest demand is observed in Kharkiv (107,000 units), Kyiv (73,000), and Dnipropetrovsk (31,000) regions. Cedos has also conducted a series of studies on housing policy in Ukraine

[25-28]

, contributing to a social understanding of the challenges in this domain.

International experience, as summarized in the UNECE report "Social Housing in the UNECE Region"

[6]

and UN Guidelines for supporting internally displaced persons

[11]

, highlights the importance of creating dedicated housing funds and developing the non-profit housing sector. This aligns with the findings of "Rebuilding a Place to Call Home"

[7]

, which stress the need to consider local contexts in planning housing programs.

An analysis of empirical data reveals significant regional disparities in IDP housing provision. According to the “IDP Housing Needs Assessment”

[20]

, in Odesa region, 77% of IDPs live in rented housing, 10% in collective centers, 9% with relatives or friends, and only 3% have managed to purchase their own homes.

Special attention should be given to the analysis of institutional capacity across regions. The most systematic approaches have been demonstrated by Vinnytsia (117 facilities), Ternopil (158 facilities), and Chernivtsi (108 facilities) regions. At the same time, a number of oblasts — particularly Lviv, Zakarpattia, and Volyn — failed to provide structured data on potential facilities for repurposing

[29]

These regional specificities necessitate a differentiated approach to housing program development, based on the local context and capacities of each region. Consequently, the need for a comprehensive statistical analysis of the regional characteristics of IDP housing provision remains a pressing issue in the formation of an effective housing policy.

2. Materials and Methods

The study of regional specificities in housing provision for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine is based on a comprehensive methodology that combines both quantitative and qualitative methods of data analysis from various sources.

The empirical basis of the study includes data from several key sources. First and foremost, official statistics and reports of international organizations were used, particularly the data of the International Organization for Migration regarding the number and regional distribution of IDPs in Ukraine as of December 2023

[22]

, housing needs assessments by region conducted by Lawson et al. based on IOM data

[12]

, and data from the KSE Institute on housing stock losses caused by military actions as of autumn 2023

[21]

An essential component of the study involved desk research of the legislative framework governing social housing in Ukraine. This included the analysis of the Law of Ukraine "On Social Housing Stock"

[17]

, the Law "On ensuring the rights and freedoms of internally displaced persons"

[18]

, Cabinet of Ministers Resolutions No. 422

[14]

, No. 495

[15]

, and No. 930

[16]

, as well as analytical reports by Cedos on social, temporary, and crisis housing in Ukraine

[26-29]

. In addition, international experience in housing provision for IDPs was examined using studies by UNECE

[6]

, Housing Europe

[3]

, and other sources.

For the collection of primary data, the analytical center Cedos sent formal information requests to the regional state administrations of 15 oblasts and the city of Kyiv, as well as to selected territorial communities. A key method of data collection involved 30 in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted by Cedos with representatives of territorial communities (20) and experts from civil society organizations (10). Cedos also organized four focus group discussions with IDPs residing in various housing types: rental housing, modular towns, dormitories, and repurposed educational institutions.

To process and analyze the collected data, a set of methods was applied. Statistical analysis of quantitative indicators included descriptive statistics on regional housing needs, comparative analysis of existing social and temporary housing stock, and analysis of discrepancies between registered and actual housing demand.

A significant element of the methodology was the development of a Social Housing Provision Index (SHPI) by the author of the study for an integrated assessment of regional potential. This index is based on the normalization of indicators including housing need (HN), available housing stock (AHS), repurposing potential (RP), and registered IDP numbers (RIDP). Weighted coefficients were applied as follows: 0.4 for HN, 0.3 for AHS, 0.2 for RP, and 0.1 for RIDP. The formula is:

SHPI=(0.4×HN)+(0.3×AHS)+(0.2×RP)+(0.1×RIDP).

Using cluster analysis of regions based on this set of indicators, the author identified five types of regions according to housing provision levels (ranging from critical shortage to relative stability), and determined key characteristics and challenges for each group. Thematic analysis of the interview and focus group transcripts conducted by Cedos enabled the identification of systemic issues and regional specificities, successful local practices in addressing housing problems for IDPs, and institutional, financial, and administrative barriers to housing provision.

To visualize regional disparities in housing provision for IDPs, cartographic analysis was employed, allowing for a clear territorial representation of needs and resources.

The study has certain methodological limitations that must be considered in interpreting the results. First, there was uneven responsiveness to data requests—many regional and local authorities did not provide comprehensive information, which hindered comparative analysis. This was particularly evident in western regions (Lviv, Zakarpattia, Volyn), which failed to submit structured data on housing stock and potential repurposing facilities. Additionally, the study does not cover Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson regions, the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea, or the city of Sevastopol, which limits the completeness of the regional analysis. It is also important to consider the dynamic nature of the situation—IDP numbers and distribution are constantly changing due to the protracted war, which may affect the relevance of the data. Moreover, communities that are more interested in developing the social housing sector may be overrepresented in the study, potentially skewing the overall picture. Finally, the calculations are based on assumptions regarding the average size of IDP households and their intentions to return, which may introduce errors in the estimated housing needs.

Despite these limitations, the comprehensive nature of the methodology ensures a sufficient degree of reliability of the results for the formulation of scientifically grounded recommendations concerning regional differentiation in housing programs for IDPs.

Source: based on data from Cedos

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 1. Housing unit needs by region, based on calculations by Julie Lawson and colleagues using data from the International Organization for Migration as of May 2023.

3. Results

The study revealed significant regional disparities in the provision of housing for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine. Based on a comprehensive data analysis, it was established that regions demonstrate varying levels of institutional capacity, available resources, and approaches to addressing the housing issue for IDPs.

3.1. Regional Distribution of Housing Needs

The analysis confirmed the uneven distribution of housing needs for IDPs across Ukrainian regions (Figure 1).

The highest demand is observed in Kharkiv Oblast (107,000 units), the city of Kyiv (77,000), Kyiv Oblast (73,000), and Dnipropetrovsk Oblast (31,000). A moderate level of demand is recorded in Lviv (25,000), Mykolaiv (21,000), and Khmelnytskyi (17,000) oblasts. Comparatively lower demand is observed in Zakarpattia (4,000), Rivne (5,000), and Chernivtsi (5,000) oblasts.

The study results show that the largest concentration of IDPs is found in the eastern and central regions of Ukraine, as well as in the city of Kyiv. This trend can be explained by the proximity to their places of permanent residence (excluding zones of active hostilities), as well as the higher economic potential of these regions, which creates better opportunities for employment and social adaptation. The significant territorial disparities in IDP housing needs make it possible to classify the regions of Ukraine according to the level of housing demand and to develop a differentiated approach to housing program planning.

Based on the analysis conducted, five main groups of regions can be identified according to the level of housing needs for IDPs:

Table 1. Distribution of housing unit needs for IDPs by region of Ukraine.

Level of Need	Region	Number of Units
Critical (over 50,000 units)	Kharkiv Oblast	107 000
	Kyiv (city)	77 000
	Kyiv Oblast	73 000
High (20,000–50,000 units)	Dnipropetrovsk Oblast	31 000
	Odesa Oblast	29 000
	Lviv Oblast	25 000
	Mykolaiv Oblast	21 000
Medium (10,000–19,999 units)	Sumy Oblast	19 000
	Khmelnytskyi Oblast	17 000
	Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast	11 000
	Cherkasy Oblast	11 000
	Zhytomyr Oblast	10 000
	Poltava Oblast	10 000
Moderate (5,000–9,999 units)	Vinnytsia Oblast	9 000
	Ternopil Oblast	9 000
	Volyn Oblast	6 000
	Kirovohrad Oblast	5 000
	Rivne Oblast	5 000
	Chernivtsi Oblast	5 000
Low (less than 5,000 units)	Zakarpattia Oblast	4 000
Low (less than 5,000 units)	Zaporizhzhia Oblast	3 000

Note: No data is available for Donetsk Oblast, Luhansk Oblast, Kherson Oblast, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the city of Sevastopol. Source: developed by the author

This classification enables the determination of priority directions for the development of IDP housing programs, taking into account regional specificities and the actual needs of each region.

3.2. Existing Stock of Social and Temporary Housing and Its Potential Expansion

An analysis of the existing housing stock for IDPs reveals a critical shortage of resources to meet the housing needs of internally displaced persons. As of early 2021, there were only 1,098 units of social housing (in the narrow legal sense) and 1,997 units of temporary housing in Ukraine, totaling 3,095 housing units

[29]

Compared to the estimated need for 500,000 housing units for IDPs

[12]

, the available social housing stock covers less than 1% of the required amount, indicating the urgent need to expand housing opportunities.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 2. Number of social housing units (in the narrow sense) by region as of January 1, 2021. Source: based on data from Cedos.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 3. Number of temporary housing units (including temporary housing for IDPs) by region as of January 1, 2021. Source: based on data from Cedos.

Based on precise data on the available housing stock for social and temporary purposes, the following groups of regions can be distinguished by the total number of housing units:

Table 2. Classification of regions by available housing stock for social and temporary purposes.

Level of Availability	Region	Temporary Housing	Social Housing
High (over 400 units)	Donetsk Oblast (726)	597	129
High (over 400 units)	Zaporizhzhia Oblast (487)	329	158
Upper-Medium (200–399 units)	Chernivtsi Oblast (255)	241	14
Upper-Medium (200–399 units)	Poltava Oblast (250)	110	140
Medium (100–199 units)	Mykolaiv Oblast	110	58
	Kirovohrad Oblast (164)	149	15
	Kharkiv Oblast (135)	119	16
	Dnipropetrovsk Oblast (128)	58	70
	Volyn Oblast (123)	14	109
	Vinnytsia Oblast (122)	13	109
	Odesa Oblast (105)	103	2
Low (30–99 units)	Luhansk Oblast (81)	51	30
	Kyiv (city) (72)	0	72
	Chernihiv Oblast (65)	24	41
	Khmelnytskyi Oblast (57)	51	6
	Zhytomyr Oblast (54)	7	47
	Kherson Oblast (42)	10	32
	Cherkasy Oblast (33)	0	33
Critically Low (less than 30 units)	Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast (16)	4	12
	Sumy Oblast (11)	0	11
	Lviv Oblast (6)	6	0
	Rivne Oblast (6)	0	6
	Kyiv Oblast (3)	1	2
	Zakarpattia Oblast (2)	0	2
	Ternopil Oblast (0)	0	0

Source: developed by the author

A particularly alarming fact is that regions with the highest demand for housing for internally displaced persons (IDPs) often have insufficient available housing stock. For instance, Kyiv Oblast, with a need for 73,000 units, has only 3 available housing units; Kyiv city, with a need for 77,000 units, has 72 available units; and Kharkiv Oblast, with the highest demand (107,000 units), has only 135 available housing units.

According to research, approximately 559 premises across Ukraine have been identified as potentially suitable for conversion into housing for IDPs. However, even assuming that each of these premises could accommodate an average of 20-30 people, this would provide housing for only 11-16 thousand IDPs. Considering that calculations indicate a need for approximately 500,000 housing units to accommodate 1.42 million IDPs, it is evident that the existing facilities available for conversion are critically insufficient.

The geographical distribution of available premises is also uneven. Ternopil, Vinnytsia, Chernivtsi, and Zhytomyr Oblasts have the highest number of such facilities; however, these regions do not necessarily correspond to the geography of the highest concentration of IDPs. For example, the greatest demand for housing is observed in Kharkiv Oblast (107 thousand units), Kyiv city (77 thousand), and Kyiv Oblast (73 thousand), where information about available premises is either absent or limited.

From an economic perspective, converting existing buildings could theoretically be more cost-effective than new construction since reconstruction costs are usually 30-40% lower than those of new construction. However, actual expenses depend on the condition of the facilities, most of which require major repairs and adaptation to residential needs, potentially significantly increasing project budgets.

A key factor in economic feasibility is also the location of these premises relative to job opportunities and social infrastructure. Converting buildings in remote areas with limited employment opportunities and poor infrastructure may prove inefficient because IDPs often choose places to live based on their ability to find work and access essential services.

To effectively address the housing issue for IDPs, a comprehensive strategy is needed that combines converting existing premises, new construction, and engaging the private sector through social rental programs. This approach would allow for maximum utilization of limited resources.

3.3. Number of IDPs Registered for Obtaining Housing

An analysis of dat a on the number of individuals registered to receive social and temporary housing indicates that not all IDPs in need of housing are officially registered.

Table 3. Number of individuals registered to receive social and temporary housing by region according to Cedos data.

Region	Total number of people on the waiting list for social housing (narrow definition)	Of which IDPs	Total number of people on the waiting list for temporary housing	Of which IDPs
Cherkasy Oblast	784	-	-	313
Chernivtsi Oblast	-	-	-	-
Kharkiv Oblast	296	-	-	156
Ternopil Oblast	568	-	-	665
Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast	-	64	-	205
Vinnytsia Oblast	-	-	-	-
Kirovohrad Oblast	-	-	-	1359
Odesa Oblast	302	10	-	341
Rivne Oblast	71	6	638	475
Zhytomyr Oblast	412	-	57	-
Poltava Oblast	797	41	676	185
Sumy Oblast	114	1	81	81
Chernihiv Oblast	-	-	-	-
Zakarpattia Oblast	-	-	-	-
Lviv Oblast	-	-	-	-
Khmelnytskyi Oblast	-	-	-	-
Volyn Oblast	-	-	-	-
Kyiv (city)	197	6	-	1002/1856¹
Kyiv Oblast	70	-	-	470
Dnipropetrovsk Oblast	586	203	673	479
Mykolaiv Oblast	-	-	-	-
Total	4197	331	2125	5731/6585

Source: developed by Cedos; Note: The symbol "-" indicates that the administration did not provide the relevant information.

1 - in Kyiv city, according to the city administration, 1,002 IDPs are registered as needing temporary housing, while district administrations report 1,856 such individuals.

Overall, in regions where administrations provided data, 4,197 people are on the waiting list for social housing, of which at least 331 are IDPs. The largest number of IDPs registered for social housing is recorded in Dnipropetrovsk (203), Poltava (41), and Odesa (10) Oblasts.

Regarding the waiting list for temporary housing, according to the table, approximately 7,177 individuals are registered, of whom at least 5,731 are IDPs (including 1,002 from Kyiv). The largest number of IDPs waiting for temporary housing is registered in Kirovohrad (1,359), Kyiv (1,002/1,856), Ternopil (665), and Dnipropetrovsk (479) Oblasts.

For a more structured analysis of regional characteristics in the distribution of IDPs on the housing waiting list, it is advisable to classify regions based on quantitative indicators of registered demand.

Based on the analysis of data on the number of IDPs registered for housing, regions can be classified into groups as follows:

Table 4. Classification of regions by the number of IDPs registered for housing.

Level of Need	Region	Number of People on the Waiting List
Critically High (over 1,000 people on the waiting list)	Kirovohrad Oblast	1359
Critically High (over 1,000 people on the waiting list)	Kyiv (city)	1008/1862
High (500–999 people on the waiting list)	Dnipropetrovsk Oblast	682
	Ternopil Oblast	665
	Rivne Oblast	481
Medium (300–499 people on the waiting list)	Kyiv Oblast	470
	Odesa Oblast	351
	Cherkasy Oblast	313
Moderate (100–299 people on the waiting list)	Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast	269
	Poltava Oblast	226
	Kharkiv Oblast	156
Low (fewer than 100 people on the waiting list)	Sumy Oblast	82

Source: developed by the author

Note: No data is available for the following regions: Zhytomyr Oblast, Chernivtsi Oblast, Vinnytsia Oblast, Chernihiv Oblast, Zakarpattia Oblast, Lviv Oblast, Khmelnytskyi Oblast, Volyn Oblast, Mykolaiv Oblast, Donetsk Oblast, Luhansk Oblast, Kherson Oblast, Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the city of Sevastopol.

It is crucial to note that this classification reflects only officially registered housing needs, which significantly differ from real needs. The presence of a substantial gap between the number of IDPs in a region and the number of individuals registered can indicate a series of systemic problems that require separate analysis and resolution.

3.4. Gap Between Registered Demand and Real Housing Capabilities for IDPs

The conducted analysis reveals a colossal imbalance between the existing housing stock for IDPs and real needs. According to the study, the available stock of social and temporary housing in Ukraine consists of only 3,095 units (1,098 units of social housing in the narrow sense and 1,997 units of temporary housing), while the actual need is estimated at about 500,000 housing units for 1.42 million IDPs.

Thus, the existing housing stock covers less than 0.7% of the real need. Meanwhile, official statistics show that only 4,197 individuals are registered for social housing (of whom 331 are IDPs), and 2,125 individuals are registered for temporary housing (of whom 6,585 are IDPs), indicating a significant gap between officially registered demand and the real situation.

This imbalance highlights the scale of the housing crisis in Ukraine and the need to develop comprehensive programs to expand the housing stock through the conversion of existing buildings and the creation of new housing units for IDPs.

Especially critical is that regions with the largest number of IDPs often have the smallest available housing stock. For example:

1) Kharkiv Oblast, with a need for 107,000 units, has only 135 housing units.

2) Kyiv Oblast, with a need for 73,000 units, has critically few—only 3 units.

3) Kyiv city, with a need for 77,000 units, has 72 units.

The analysis of the potential for expanding the housing stock also indicates limited possibilities. The identified 559 facilities for potential conversion could, even under optimistic estimates, provide housing for only 11-16 thousand IDPs (about 3% of the total need). Meanwhile, the geographical distribution of these facilities often does not match the regional distribution of needs—the largest number of facilities are in Ternopil (158), Vinnytsia (117), and Chernivtsi (108) Oblasts, which are not leaders in the number of IDPs.

Such a colossal difference between official figures and real needs is caused by a number of structural factors. First, Ukraine had a severely limited social housing stock at the start of the full-scale invasion. There was also a lack of a comprehensive national strategy for social housing development before the war.

Bureaucratic barriers also play a significant role. According to the study, registration procedures require collecting numerous documents, and responsibility is dispersed among different branches of power and agencies. There is also a lack of centralized registration—waiting lists are maintained separately in each community.

Psychological factors and information gaps significantly affect the situation. As evidenced by the words of focus group participants conducted by Cedos analysts, there is low trust in the effectiveness of the registration system: "They said, 'You can't wait.' That is, I went twice and asked, and they sent me a response that I am on the waiting list, but, well, they told me not directly, just like that." There is also a lack of faith in the possibility of obtaining housing: "I know that first of all, it will be for people with disabilities, if there are wounded guys from the Armed Forces in the family. That is, I understand that if my turn comes, people won't live that long."

Practical obstacles also significantly complicate the situation. As noted in interviews with representatives of local authorities, IDPs often need housing immediately and cannot wait in line: "Because when internal people, displaced persons, call you and are looking for housing, it won't be waiting for you for a month in line looking for housing. Because they need to live tomorrow." In many communities, there is a lack of available housing, which demotivates people from registering.

Financial constraints, according to the study, also significantly affect the situation. There is a shortage of funds in communities for creating and maintaining a sufficient amount of social housing, and there are no stable mechanisms for financing and attracting investments in the social housing sector.

The lack of adequate reflection of real needs in official statistics leads to underestimation of the problem's scale in policy planning and budgeting. To overcome this gap, a comprehensive approach is necessary, including both reforming the registration system and simplifying procedures, as well as increasing the housing stock through various mechanisms—from converting existing premises to building new housing with the participation of state, international, and public organizations.

Based on a comprehensive analysis of regional data on housing needs, existing housing stock, the number of IDPs registered, and the potential for expanding the housing stock, an integral classification of Ukrainian regions was developed. This classification allows for determining priority directions of state and international support, taking into account the actual capacity of regions to address IDP housing issues.

Table 5. Integral assessment of regional potential for housing IDPs.

Level of Deficit	Region	Housing Need (units)	Available Housing Units (units)	IDPs (persons)	Conversion Potential2 (units)	Index (points)
І	Kharkiv Oblast	107000	135	156	7	14,2
	Kyiv Oblast	73000	3	470	-	17,9
	Kyiv (city)	77000	72	1856²	-	20,7
ІІ	Lviv Oblast	25000	6	-	-	31,0
	Khmelnytskyi Oblast	17000	57	-	-	37,2
	Volyn Oblast	6000	-	-	-	37,8
	Sumy Oblast	19000	11	82	-	38,6
	Zakarpattia Oblast	4000	2	-	-	38,6
ІІІ	Chernihiv Oblast	13000	-	-	-	40,1
	Dnipropetrovsk Oblast	31000	128	682	-	41,3
	Poltava Oblast	10000	-	226	-	41,3
	Mykolaiv Oblast	21000	168	-	-	42,5
	Cherkasy Oblast	11000	-	313	14	42,7
	Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast	11000	-	269	20	43,4
	Odesa Oblast	29000	105	351	23	43,5
	Zhytomyr Oblast	10000	-	-	78	46,1
	Rivne Oblast	5000	-	481	40	48,2
ІV	Chernivtsi Oblast	5000	-	-	108	56,8
ІV	Kirovohrad Oblast	5000	164	1359	13	59,9
V	Vinnytsia Oblast	5000	122	-	117	60,5
	Ternopil Oblast	9000	0	665	158	61,6
	Zaporizhzhia Oblast	3000	487	-	-	68,9

Source: developed by the author

Note: Data is unavailable for Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the city of Sevastopol.

² - According to responses from regional and district administrations to public information requests obtained during Cedos research.

The integral assessment based on the Social Housing Provision Index (SHPI), developed and proposed by the study's author, enabled the creation of a substantiated typology of Ukraine's regions that reflects their capacity to meet the housing needs of internally displaced persons (IDPs). The distribution of regions across different levels of housing shortages is not random—it is formed based on natural gaps in SHPI values and reflects qualitative differences in the balance between needs and capabilities.

Regions with critical shortages (SHPI 0-30):

This level is characterized by a critical imbalance between extremely high housing needs and severely limited resources to meet them. This category includes Kharkiv Oblast, Kyiv Oblast, and Kyiv city, where the largest number of IDPs are concentrated. Kharkiv Oblast, with an index of 14.2, demonstrates the worst situation—while there is a need for 107,000 housing units, the available stock amounts to only 135 units, covering a negligible portion of the demand. A similar situation exists in Kyiv Oblast and the capital city, where, despite their economic potential and relative safety, infrastructure has become critically overloaded. Regions in this group require urgent large-scale interventions at the national level and priority international assistance.

Regions with high shortages (SHPI 31-40):

The second level includes regions where the disparity between needs and capabilities remains high but is somewhat less critical. Lviv Oblast, Khmelnytskyi, Volyn, Sumy, and Zakarpattia demonstrate medium-high housing needs amidst severely limited social housing stock. SHPI values for these regions are primarily shaped by lower demand compared to the first group. For instance, Lviv Oblast has a need for 25,000 units but an available housing stock of only 6 units, creating a significant deficit. These regions require systematic measures to expand their housing stock and substantial external investments.

Regions with moderate shortages (SHPI 41-50):

This largest group of regions is characterized by a more balanced yet still insufficient ratio between needs and capabilities. It includes Chernihiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Poltava, Mykolaiv, Cherkasy, Ivano-Frankivsk, Odesa, Zhytomyr, and Rivne Oblasts. A distinctive feature of this group is the presence of some potential for repurposing facilities and relatively better institutional capacity among local authorities. For example: Zhytomyr Oblast (index 46.1) has significant potential for repurposing (78 facilities). Mykolaiv Oblast (index 42.5) possesses noticeably better housing stock. Rivne Oblast has an index of 48.2. For these regions, targeted programs emphasizing maximum utilization of local potential are advisable.

Regions with relative stability (SHPI 51-60):

The fourth level demonstrates a qualitatively different balance between needs and capabilities to meet them. Chernivtsi and Kirovohrad Oblasts have relatively low housing demand (5,000 units each) alongside resources sufficient to meet it. Notably:

Kirovohrad Oblast (index 59.9) has a significant housing stock (164 units) and the highest number of registered IDPs among all regions (1,359 individuals), indicating strong institutional capacity.

These regions could serve as platforms for implementing sustainable housing solutions with moderate external support.

Regions with low demand or high potential (SHPI > 60):

The highest level of housing provision is demonstrated by Vinnytsia, Ternopil, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts:

Zaporizhzhia Oblast has the highest SHPI score (68.9), despite its proximity to conflict zones. This is due to low registered demand (3,000 units) combined with one of Ukraine's largest stocks of social and temporary housing (487 units). Ternopil Oblast (index 61.6) stands out for its highest repurposing potential (158 facilities) alongside moderate demand (9,000 units). These regions can not only address their own IDP housing challenges more effectively but also serve as platforms for developing practical housing solutions that may later be adapted by other territorial communities considering their specific circumstances.

The proposed five-level typology reflects fundamental differences in the nature of challenges faced by various Ukrainian regions and provides a basis for developing differentiated strategies for IDP housing provision tailored to regional specifics.

3.5. Methodology for the Integrated Assessment of Regions

To ensure an objective evaluation of regional capacity, the author has developed a Social Housing Provision Index (SHPI), which incorporates four key parameters with respective weight coefficients:

SHPI = (0.4 × NHU) + (0.3 × AEHF) + (0.2 × CRP) + (0.1 × NRIDPs)

Where:

1) SHPI – Social Housing Provision Index (scale 0–100)

2) NHU – Normalized Housing Unit Need

3) AEHF – Adjusted Existing Housing Fund

4) CRP – Converted Resource Potential

5) NRIDPs – Normalized Registered Internally Displaced Persons

Indicator Normalization Methodology

1). Normalized Housing Unit Need (NHU):

1) Inverted scale from 0 to 100 (lower need = higher score)

2) NHU = 100 – (Regional Need / Maximum Need × 100)

3) Maximum need = 107,000 (Kharkiv Region)

2). Adjusted Existing Housing Fund (AEHF):

1) Direct scale from 0 to 100 (larger fund = higher score)

2) AEHF = Regional Fund / Maximum Fund × 100

3) Maximum fund = 726 (Donetsk Region)

3). Converted Resource Potential (CRP):

1) Direct scale from 0 to 100 (higher potential = higher score)

2) CRP = Regional Potential / Maximum Potential × 100

3) Maximum potential = 158 (Ternopil Region)

4). Normalized Registered IDPs (NRIDPs):

Evaluates the adequacy of the ratio of registered IDPs to housing need:

1) 100 points = optimal number (±20% of the estimated need)

2) 50 points = imbalance (significantly more or fewer IDPs than needed)

3) 0 points = no available data

Justification of Weight Coefficients

The weight coefficients reflect the relative importance of each parameter in the overall assessment of regional housing provision:

1) Housing Unit Need (40%) – assigned the highest weight as the scale of need is the primary determinant for planning interventions.

2) Existing Housing Fund (30%) – high weight reflecting the region’s immediate capacity to house IDPs.

3) Conversion Resource Potential (20%) – moderate weight accounting for potential future expansion of housing stock.

4) Registered IDPs (10%) – lowest weight, indicating administrative readiness for structured registration rather than direct housing capacity.

Practical Significance of the Integrated Assessment

The proposed methodology for integrated regional potential assessment allows for:

1) Prioritizing the allocation of state and international aid based on objective criteria;

2) Optimizing resource distribution among regions through a comprehensive assessment of needs and capabilities;

3) Developing differentiated strategies tailored to the specific characteristics of each region;

4) Monitoring dynamics in IDP housing provision at the regional level;

5) Designing targeted programs with clearly defined priorities and effectiveness indicators.

The application of the Social Housing Provision Index provides a scientifically grounded basis for decision-making at national and regional levels, and for coordinating efforts among international donors, civil society organizations, and local authorities in addressing the housing needs of internally displaced persons (IDPs).

3.6. Financial and Economic Aspects of Housing Provision

The scale of the housing crisis in Ukraine, resulting from the full-scale invasion, necessitates significant financial resources. According to a World Bank assessment

[19]

, housing sector recovery is among the top priorities for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. This is further supported by comprehensive needs assessments

[8]

that emphasize the critical importance of evidence-based investment planning for housing sector recovery. Estimates by Julie Lawson and colleagues

[12]

suggest that creating 500,000 housing units in the non-profit sector would require between €30 and €38 billion. By contrast, providing market-rate housing would be 181% more expensive.

This issue is particularly pressing in light of the “support gap” phenomenon identified by Hines and Balletto in their study of Colombia (2002)

[1]

. They found that internally displaced persons face a critical vulnerability period between 4 and 24 months after displacement — when emergency aid has been exhausted but sustainable self-reliance mechanisms are not yet established. During this period, families struggle with limited income, depleted assets, growing debt, and inadequate access to basic needs, including housing. This insight directly applies to the Ukrainian context, where many IDPs currently find themselves in this transitional phase of heightened vulnerability.

Existing state support programs for IDPs do not provide a comprehensive solution to the housing issue. The main legal frameworks governing assistance are Cabinet of Ministers Resolutions No. 505

[23]

and No. 769

[24]

. As of October 2023, the state allowance — UAH 3,000 for persons with disabilities and children, and UAH 2,000 for others — covered only about 19% of the monthly rental cost of a one-bedroom apartment in Kyiv (based on analytical reports from Work. ua and DIM. RIA

[4]

). From February 2024, this support is no longer provided indefinitely, but rather for a 6-month period, extendable for another 6 months for vulnerable IDPs.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that a significant portion of IDPs belong to socially vulnerable groups — the elderly, persons with disabilities, and families with children — who have limited financial capacity to address housing issues independently. Focus group data indicate that many displaced persons struggle to pay even utility bills, let alone afford market-rate rent.

A key feature of the Ukrainian context is the mismatch between IDP expectations and available resources. According to research by Cedos, 82% of respondents believe the state should provide housing for those in need, but state and local budgets cannot meet this demand without international support and the development of innovative financing models. World Bank assessments emphasize that Ukraine’s housing sector recovery requires a comprehensive approach and substantial investments

[21]

The most promising direction appears to be the development of a broadly defined social housing sector, which can provide housing for a larger number of people in the long term and is generally a more financially effective solution compared to cash assistance programs for renting in the commercial sector. To ensure sustainability and cost-recovery, it is crucial to combine zero-rent housing for the most vulnerable with affordable rent options for other population groups.

4. Results and Discussion

The statistical analysis of regional characteristics of housing provision for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine revealed a complex picture of significant territorial disparities and systemic issues that require a differentiated approach to resolution.

The study's findings show that the highest concentration of IDPs is observed in the eastern and central regions of Ukraine, particularly in Kharkiv and Kyiv oblasts, as well as in the city of Kyiv. The key issue lies in the vast gap between housing needs and the available capacity to meet them. When comparing the need for 500,000 housing units with the current stock of just 3,095 units, the scale of the problem becomes evidently critical. Similar disparities were observed in addressing IDP housing needs in Colombia

[1]

, Bosnia and Herzegovina

[5]

, and Georgia

[7]

, indicating that such situations are typical for countries facing mass internal displacement. Meanwhile, as noted in the Housing Europe report

[3]

, European countries have a significantly larger stock of social housing, enabling them to respond more effectively to housing crises.

A paradox arises in that the regions with the highest number of IDPs often have the least social housing stock and limited capacity to expand it. This creates a vicious cycle: high demand for housing drives up rental prices, making it unaffordable for a large portion of IDPs, especially those in socially vulnerable groups.

An analysis of the institutional capacity of the regions shows significant differences in approaches to addressing the housing issue. Western regions (Ternopil, Vinnytsia, Chernivtsi) demonstrate greater readiness to repurpose existing premises, despite having lower housing demand. In contrast, eastern and central regions, where needs are most critical, face limited options for repurposing buildings.

Based on the integrated assessment of regional potential and identified patterns, differentiated recommendations are proposed for various groups of regions:

1) For regions with a critical housing deficit (Kharkiv, Kyiv oblasts, and the city of Kyiv), the priority should be a combination of large-scale construction using modular architectural solutions and the redevelopment of industrial zones. Architectural projects should provide for the creation of compact multifunctional complexes with social infrastructure, drawing on the experience of European countries in establishing “micro-cities” for rapid settlement. A key aspect is the use of energy-efficient technologies and smart management systems.

2) In regions with a high deficit (Lviv, Khmelnytskyi, Volyn oblasts), the architectural approach should rely on the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. This includes revitalizing historic structures with the addition of modern housing modules and creating flexible layouts like “loft spaces” that allow for rapid functional adaptation. Special attention should be paid to the development of standardized two-level housing units that can be divided into separate apartments.

3) For regions with a medium-level deficit (Chernihiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv oblasts), the key lies in integrating temporary housing into the existing urban fabric. Architectural solutions should include transformer-type structures, mobile housing modules, and the conversion of underused municipal properties into compact housing units with autonomous engineering systems. It is essential to apply principles of “green architecture” to reduce operational costs.

4) In relatively stable regions (Chernivtsi, Rivne, Kirovohrad oblasts), the architectural focus should be on the creation of experimental housing clusters using local construction materials and passive energy systems. Adaptive planning schemes that allow for gradual housing expansion through modular extensions or vertical additions are particularly relevant.

5) For regions with low demand (Vinnytsia, Ternopil, Zaporizhzhia oblasts), it is proposed to develop architectural prototypes of autonomous eco-settlements with a closed-loop system of communal services. Special emphasis should be placed on designing unified architectural solutions that combine residential spaces with production workshops or agricultural zones, considering the experience of European cohousing models.

The Cedos study “From Temporary Housing to Sustainable Solutions: The Role of Humanitarian Organizations in Developing Local Housing Programs”

[29]

highlighted the need for a comprehensive transformation of housing policy for IDPs at both the national and local levels.

At the national level, a top priority should be reforming the institutional and legislative framework for housing provision. Developing a comprehensive National Housing Strategy for IDPs will help shift the approach from crisis response to systemic problem-solving. It is necessary to modernize the system for registering housing needs by creating a unified electronic registry with transparent prioritization criteria, replacing the fragmented “waiting lists” characteristic of the current system. Simultaneously, approaches to various forms of social housing should be reviewed and unified to simplify their classification and administration.

Ensuring the financial sustainability of housing programs requires the introduction of diversified financing mechanisms. Establishing a specialized Social Housing Development Fund will make it possible to accumulate funds from state and local budgets, international technical assistance, and private investment. It is essential to gradually shift from a model of free housing provision to a hybrid system, where part of the housing stock is offered at affordable rental rates, thus generating resources for further development and maintenance. Revolving community-level housing funds can become effective tools for reinvesting in the expansion of the housing stock, combining a social mission with principles of financial sustainability.

Architectural and spatial solutions must take into account both urgent needs and long-term use perspectives of the created housing. When repurposing existing buildings and constructing new ones, it is essential to adhere to the principles of universal design, energy efficiency, and the creation of dignified living conditions. Housing should be designed to balance private spaces for families and households with communal areas for social interaction, which will facilitate community building and the integration of IDPs into local communities. Environmental sustainability should be a cross-cutting principle in architectural solutions, with priority given to repurposing existing buildings over new construction and to the use of energy-efficient technologies.

The development of institutional capacity among local authorities and civil society organizations is a key success factor for housing programs. Comprehensive training, mentorship, and knowledge exchange programs will help enhance the competencies of professionals in social housing management, fundraising, and donor engagement. Regional competency centers can serve as effective hubs for coordinating stakeholder efforts and disseminating best practices among communities with different capacity levels. The collection of best practices in IDP housing provision, prepared by the Association of Ukrainian Cities

[13]

, showcases positive examples of addressing housing issues at the local level.

Special attention should be paid to engaging the residents of social housing in management and development processes. Supporting resident communities, providing training, and helping establish self-governance mechanisms will not only improve housing management efficiency but also contribute to the social integration and psychological adaptation of IDPs in their new locations.

Transforming the approach to housing provision for IDPs in Ukraine also requires changing the public perception of social and rental housing. It is necessary to gradually move away from the paradigm in which owning private property is seen as the only acceptable form of housing, towards a more diversified system where social rental is a dignified alternative, especially for those in transitional life situations.

The proposed comprehensive approach to housing provision for IDPs in Ukraine will not only address the urgent needs of displaced persons but also create a sustainable social housing system that functions in the long term, promotes social justice and economic development of communities, and becomes a crucial component of the country’s post-war reconstruction.

5. Conclusions

The conducted study of regional characteristics of housing provision for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine allows us to draw the following key conclusions:

1) The scale of the IDP housing issue is unprecedented. According to the analysis, approximately 1.42 million IDPs require housing, necessitating the creation of around 500,000 housing units. This indicates the presence of a national housing crisis caused by mass internal displacement as a result of the Russo-Ukrainian war.

2) There is a colossal gap between needs and available resources. The current social housing stock (3,095 units) covers less than 0.7% of the actual need, highlighting a critical lack of resources to meet the housing needs of IDPs. This disparity is especially acute in regions with the highest concentration of displaced persons.

3) Significant regional disparities in housing provision for IDPs have been identified. Based on the developed Social Housing Provision Index, five regional categories were defined:

1). Regions of critical deficit (Kharkiv, Kyiv oblasts, and the city of Kyiv),

2). High deficit (Lviv, Khmelnytskyi, Volyn, Sumy, and Zakarpattia oblasts),

3). Medium deficit (Chernihiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Poltava, Mykolaiv, Cherkasy, Ivano-Frankivsk, Odesa, and Zhytomyr oblasts),

4). Relative stability (Chernivtsi, Rivne, and Kirovohrad oblasts),

5). Low-need or high-potential regions (Vinnytsia, Ternopil, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts).

1) Regional specifics are driven by a combination of factors. The highest concentration of IDPs is observed in the eastern and central regions of Ukraine, as well as in Kyiv city, which can be explained by proximity to areas of prior residence (excluding active combat zones) and higher economic potential. At the same time, the highest potential for repurposing existing buildings is found in Ternopil (158 facilities), Vinnytsia (117), and Chernivtsi (108) oblasts, which creates additional territorial imbalances.

2) There is a significant discrepancy between officially registered and actual housing needs. Only a small portion of IDPs in need are officially registered for social or temporary housing. Reasons include complex procedures, distrust in the system’s effectiveness, lack of information, and the physical inability of the system to provide housing to everyone in need.

3) Financial capacity to resolve the IDP housing issue is limited. Creating the necessary number of housing units would require between €30 and €38 billion—an amount far exceeding current financial resources. Existing state programs for IDP support cover only a minor share of housing costs (approximately 19% of the monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Kyiv).

4) A differentiated approach to resolving the IDP housing issue is essential. Considering regional specifics, a comprehensive set of measures should be implemented, including the repurposing of existing premises, new construction, development of affordable rental programs, creation of revolving funds, and private sector involvement through public-private partnership mechanisms.

5) Institutional capacity of regions is of great importance. The effectiveness of addressing the IDP housing issue depends on the ability of local authorities to develop and implement housing programs, attract funding, manage existing housing stock, and coordinate efforts among various stakeholders.

6) Extrapolation of the results suggests further worsening of the IDP housing issue. Without systemic measures to expand the social housing stock, the housing deficit for IDPs will persist in the long term, especially in regions with critical and high housing deficits.

7) Adopting European experience in social housing development is highly relevant. An analysis of European social housing models demonstrates the effectiveness of developing a non-profit housing sector (as outlined in the Housing2030 report

[9]

), creating specialized housing funds, and attracting private capital through preferential loans and tax incentives.

Thus, the statistical analysis of regional peculiarities of housing provision for IDPs in Ukraine has revealed a complex web of interrelated problems that require a systemic approach, taking into account regional specifics, available resources, and international experience. The proposed regional typology and differentiated recommendations form the foundation for developing an effective national housing policy for internally displaced persons.

Abbreviations

IDPs	Internally Displaced Persons
SHPI	Social Housing Provision Index
UNHCR	United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
IOM	International Organization for Migration
UNECE	United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

Author Contributions

Oleksii Kutsalo is the sole author. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Hines, D., & Balletto, R. (2002). Assessment of needs of internally displaced persons in Colombia. Working and Discussion Papers. London: Overseas Development Institute.
[2]	UNHCR. (2023). Global report on internal displacement. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
[3]	Housing Europe. (2021). The state of housing in Europe 2021. Brussels: Housing Europe.
[4]	Work. ua & DIM. RIA. (2023). Analytical report on rental housing costs in Ukraine. Kyiv.
[5]	Dahlman, C., & Ó Tuathail, G. (2005). The legacy of ethnic cleansing: The international community and the returns process in post-Dayton Bosnia-Herzegovina. Political Geography, 24, 569–599.
[6]	UNECE. (2021). Social housing in the UNECE region: Models, trends and challenges. Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
[7]	PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. (2023). Rebuilding a place to call home: Sharing knowledge for the recovery of Ukraine. The Hague.
[8]	Centre for Urban Research. (2023). Access to adequate housing in Ukraine: A needs-based assessment for investment. Melbourne.
[9]	Housing2030. (2022). Effective policies for affordable housing in the UNECE region. Geneva.
[10]	Cedos. (2022). Housing policy at the local level: Current state, challenges, and opportunities. Kyiv.
[11]	United Nations. (2022). Guidelines for supporting internally displaced persons. New York.
[12]	Lawson, J., Pawson, H., & Troy, L. (2023). Housing policy in Ukraine: Assessment and recommendations. Report prepared for UNDP. Kyiv.
[13]	Association of Ukrainian Cities. (2023). Collection of best practices for providing housing to internally displaced persons at the local level. Kyiv.
[14]	Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2004). Resolution No. 422 of March 31, 2004, "On approval of the Procedure for the formation of temporary housing funds and the Procedure for the provision and use of residential premises from temporary housing funds." Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/422-2004-п#Text
[15]	Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2022). Resolution No. 495 of April 29, 2022, "Certain measures for the formation of temporary housing funds for internally displaced persons." Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/495-2022-п#Text
[16]	Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2023). Resolution No. 930 of September 1, 2023, "Certain issues regarding the functioning of temporary accommodation places for internally displaced persons." Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/930-2023-п#Text
[17]	Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. (2006). Law of Ukraine No. 3334-IV of January 12, 2006, "On the social housing stock." Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3334-15#Text
[18]	Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. (2014). Law of Ukraine No. 1706-VII of October 20, 2014, "On ensuring the rights and freedoms of internally displaced persons." Retrieved from https://zako.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1706-18#Text
[19]	World Bank Group. (2023). Ukraine recovery and reconstruction needs assessment. Washington, DC.
[20]	UNHCR. (2023). IDP housing needs assessment: Final report. Kyiv.
[21]	KSE Institute. (2023). Damage assessment of Ukraine's infrastructure due to the war. Kyiv.
[22]	International Organization for Migration. (2023). Displacement tracking matrix: Ukraine, Round 13. Kyiv.
[23]	Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2014). Resolution No. 505 of October 1, 2014, "On providing monthly targeted assistance to internally displaced persons to cover living expenses, including housing and utility services." Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/505-2014-п#Text
[24]	Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (2017). Resolution No. 769 of October 4, 2017, "On approval of the procedure and conditions for providing subventions from the state budget to local budgets to support territories affected by the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine." Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/769-2017-п#Text
[25]	Cedos. (2022). 37 theses on the current state, challenges, and principles of new housing policy in Ukraine. Kyiv.
[26]	Cedos. (2022). Social, temporary, and crisis housing: What Ukraine had at the beginning of the full-scale war. Kyiv.
[27]	Cedos. (2023). Housing and war: Housing policy in the first year of the full-scale war. Kyiv.
[28]	Cedos. (2023). Housing in the Ukraine Recovery Plan project: Opportunities and risks. Kyiv.
[29]	Cedos. (2023). From temporary housing to sustainable solutions: The role of humanitarian organizations in the development of local housing programs. Research report. Kyiv.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Kutsalo, O. (2025). Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities. Urban and Regional Planning, 10(3), 138-152. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Kutsalo, O. Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities. Urban Reg. Plan. 2025, 10(3), 138-152. doi: 10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Kutsalo O. Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities. Urban Reg Plan. 2025;10(3):138-152. doi: 10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15,
  author = {Oleksii Kutsalo},
  title = {Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities
},
  journal = {Urban and Regional Planning},
  volume = {10},
  number = {3},
  pages = {138-152},
  doi = {10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.urp.20251003.15},
  abstract = {This article presents a comprehensive statistical analysis of the regional features of housing provision for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine. The issue is particularly urgent in the context of large-scale population displacement caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war, which has resulted in several million IDPs, while the demand for housing units is estimated to exceed 500,000. The aim of the study is to assess regional housing needs for IDPs and the available capacities for their provision through an analysis of territorial, economic, and infrastructural factors. The research methodology is based on the integrated use of statistical modeling, cartographic analysis, and data clustering methods, which allowed for a comparative analysis of housing provision across different regions of Ukraine. The findings of the study reveal significant territorial disparities in housing provision for IDPs. The highest demand for housing units was recorded in Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Dnipropetrovsk regions. At the same time, the existing housing stock for social needs is critically insufficient at the national scale. The analysis of the institutional capacity of the regions showed that the greatest potential for adapting existing premises lies in Ternopil, Vinnytsia, and Chernivtsi regions. Based on the developed Social Housing Provision Index, a five-level classification of regions was proposed—from critical shortage to relative stability—which allows for differentiated approaches to solving the housing problem of IDPs. Calculations indicate that tens of billions of euros are needed to create the required number of housing units, necessitating the involvement of both state and international funding sources. The practical value of the study lies in the development of scientifically grounded recommendations for optimizing regional housing policy and in the creation of a methodological toolkit for assessing the territorial potential for the placement of IDP housing. The study results may be used in the development of national and regional programs for housing provision for internally displaced persons.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities

AU  - Oleksii Kutsalo
Y1  - 2025/08/21
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15
T2  - Urban and Regional Planning
JF  - Urban and Regional Planning
JO  - Urban and Regional Planning
SP  - 138
EP  - 152
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1697
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15
AB  - This article presents a comprehensive statistical analysis of the regional features of housing provision for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine. The issue is particularly urgent in the context of large-scale population displacement caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war, which has resulted in several million IDPs, while the demand for housing units is estimated to exceed 500,000. The aim of the study is to assess regional housing needs for IDPs and the available capacities for their provision through an analysis of territorial, economic, and infrastructural factors. The research methodology is based on the integrated use of statistical modeling, cartographic analysis, and data clustering methods, which allowed for a comparative analysis of housing provision across different regions of Ukraine. The findings of the study reveal significant territorial disparities in housing provision for IDPs. The highest demand for housing units was recorded in Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Dnipropetrovsk regions. At the same time, the existing housing stock for social needs is critically insufficient at the national scale. The analysis of the institutional capacity of the regions showed that the greatest potential for adapting existing premises lies in Ternopil, Vinnytsia, and Chernivtsi regions. Based on the developed Social Housing Provision Index, a five-level classification of regions was proposed—from critical shortage to relative stability—which allows for differentiated approaches to solving the housing problem of IDPs. Calculations indicate that tens of billions of euros are needed to create the required number of housing units, necessitating the involvement of both state and international funding sources. The practical value of the study lies in the development of scientifically grounded recommendations for optimizing regional housing policy and in the creation of a methodological toolkit for assessing the territorial potential for the placement of IDP housing. The study results may be used in the development of national and regional programs for housing provision for internally displaced persons.
VL  - 10
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Oleksii Kutsalo

Department of Fundamentals of Architecture and Architectural Design, Faculty of Architecture, Kyiv National University of Construction and Architecture, Kyiv, Ukraine

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0004-4685-6215

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Kutsalo, O. (2025). Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities. Urban and Regional Planning, 10(3), 138-152. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Kutsalo, O. Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities. Urban Reg. Plan. 2025, 10(3), 138-152. doi: 10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Kutsalo O. Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities. Urban Reg Plan. 2025;10(3):138-152. doi: 10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15,
  author = {Oleksii Kutsalo},
  title = {Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities
},
  journal = {Urban and Regional Planning},
  volume = {10},
  number = {3},
  pages = {138-152},
  doi = {10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.urp.20251003.15},
  abstract = {This article presents a comprehensive statistical analysis of the regional features of housing provision for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine. The issue is particularly urgent in the context of large-scale population displacement caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war, which has resulted in several million IDPs, while the demand for housing units is estimated to exceed 500,000. The aim of the study is to assess regional housing needs for IDPs and the available capacities for their provision through an analysis of territorial, economic, and infrastructural factors. The research methodology is based on the integrated use of statistical modeling, cartographic analysis, and data clustering methods, which allowed for a comparative analysis of housing provision across different regions of Ukraine. The findings of the study reveal significant territorial disparities in housing provision for IDPs. The highest demand for housing units was recorded in Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Dnipropetrovsk regions. At the same time, the existing housing stock for social needs is critically insufficient at the national scale. The analysis of the institutional capacity of the regions showed that the greatest potential for adapting existing premises lies in Ternopil, Vinnytsia, and Chernivtsi regions. Based on the developed Social Housing Provision Index, a five-level classification of regions was proposed—from critical shortage to relative stability—which allows for differentiated approaches to solving the housing problem of IDPs. Calculations indicate that tens of billions of euros are needed to create the required number of housing units, necessitating the involvement of both state and international funding sources. The practical value of the study lies in the development of scientifically grounded recommendations for optimizing regional housing policy and in the creation of a methodological toolkit for assessing the territorial potential for the placement of IDP housing. The study results may be used in the development of national and regional programs for housing provision for internally displaced persons.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Statistical Analysis of Regional Features in Housing Provision for Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine: Needs Assessment and Available Capacities

AU  - Oleksii Kutsalo
Y1  - 2025/08/21
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15
T2  - Urban and Regional Planning
JF  - Urban and Regional Planning
JO  - Urban and Regional Planning
SP  - 138
EP  - 152
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1697
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20251003.15
AB  - This article presents a comprehensive statistical analysis of the regional features of housing provision for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine. The issue is particularly urgent in the context of large-scale population displacement caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war, which has resulted in several million IDPs, while the demand for housing units is estimated to exceed 500,000. The aim of the study is to assess regional housing needs for IDPs and the available capacities for their provision through an analysis of territorial, economic, and infrastructural factors. The research methodology is based on the integrated use of statistical modeling, cartographic analysis, and data clustering methods, which allowed for a comparative analysis of housing provision across different regions of Ukraine. The findings of the study reveal significant territorial disparities in housing provision for IDPs. The highest demand for housing units was recorded in Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Dnipropetrovsk regions. At the same time, the existing housing stock for social needs is critically insufficient at the national scale. The analysis of the institutional capacity of the regions showed that the greatest potential for adapting existing premises lies in Ternopil, Vinnytsia, and Chernivtsi regions. Based on the developed Social Housing Provision Index, a five-level classification of regions was proposed—from critical shortage to relative stability—which allows for differentiated approaches to solving the housing problem of IDPs. Calculations indicate that tens of billions of euros are needed to create the required number of housing units, necessitating the involvement of both state and international funding sources. The practical value of the study lies in the development of scientifically grounded recommendations for optimizing regional housing policy and in the creation of a methodological toolkit for assessing the territorial potential for the placement of IDP housing. The study results may be used in the development of national and regional programs for housing provision for internally displaced persons.
VL  - 10
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download