1Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Namibia Statistics Agency
P.O. Box 2133, FGI House, Post Street
Mall,
Windhoek, Namibia
Tel: +264 61 431 3200
Fax: +264 61 431 3253
Email: info@nsa.org.na
www.nsa.org.na
Namibia Inter-censal
Demographic Survey
2016 Report
1991 2001 2011 2016
2 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Published by the Namibia Statistics Agency P.O. Box 2133 Windhoek,
www.nsa.org.na
Published 2017
Inquiries +264 61-431-3200
Suggested citation: Namibia Statistics Agency, 2017. Namibia Inter-censal
Demographic Survey 2016 Report. Namibia Statistics Agency, Windhoek.
Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA)
September 2017
Namibia Inter-censal
Demographic Survey 2016
Report
3Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Mission Statement
Leveraging on partnerships and
innovative technologies, to produce
and disseminate relevant, quality,
timely statistics and spatial data that
are fit-for-purpose in accordance
with international standards and best
practice
Vision Statement
To be a high performance institution
in quality statistics delivery
Core Values
Integrity
Excellent Performance
Accuracy
Team Work
Accountability
Transparency
Our Mission & Vision
4 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Contents
List of Acronyms 8
Forward 10
Selected Indicators 12
Executive Summary 30
Chapter 1: Methodology 32
1.1 Introduction 33
1.2 Users and uses 33
1.3 Strengths and limitations of NIDS 2016 33
1.4 Organisation and preparation 34
1.5 Pilot survey 36
1.6 Recruitment, training and fieldwork 37
1.7 Sampling 39
1.8 Data Processing 40
1.9 Basic terminologies in Demographic statistics 43
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density 44
2.1 Population size 45
2.2 Sex composition and ratio 46
2.3 Age group structure 47
2.4 Age and sex pyramids 48
2.5 Population growth 50
2.6 Population Density 51
2.7 Marital status 52
2.8 Citizenship 53
2.9 Birth Registration 54
2.10 National Identification Document 55
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics 56
3.1 Disability 57
3.2 Orphan-hood 62
3.3. Information Communication Technology (ICT) 64
Chapter 4: Education And Literacy 68
4.1 Early Childhood Development (ECD) 69
4.2 Formal Education 72
4.3 Literacy 76
Chapter 5: Population Trends 78
5.1 FERTILITY 79
5.2 Mortality 81
5.3 Migration 84
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics 88
6.1 Household size 89
6.2 Head of Household 90
6.3 Language spoken 95
6.4 Household main source of livelihood 95
6.5 Household assets 97
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics 100
7.1 Housing type 101
7.2 Tenure status 103
7.3 Average number of people per room 104
7.4 Materials used for construction 105
7.5 Sources of energy 108
7.6 Water Supply and Sanitation 110
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report 114
5.2. Cautionary Note 130
Annex B: Tables 132
5Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: NIDS 2016 Organisational Structure 35
Figure 1.2 NIDS Data capture process using CAPI 40
Figure 1.3: Framework for producing standardised variable and indicators from NIDS 42
Figure 2.1.1 Population size by year and area 45
Figure 2.4.1 National Population pyramid 48
Figure 2.4.2 Urban Population pyramid 49
Figure 2.4.3 Rural Population pyramid 49
Figure 2.4.4 Population density by area 52
Figure 2.8 Non-citizens population by year 53
Figure 4.2.1 Percent distribution of population aged 6 years and above by school attendance and area 72
Figure 4.3.1 Literate population aged 15 years and above by area and year 76
Figure 5.1 Reported Crude Birth rate, 2011 Census and 2016 NIDS by area 80
Figure 5.2 Percent distribution of reported deaths in the last 12 months by sex and area 81
Figure 5.3 Distribution of reported deaths by age and sex, Namibia 2016 82
Figure 6.5.1a Percent distribution of households with access to selected transportation assets and area 97
Figure 6.5.1b Percent distribution of households with owning selected transportation assets and area 97
Figure 6.5.2a Percent distribution of households with access to selected communication assets and area 98
Figure 6.5.2b Percent distribution of households with owning selected communication assets and area 98
Figure 6.5.3 Percent distribution of households owning selected housing utilities by area 99
Figure 7.1 Percent distribution of detached/semi-detached and improvised (shacks) households by year and area 102
Figure 7.3.2 Average number of persons per sleeping room by year and area 104
Figure 7.5.2 Percent distribution of households using candle and battery for lighting by year and area 109
Figure 7.6.1 Percent distribution of households access to safe water for drinking, by year and area 111
6 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Namibia SDG - Selected indicators 2016 and 2011 13
Table 1.1: Distribution of recruited, trained and deployed staff for NIDS 2016 37
Table 2.1.1 Population size and percentage shared by year and area 45
Table 2.2.1 Population distribution and sex ratio by area 46
Table 2.3.1 Percent distribution by broad age group and area 47
Table 2.3.2 Percent distribution by youth age group and area 47
Table 2.5.1 Population growth rate (2011 - 2016) by area 50
Table 2.6.1 Population density by survey years and area 51
Table 2.7.1 Population aged 15 years and above by marital status and sex 52
Table 2.8.1 Population by citizenship and sex 53
Table 2.8.2 Non-citizens population by sex 53
Table 2.9.1 Status of having a birth certificate by area 54
Table 2.9.2 Population aged 0-5 years by status of having a birth certificate and area 54
Table 2.10.1 Population aged 16 years and above by national ID status and area 55
Table 2.10.2 Population aged 16 years and above by national ID status and age group 55
Table 3.1.1 Population with disability by sex and area 58
Table 3.1.2 Population with disability by type and sex 58
Table 3.1.3 Population with disability by type and area 59
Table 3.1.4 Population with multiple disabilities by area 60
Table 3.1.5 Population aged 15 years and above with difficulties to engage in any economic activities 60
Table 3.1.6 Population aged 4 years and above with difficulties to engage in any learning activities 61
Table 3.2.1 Percent distribution of orphans aged 18 years and below by Orphan-hood status and area 62
Table 3.2.2 Percent distribution of orphans aged 18 years and below by orphan with at least one parent dead and area, 2011 and 2016 63
Table 3.3.1 Percent of population aged 15 years and above by mobile phone status in the last three months and area 64
Table 3.3.2 Percent of population aged 15 years and above owning mobile phones by type of mobile phone and area 65
Table 3.3.3 Percent of population aged 15 years and above who used a Computers in last three months by area 65
Table 3.3.4 Percent of population aged 15 years and above who used internet in the last 3 months 66
Table 3.4.1 Percent distribution of population acquiring medical services by type of health facility and area 67
Table 4.1.1 Population aged 0-5 years attending ECD by sex and area 69
Table 4.1.2 Percentage of children aged 0-5 years attending ECD by type and area 70
Table 4.1.3 Population aged 4-5 years attending ECD by type and area 70
Table 4.1.4 Percentage of children aged 4-5 years by reason of not attending ECD and area 71
Figure 4.2.2a School enrolment of the school going population aged 6-24 years by sex 72
Figure 4.2.2b Enrolment rate for school going population aged 6-24 years by area 73
Table 4.2.2 Primary school enrolment for population aged 7-13 years old by sex and area 73
Figure 4.2.2c Primary school enrolment for population aged 7-13 years old by area and year 74
List of Tables
7Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Table 4.2.3 Percent of the population aged 15 years and above who left school by sex and educational attainment 74
Figure 4.2.3 Percent of the population aged 15 years and above who left school by educational attainment and year 75
Table 4.3.1 Literate population aged 15 years and above by sex and area 76
Table 4.3.2 Literate youth population aged 15 - 34 years by sex and area 77
Table 4.3.3 Percentage of Literate population aged 15 years and above by sex and first language in which they are literate 77
Table 5.1 Reported Crude birth rate by area, NIDS 2016 79
Table 5.2 Number of reported deaths in the last 12 months by sex and area 81
Table 5.2.1 Number of reported deaths in the last 12 months and Crude death rate by area 82
Table 5.2.2 Percent by age and sex, Namibia 83
Table 5.2.3 Reported deaths in the last 12 months by registration status and area 83
Table 5.3.1 Population by place of usual residence and place of birth 84
Table 5.3.2 Percent distribution of duration at usual residence (in years) by regions 85
Table 5.3.3 Distribution of lifetime migration by age and sex ratio 86
Table 5.3.4 Citizens and Non-citizens population by usual residents 87
Table 6.1.1 Average household size by year (2011 & 2016) and area 89
Table 6.2.1 Percent distribution of household head by sex, year and area 90
Table 6.2.2 Percent distribution of child headed households by year and area 91
Table 6.2.3a Percent distribution of orphan headed household by year and area 92
Table 6.2.3b Percent distribution of households with orphans by area 92
Table 6.2.4a Percent distribution of household headed by person with disability by year and area 93
Table 6.2.4b Percent distribution of households with persons with disabilities by area 93
Table 6.2.5 Percent distribution of household headed by elderly persons (60+) by year and area 94
Table 6.3 Percent distribution of households by main language spoken at home in Namibia 95
Table 6.4 Percent distribution of households by main source of livelihood/survival and area 96
Table 7.1.1. Percent distribution of households by type of housing unit and area 101
Table 7.2.1 Percent distribution of households by type of tenure status and area 103
Table 7.3.1 Average number of persons per sleeping room by area 104
Table 7.4.1 Percent distribution of household by main material used for outer wall and area 105
Table 7.4.2 Percent distribution of households by main material used for roof and area 106
Table 7.4.3 Percent distribution of households by main material used for floor and area 107
Table 7.5.1 Percent distribution of households by main source of energy used for cooking and area 108
Table 7.5.2 Percent distribution of households by main source of energy for lighting and area 109
Table 7.6.1 Percent distribution of households by main source of water for drinking and area 110
Table 7.6.2 Percent distribution of households by main toilet facilities and area 112
Table 7.6.3 Percent distribution of households by main means of waste disposal and area 113
8 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
List of Acronyms
List of Acronyms
CAPI Computer Assisted Personal Interview
CBR Crude Birth Rate
CBS Central Bureau of Statistics
CDR Crude Death Rate
CEB Children Ever Born
CSPro Census and Survey Processing System
EA Enumeration area
ECD Early Childhood Development
ID Identification Document
NDP 5 The Fifth National Development Plan
NIDS Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey
NPC National Planning Commission
NSA Namibia Statistics Agency
PSU Primary Sampling Unit
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SRN Survey Reference Night
SWA ID South West Africa- Identification Document
List of Acronyms
9Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
10 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Foreword
The Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey (NIDS) of
2016 is the first of its kind to be conducted by Namibia
Statistics Agency since its establishment in April 2012. It is
a sample survey taken at five years between the censuses,
hence the NIDS 2016 was conducted five years between the
2011 Population and Housing Census and the next census
to be conducted in 2021. The main objective of NIDS is to
provide up to date data on Demographic, socio-economic
characteristics of the population and its housing units.
These statistics are useful for evidence based planning
and decision making at national and regional levels. At
international level, the information will be used to monitor
progress towards Namibias achievement of international
targets, particularly in the monitoring progress towards
achieving Africas agenda 2063 and the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).
The NIDS targets the population in private households
excluding those in institutions for example, in school
hostels, army/police barracks, hospital wards, prisons, etc.
However, persons residing in institution premises were
only included if they lived in private accommodations
which constitute a household. Therefore, the estimated
population presented in this report reflects the estimated
household population in 2016.
This report presents highlights from basic analysis of the
NIDS 2016 data and presents results at national, urban,
rural and regional levels.
Foreword
The results in this report can only be of value
if they are used for the intended purpose
which is, for evidence based planning and or
decision making for the development of our
country.
Foreword
11Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
We are grateful to the Government of the Republic of
Namibia for providing funds to enable NSA to conduct the
survey. In addition, there are a number of organizations
which contributed immensely to the success of this survey
in a form of either technical or financial support. We are
in particular appreciative of the United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA) and Statistics South Africa for their notable
contributions to the success of this survey. We are also
thankful to everyone who contributed immensely to
make this survey a success. In particular the Inter-Agency
Technical Group for their technical inputs during the
preparation of the survey data collection instruments,
the regional councillors for their support and mobilising
their respective communities to ensure cooperation with
the survey officials. The field staff and the general public
for their support and cooperation during data collection
operation in all regions.
In conclusion, the results in this report can only be of
value if they are used for the intended purpose which is,
for evidence based planning and or decision making for
the development of our country. It is therefore my sincere
hope that users find the survey results useful in their daily
businesses as they plan for the development of our country.
Mr Alex Shimuafeni
Statistician-General
Windhoek, September 2017
12 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Selected Indicators
Selected Indicators
Selected Indicators
13Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Namibia SDG - Selected indicators 2016 and 2011
Namibia Indicators 2016 2011
Population size
Total population 2 324 388 2 113 077
Urban 1 112 868 9 034 34
Rural 1 211 520 1 209 643
Age at first marriage
Proportion of women aged 20-24 years who were married or in a union before age 15 and before
age 18
before age 15 0.1 None
before age 18 0.9 None
Birth registration
Proportion of children under 5 years of age whose births have been registered with a civil
authority, by age
76.9 78.3
ECD, Education and ICT
% children 0-4 years attending ECD 16.5 13.3
% Primary educational attainment 49.7 48.5
% Secondary educational attainment 22.6 20.5
% Tertiary education attainment 8.0 5.8
% Never been to school 9.2 13.0
% population with access to internet 20.5 8.8
% population with access to cell phone 74.8 52.6
% population with access to computer 15.2 10.5
Households
% Households living in improvised housing units (shacks) 26.6 16.0
% Access to safe drinking water 92.9 80.0
% Urban 99.4 97.7
% Rural 85.0 62.8
% HHs practicing open defecation 45.7 48.6
% HHs practicing open defecation in urban 26.0 22.4
Sanitation
% Urban HHs with access to sanitation (flush toilet connected to main sewer and cesspool) 63.2 68.7
% Urban HHs with access to sanitation (Garbage regularly and irregularly collected) 67.8 78.6
% Rural HHs with access to sanitation (flush toilet connected to main sewer and cesspool) 13.4 11.3
% Rural HHs with access to sanitation (Garbage regularly and irregularly collected) 5.5 7.2
Comparison of Namibia indicators: 1991; 2001; 2011 and 2016
Namibia Indicator 1991 2001 2011 2016
Population Size
Total 1 409 920 1 830 330 2 113 077 2 324 388
Females 723 593 942 572 1 091 165 1 194 634
Males 686 327 887 721 1 021 912 1 129 754
Annual growth rate (%) - 2.6 1.4 1.9
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 28 33 43 48
Rural 72 67 57 52
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 95 94 94 95
Population density
People per sq. km. 1.7 2.1 2.6 2.8
Age composition, %
Under 5 years 16 13 14 14
5 14 years 26 26 23 23
15 59 years 51 52 57 57
60+ years 7 8 6 6
Marital status: 15+ years, %
Never married 50 56 59 64
Married with certificate & 19 20 16
Married traditionally & 9 8 6
Married consensually 12 7 8 9
Divorced/Separated 3 3 2 2
Widowed 4 4 4 3
Citizenship, %
Namibian 96 97 97 97
Non-Namibian 4 3 3 3
14 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Selected Indicators
Comparison of Namibia indicators: 1991; 2001; 2011 and 2016
Namibia Indicator 1991 2001 2011 2016
Main language spoken at home,
Percent of households
Oshiwambo 51 48 49 50
Nama/Damara 13 11 11 11
Afrikaans 9 11 10 9
Kavango 10 10 9 10
Otjiherero 8 8 9 9
Private households
Number 254 389 346 455 464 839 589 787
Average size 5.2 5.1 4.4 3.9
Head of household, %
Females 39 45 44 46
Males 61 55 56 54
Namibia Indicator 1991 2001 2011 2016
Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 76 81 89 89
Education, 15+ years, %
Never attended school 26 15 13 11
Currently at school 29 34 17 18
Left school 55 45 66 71
Housing conditions, %
Households with
Safe water 65 87 80 94
No toilet facility 61 54 49 46
Electricity for lighting 24 32 42 45
Wood/charcoal for cooking 74 62 54 50
Main source of income, %
Household main income
Farming - 28 16 15
Wages & Salaries - 41 48 52
Cash remittance - 6 5 5
Business, non-farming - 9 12 7
Old age Pension - 11 15 10
Selected Indicators
15Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
!Karas Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 85 759 77 421 Number 26 348 21 283
Females 42 489 38 014 Average size 3.3 4.2
Males 43 270 39 407
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 2.0 1.1 Females 39 44
Males 61 56
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 61 54 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 96 97
Rural 39 46
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 102 104 Never attended school 5 6
Currently at school 8 9
Population density Left school 85 84
People per sq. km. 0.5 0.5
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 14 11 Safe water 98 92
5 14 years 17 19 No toilet facility 25 23
15 59 years 63 63 Electricity for lighting 69 67
60+ years 6 6 Wood/charcoal for cooking 25 28
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 59 59 Household main income
Married with certificate 22 27 Farming 2 5
Married traditionally 4 3 Wages & Salaries 74 72
Married consensually 11 7 Cash remittance 2 5
Divorced/Separated 2 1 Business, non-farming 4 5
Widowed 2 3 Old age Pension 11 11
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 98 97 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 33.7 26.1
Non-Namibian 2 1
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 4 4
Percent of households
Afrikaans 33 36 Mortality
Oshiwambo 30 27 Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 9.7 10.7
Nama/Damara 25 23
16 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Selected Indicators
Erongo Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 182 402 150 809 Number 58 486 44 116
Females 85 878 70 986 Average size 3.1 3.3
Males 96 524 79 823
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 3.8 3.4 Females 38 34
Males 62 66
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 92 87 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 96 97
Rural 8 13
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 112 112 Never attended school 4 6
Currently at school 8 9
Population density Left school 85 83
People per sq. km. 2.9 2.4
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 12 11 Safe water 98 96
5 14 years 16 17 No toilet facility 13 11
15 59 years 67 67 Electricity for lighting 76 81
60+ years 5 6 Wood/charcoal for cooking 15 15
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 59 58 Household main income
Married with certificate 23 26 Farming 1 3
Married traditionally 2 2 Wages & Salaries 78 73
Married consensually 13 10 Cash remittance 2 5
Divorced/Separated 1 2 Business, non-farming 7 9
Widowed 2 2 Old age Pension 5 8
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 97 96 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 22.5 26.6
Non-Namibian 3 4
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 3 2
Percent of households
Oshiwambo 44 39 Mortality
Afrikaans 19 20 Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 9.9 7.1
Nama/Damara 18 19
Otjiherero 8 10
Selected Indicators
17Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Hardap Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 87 186 79 507 Number 30 108 19 307
Females 42 471 38 935 Average size 2.9 4.0
Males 44 715 40 572
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 1.8 1.5 Females 38 36
Males 62 64
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 72 60 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 85 91
Rural 28 40
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 105 104 Never attended school 8 11
Currently at school 7 9
Population density Left school 82 79
People per sq. km. 0.8 0.7
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 15 11 Safe water 98 93
5 14 years 18 21 No toilet facility 44 35
15 59 years 59 59 Electricity for lighting 56 66
60+ years 8 7 Wood/charcoal for cooking 58 45
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 65 54 Household main income
Married with certificate 23 29 Farming 3 7
Married traditionally 0 1 Wages & Salaries 61 64
Married consensually 7 10 Cash remittance 4 7
Divorced/Separated 1 2 Business, non-farming 4 4
Widowed 4 5 Old age Pension 9 15
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 98 98 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 29.2 26.2
Non-Namibian 2 2
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 3 4
Percent of households
Nama/Damara 49 43 Mortality
Afrikaans 29 41 Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 15.8 13.0
18 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Selected Indicators
Kavango East Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 148 466 136 823 Number 35 848 23 050
Females 79 364 72 936 Average size 4.1 5.8
Males 69 102 63 887
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 1.6 Females 45 45
Males 55 55
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 57 46 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 85 81
Rural 43 54
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 87 88 Never attended school 15 20
Currently at school 21 19
Population density Left school 62 59
People per sq. km. 6.2 5.7
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 14 Safe water 86 72
5 14 years 27 No toilet facility 63 67
15 59 years 53 Electricity for lighting 26 32
60+ years 6 Wood/charcoal for cooking 75 79
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 47 44 Household main income
Married with certificate 9 13 Farming 16 33
Married traditionally 8 20 Wages & Salaries 39 29
Married consensually 29 14 Cash remittance 6 7
Divorced/Separated 3 4 Business, non-farming 10 14
Widowed 4 5 Old-aged Pension 17 12
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 99 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 45.5 33.8
Non-Namibian 1
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 6 6
Percent of households
Kavango languages 90 77 Mortality
Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 16.9 15.0
Selected Indicators
19Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Kavango West Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 89 313 86 529 Number 17 046 13 691
Females 47 093 45 655 Average size 5.2 6.3
Males 42 220 40 874
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 0.6 Females 42 40
Males 58 60
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 12 1 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 76 77
Rural 88 99
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 90 90 Never attended school 19 23
Currently at school 25 16
Population density Left school 55 57
People per sq. km. 3.5 3.6
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 13 Safe water 77 57
5 14 years 33 No toilet facility 85 88
15 59 years 47 Electricity for lighting 12 11
60+ years 6 Wood/charcoal for cooking 91 94
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 44 44 Household main income
Married with certificate 12 13 Farming 31 60
Married traditionally 16 20 Wages & Salaries 25 10
Married consensually 19 14 Cash remittance 3 3
Divorced/Separated 2 4 Business, non-farming 9 9
Widowed 7 5 Old age Pension 13 13
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 99 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 34.7 34.3
Non-Namibian 1
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 8 6
Percent of households
Kavango languages 88 83 Mortality
Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 17.2 14.1
20 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Selected Indicators
Khomas Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 415 780 342 141 Number 119 217 89 438
Females 209 690 172 469 Average size 3.5 3.7
Males 206 090 169 672
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 3.9 3.1 Females 40 39
Males 60 61
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 95 95 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 97 97
Rural 5 5
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 98 98 Never attended school 5 5
Currently at school 16 19
Population density Left school 79 73
People per sq. km. 11.3 9.2
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 13 11 Safe water 100 99
5 14 years 16 16 No toilet facility 25 20
15 59 years 68 69 Electricity for lighting 64 68
60+ years 3 4 Wood/charcoal for cooking 7 8
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 68 62 Household main income
Married with certificate 20 23 Farming 0.3 1
Married traditionally 3 3 Wages & Salaries 75 73
Married consensually 6 9 Cash remittance 6 5
Divorced/Separated 2 2 Business, non-farming 10 14
Widowed 1 2 Old age Pension 2 4
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 95 94 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 29.0 28.0
Non-Namibian 5 6
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 2 3
Percent of households
Oshiwambo 47 41 Mortality
Afrikaans 16 19 Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 5.3 6.9
Otjiherero 13 10
Nama/Damara 10 12
Selected Indicators
21Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Kunene Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 97 865 86 856 Number 21 099 18 495
Females 48 269 43 253 Average size 4.6 4.6
Males 49 596 43 603
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 2.4 2.3 Females 50 40
Males 50 60
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 32 26 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 66 65
Rural 68 74
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 103 101 Never attended school 33 37
Currently at school 9 9
Population density Left school 57 50
People per sq. km. 0.8 0.8
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 18 17 Safe water 75 67
5 14 years 24 25 No toilet facility 64 63
15 59 years 51 51 Electricity for lighting 29 31
60+ years 7 7 Wood/charcoal for cooking 69 77
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 63 56 Household main income
Married with certificate 11 13 Farming 13 32
Married traditionally 14 18 Wages & Salaries 36 41
Married consensually 7 8 Cash remittance 2 5
Divorced/Separated 2 2 Business, non-farming 4 8
Widowed 3 3 Old age Pension 14 12
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 99 97 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 43.7 3.8
Non-Namibian 1 3
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 5 4
Percent of households
Otjiherero 46 47 Mortality
Nama/Damara 36 32 Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 8.7 12.6
22 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Selected Indicators
Ohangwena Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 255 510 245 446 Number 49 470 43 723
Females 137 566 133 316 Average size 5.2 5.6
Males 117 944 112 130
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 0.8 0.7 Females 62 57
Males 38 44
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 6 10 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 86 86
Rural 94 90
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 86 84 Never attended school 13 17
Currently at school 27 23
Population density Left school 59 56
People per sq. km. 23.9 23
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 14 15 Safe water 86 56
5 14 years 29 29 No toilet facility 72 80
15 59 years 49 47 Electricity for lighting 15 11
60+ years 8 9 Wood/charcoal for cooking 87 88
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 70 65 Household main income
Married with certificate 15 18 Farming 36 26
Married traditionally 5 7 Wages & Salaries 23 22
Married consensually 4 3 Cash remittance 6 6
Divorced/Separated 2 2 Business, non-farming 4 12
Widowed 5 5 Old age Pension 19 29
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 98 99 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 38.2 30.1
Non-Namibian 2 1
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 7 5
Percent of households
Oshiwambo 98 98 Mortality
Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 9.9 12.5
Selected Indicators
23Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Omaheke Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 74 629 71 233 Number 21 169 16 174
Females 35 247 34 016 Average size 3.5 4.3
Males 39 382 37 217
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 0.9 0.5 Females 37 34
Males 63 66
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 42 30 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 75 73
Rural 58 70
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 112 109 Never attended school 22 29
Currently at school 8 10
Population density Left school 68 58
People per sq. km. 0.9 0.8
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 20 15 Safe water 96 85
5 14 years 19 23 No toilet facility 56 60
15 59 years 54 55 Electricity for lighting 45 33
60+ years 6 7 Wood/charcoal for cooking 63 73
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 58 58 Household main income
Married with certificate 12 16 Farming 11 22
Married traditionally 10 10 Wages & Salaries 58 49
Married consensually 16 11 Cash remittance 5 6
Divorced/Separated 2 2 Business, non-farming 7 7
Widowed 3 3 Old age Pension 11 13
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 99 99 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 26.3 29.4
Non-Namibian 1 1
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 4 4
Percent of households
Otjiherero 48 42 Mortality
Nama/Damara 21 28 Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 19.5 11.2
Afrikaans 7 10
San 6 5
24 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Selected Indicators
Omusati Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 249 885 243 166 Number 54 383 46 698
Females 137 073 133 621 Average size 4.6 5.2
Males 112 812 109 545
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 0.5 0.6 Females 57 55
Males 43 45
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 5 6 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 88 88
Rural 95 94
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 82 82 Never attended school 9.0 13
Currently at school 25 23
Population density Left school 63 60
People per sq. km. 9.4 9.1
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 12 14 Safe water 86 52
5 14 years 27 26 No toilet facility 71 78
15 59 years 51 49 Electricity for lighting 11 9
60+ years 10 11 Wood/charcoal for cooking 90 88
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 72 65 Household main income
Married with certificate 14 20 Farming 53 22
Married traditionally 4 6 Wages & Salaries 17 25
Married consensually 4 3 Cash remittance 5 5
Divorced/Separated 1 2 Business, non-farming 4 10
Widowed 6 5 Old age Pension 13 31
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 97 98 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 33.6 25.6
Non-Namibian 3 2
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 6 6
Percent of households
Oshiwambo 96 96 Mortality
Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 11.4 11.5
Selected Indicators
25Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Oshana Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 189 237 176 674 Number 44 544 37 284
Females 103 242 96 559 Average size 4.2 4.5
Males 85 995 80 115
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 1.4 0.9 Females 57 54
Males 43 46
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 46 45 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 94 96
Rural 54 54
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 83 83 Never attended school 6 7
Currently at school 20 21
Population density Left school 73 68
People per sq. km. 21.9 20.4
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 14 12 Safe water 98 84
5 14 years 21 21 No toilet facility 27 46
15 59 years 59 59 Electricity for lighting 43 31
60+ years 7 8 Wood/charcoal for cooking 47 49
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 72 67 Household main income
Married with certificate 18 22 Farming 12 13
Married traditionally 1 2 Wages & Salaries 46 40
Married consensually 3 4 Cash remittance 10 5
Divorced/Separated 1 1 Business, non-farming 11 17
Widowed 4 4 Old age Pension 14 19
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 97 98 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 33.7 26.0
Non-Namibian 3 3
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 6 5
Percent of households
Oshiwambo 94 94 Mortality
Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 8.4 11.1
26 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Selected Indicators
Oshikoto Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 195 165 181 973 Number 45 407 37 400
Females 101 065 94 907 Average size 4.3 4.8
Males 94 100 87 066
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 1.4 1.2 Females 51 49
Males 49 51
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 16 13 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 88 88
Rural 84 87
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 93 92 Never attended school 10 14
Currently at school 21 20
Population density Left school 68 63
People per sq. km. 5.0 4.7
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 12 14 Safe water 93 70
5 14 years 26 26 No toilet facility 57 69
15 59 years 54 52 Electricity for lighting 31 20
60+ years 8 9 Wood/charcoal for cooking 71 80
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 67 62 Household main income
Married with certificate 18 23 Farming 32 33
Married traditionally 3 4 Wages & Salaries 38 30
Married consensually 7 5 Cash remittance 4 5
Divorced/Separated 1 1 Business, non-farming 5 10
Widowed 4 4 Old age Pension 13 19
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 98 98 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 32.1 27.6
Non-Namibian 2 2
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 5 7
Percent of households
Oshiwambo 87 86 Mortality
Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 11.8 10.3
Selected Indicators
27Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Otjozondjupa Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 154 342 143 903 Number 39 761 33 192
Females 74 781 70 001 Average size 3.9 4.2
Males 79 561 73 902
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 1.4 0.6 Females 39 37
Males 61 63
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 66 54 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 83 83
Rural 34 46
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 106 106 Never attended school 19 20
Currently at school 15 11
Population density Left school 64 66
People per sq. km. 1.5 1.4
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 15 14 Safe water 98 95
5 14 years 22 22 No toilet facility 39 39
15 59 years 56 58 Electricity for lighting 63 56
60+ years 6 6 Wood/charcoal for cooking 48 56
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 62 57 Household main income
Married with certificate 12 18 Farming 3 10
Married traditionally 10 9 Wages & Salaries 66 60
Married consensually 13 11 Cash remittance 2 6
Divorced/Separated 2 2 Business, non-farming 7 10
Widowed 2 2 Old age Pension 10 10
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 98 94 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 24.5 29.8
Non-Namibian 2 6
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 4 5
Percent of households
Otjiherero 29 27 Mortality
Oshiwambo 29 21 Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 13.1 10.3
Nama/Damara 17 21
28 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Selected Indicators
Zambezi Region Indicators, 2016 and 2011
2016 2011 2016 2011
Population Size Private households
Total 98 849 90 596 Number 26 901 21 283
Females 50 406 46 497 Average size 3.7 4.2
Males 48 443 44 099
Head of household, %
Annual growth rate (%) 1.7 1.3 Females 42 44
Males 58 56
Percent in Urban/Rural areas
Urban 29 31 Literacy rate, 15+ years, % 85 84
Rural 71 69
Education, 15+ years, %
Sex ratio: Males per 100 females 96 95 Never attended school 11 16
Currently at school 23 18
Population density Left school 65 59
People per sq. km. 6.7 6.2
Housing conditions, %
Age composition, % Households with
Under 5 years 13 14 Safe water 86 73
5 14 years 26 25 No toilet facility 82 74
15 59 years 56 55 Electricity for lighting 35 32
60+ years 5 6 Wood/charcoal for cooking 79 83
Marital status: 15+ years, % Main source of income, %
Never married 45 45 Household main income
Married with certificate 6 6 Farming 8 21
Married traditionally 33 34 Wages & Salaries 45 30
Married consensually 6 4 Cash remittance 7 6
Divorced/Separated 4 5 Business, non-farming 12 29
Widowed 5 6 Old age Pension 12 15
Citizenship, % Fertility
Namibian 87 90 Crude birth rate (CBR) per 1,000 population 35.7 31.8
Non-Namibian 14 10
Disability, %
Main language spoken at home, With disability 4 4
Percent of households
Zambezi languages 92 90 Mortality
Crude death rate (CDR) per 1,000 population 12.5 11.7
Selected Indicators
29Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
30 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Executive Summary
This report presents results of the 2016 Namibia Inter-
censal Demographic Survey (NIDS) of which the field
work was carried out in October to November 2016. The
previous NIDSs were conducted in 1996 as well as in 2006,
by then the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), under the
National Planning Commission (NPC) hence this is the first
NIDS to be conducted by Namibia Statistics Agency.
A wide range of data on the characteristics of the population,
households and housing conditions is presented in this
report. The population characteristics include spatial
distribution, age and sex composition, marital status,
education, literacy, orphan-hood, disability, births and
deaths. The household and housing conditions include
average household size, housing amenities, ownership and
the quality of housing. The results are presented at the
national, urban, rural areas and regional levels.
The Inter-censal Demographic Survey (NIDS) is a sample
survey which is taken at the mid-point of the censuses. The
NIDS 2016 was conducted five years between the previous
2011 census and the next census of 2021.
The main objectives of the NIDS 2016 is to provide up to date
statistics and data on population size, growth, migration,
fertility, mortality, housing and household characteristics in
Namibia. These statistics are necessary for policy making,
planning, monitoring and evaluation, implementation of
national and regional plan and programs. This survey was
designed to produce estimates at the national and regional
levels for most indicators.
The survey results show that the estimated population of
Namibia has increased from 2,113,077 in 2011, to 2,324,388
in 2016. Similarly, the number of households increased
by 124 948 households between the same period, that
is, from 464,839 in 2011 to 589,787 households in 2016.
With regard to sex distribution, there were more females
(51.4%) than males (48.6%) in Namibia with a sex ratio of
95 males per 100 females.
With regard to population distribution, Khomas region
recorded the highest number of people followed by
Ohangwena and Omusati regions. , Omaheke region had
the least number of people in 2016.
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
31Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
It is worth noting the increase in the annual growth rate
between the period of 2011 to 2016. The Namibian
population was estimated to have grown by 1.9 percent
annual between 2011 and 2016 as compared to 1.4 that
was recorded in 2011. The 2016 NIDS results also revealed
that urban regions were growing at faster rate compared
to rural regions. This is the case for Khomas and Erongo
regions with a growth rate of 3.9 and 3.8 respectively,
while Omusati and Kavango West regions had lower growth
rates of 0.5 and 0.6 respectively. There was a noticeable
movement of people from rural to urban areas where the
population in urban areas increased from 43 percent in
2011 to 48 percent in 2016.
This results indicate that 4.7 percent of the total population
lived with disabilities of which 4.8 percent were males
and 4.6 percent females. The proportion of persons with
disabilities was higher in rural areas (6.0%) than in urban
areas (3.3%). With regard to orphan-hood, 11.1 percent
of all children aged 18 years and below had lost at least
one parent, while 1.4 percent had lost both parents. More
orphans were found in rural areas compared to urban areas
with 13.0 and 8.2 percent respectively.
The level of literacy in Namibia for the population aged
15 years and above remained the same at 88.7percent
between 2011 and 2016 with slight increase in rural areas
compare to urban areas where a slight decline in literacy
level was recorded.
The average household size in Namibia is estimated to
be about 3.9 persons with less number of persons per
household in urban areas of 3.4 persons compared to rural
areas which had on average 4.6 persons per household.
The majority of households in Namibia were headed by
males (53.6%). A situation of child headed households
seems to prevail in the country although slightly improved.
A total of 6,937 households in Namibia were headed by
children aged 18 years or younger in 2016 compared to
7,671 in 2011. Of the number of households headed by
children 2,040 households were headed by orphans which
is a decrease from 2 953 households in 2011.
In terms of housing type, traditional dwellings seem to be
common as it is occupied by 32.6 percent of all households
in the country. These housing units were more common
in rural areas as expected with 68.8 percent compared to
urban areas with only 3.1 percent. Improvised housing
units (shacks) were common in urban areas where they
made up approximately 40 percent of all households.
There is improvement in the percentage of households
with access to safe water. Households with access to safe
water have increased with 14 percent, that is, from 80
percent in 2011 to 94 percent in 2016. However, more still
need to be done with regard to sanitation since about 46
percent of households in Namibia indicated that they had
no toilet facilities. These households used bush/ riverbed/
fields as means of toilet facility.
32 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 1: Methodology
Chapter 1: Methodology
Chapter 1: Methodology
33Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
1.1 Introduction
Like in the previous surveys, the Namibia Demographic
Inter-censal Survey 2016, herein referred to as the
NIDS 2016 throughout this report, was conducted
with the objective of generating timely collection
and release of key demographic indicators to
update information on population size and growth,
fertility, mortality, migration and other population
characteristics as well as household facilities and
amenities. It is a nationally representative sample
survey taken between two censuses, the 2011 census
and the envisaged 2021 census.
This chapter therefore presents the methodology
adopted in the execution of the survey. The
information presented is also useful to users to give
them understanding about the survey and how the
data was collected, its intended uses, strengths and
limitations.
1.2 Users and uses
Key users of NIDS data in Namibia are government
ministries, offices and agencies which use the data for
monitoring and evaluating developmental initiatives
e.g. National Development Plans (NDPs) and programs
that are aimed at improving the living conditions of all
citizens in the country.
Other users of NIDS data include local authorities,
non-governmental organisations, academics and
research institutions, international organisations,
private sectors, individuals and the general public.
At the international level, NIDS data is important for
measuring the progress made and or achievement of
international goals in the country.
1.3 Strengths and
limitations of NIDS 2016
The strengths of the NIDS 2016 is that it has more
reliable statistics for estimation of demographic
characteristics at national and regional levels.
The improved methodology (CAPI) ensures efficient
geo-coding of the questionnaires during data capturing
and processing.
Furthermore, NIDS 2016 is the first Inter-censal
Demographic survey to use digital questionnaire using
tablets devices to capture data during listing and data
collection stages. This paperless method which is
referred to as computer assisted personal interview
(CAPI) made it possible to in-build quality checks, edit
rules and validation mechanisms into the application
to control for data errors and inconsistencies
interactively during the interview process. Such
approach enhances timeliness, data integrity and
reliability.
One of the limitations of this type of survey was that it
is a household-based survey, excluding the population
that was in institutions at the time of the survey, such
as school hostels, army/police barracks, hospitals
wards, etc. Household members residing in these
institutions were only included if they live in private
accommodation which constitute households.
1.4 Organisation and
preparation
1.4.1 Legal Basis
The NIDS 2016 was conducted by the Namibia Statistics
Agency in accordance with the Statistics Act, 2011 (Act
No.9 of 2011). The Act mandates the Agency, among
others, to constitute the central statistical authority of the
country and to collect, produce, analyse and disseminate
official and other statistics in Namibia. By virtue of this Act,
all information collected that could be linked to identified
individuals or households was kept strictly confidential.
The survey was conducted in close collaboration with
key stakeholders that form part of the National Statistics
System (NSS). The collaboration took place in respect of the
following areas:
i. Review of variables and questions asked in the 2011
census
ii. Contribution to the drafting of the questionnaire for
the 2016 NIDS
iii. Sourced new questions from stakeholders
1.4.2 Stakeholders workshop
The field operation was preceded by two stakeholders
workshops. The first workshop was conducted in March
2016 where the NSA presented to stakeholders the NIDS
2016 questionnaire, as well as the survey activity plan.
The second workshop was conducted in August 2016 just
before the pilot survey took off. During this workshop, the
stakeholders were presented with the changes (as per the
first workshop comments) and final content of the NIDS
2016 questionnaire. The Stakeholders were also given a
demonstration of how the CAPI application works and how
the questions appear in the tablet. Generally, not many
changes were made to the 2011 questionnaire but there
a few questions that were added to the 2016. Below are
the additional questions that were introduced in the 2016
questionnaire that were not included in the previous 2011
census questionnaire.
" What is [NAMEs] age at first marriage?
" Has (NAME) been refused any services because of not
having a Birth Certificate?
" Does (NAME) hold a Namibian Identification card (ID)?
" Has (NAME) moved from one region (or country) to
another in the past 5 years (since September 2011 to
October 2016)?
" When did [NAME] move to this present region (most
recent move)?
" What region/ country was [NAME] living in just before
moving to this region?
" What was the main reason [NAME] moved to this
region?
" Who did [NAME] move with when moved to this
region?
" Does (Name) receive any social grants/ pension?
" Does (NAME) own a mobile phone or used one in the
last 3 months?
" If (NAME) owns a mobile phone, is it a... ? mobile
phone type
" Did (NAME) use a computer in the last 3 months?
" Did (NAME) use the Internet (Facebook, Google, email
etc.) in last 3 months?
" Which health facility does (NAME) usually get medical
services from?
" Who has the legal responsibility for taking care of
(NAME)?
" What was the cause of (NAME)s death?
" Did (NAME) die because of: cancer type
" How many live born children did (SHE) give birth to
during her lifetime
" How many of her children are still alive?
" How many of her children are no longer alive?
The two workshops provided opportunity for key
stakeholders to contribute to the improvements in the way
questions were framed as well as ensuring that data to be
collected are relevant for their use. This is one of the goals
of the NSA, that is, to produce relevant statistics that is fit
for evidence-based planning.
34 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 1: Methodology
1.4.3 Survey organisation structure
During the undertaking of the NIDS 2016, the organizational
structure presented in figure 1.1 was adopted.
Figure 1.1: NIDS 2016 Organisational Structure
The Surveys and Field Operations (SFO) division was
responsible for planning, survey design, fieldwork, and
administration of survey resources and progress reporting.
The Social Statistics (SS) and the Demographic and Vital
Statistics divisions of Demographic and Social Statistics
(DSS) department were responsible for the questionnaire
design, analysis and report writing. The Data Quality
Assurance department provided guidelines and procedures
that ensure the data collected meets quality standards as
set out in the Namibia Data Quality Assessment Framework
(DQAF), the Data Collection, Processing and Dissemination
Policy and Practice and the Code of Practice. The SFO
worked closely with the following departments/divisions:
DSS, Legal, Data Processing, Information Technology
Solution, Quality Assurance, Human Resources, Finance,
Administration and Logistics and Strategic Communication.
The survey progress was reported to the Statistician-General
(SG) and the Executive Committee (EXCO) members on a
bi-weekly basis or when asked to do so by the SG and this
was done by the division of SFO during the planning and
field work stages and the DSS department post field work.
The survey core team consists of NSA permanent staff
members from various departments and divisions and
chaired by the Manager SFO. The core team further dealt
with the day to day planning of the survey activities,
development of survey manual and instruments and
training of field staff. In addition, the core team was also
responsible for field monitoring during data collection and
this was done to ensure absolute data quality.
Statistician-
General
Surveys
and Field
Operations
Executive
Committee
Data Quality
Assurance
& NSS
Coordination
Demographic
and Vital
Statistics
Social Statistics
Demographic
and Social
Statistics
Corporate
Communications
Finance
Human
Resources
Security
ManagementLegal
Data Processing
and IT Solutions
Chapter 1: Methodology
35Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
1.5 Pilot survey
In order to ensure smooth running of the survey, a pilot
test was undertaken covering two Primary Sampling Units
(PSUs), one in lower income and the other in higher income
areas of Khomas region. The Pilot Survey fieldwork was
conducted from 22nd August to the 3rd of September
2016 and was done by four field staff. One Team Supervisor,
two Enumerators were recruited from the NSA field staff
database while one IT Field Technician was recruited
through an advert in the local print media.
The main objective of the pilot was to test whether the survey
data collection tools including the CAPI application and the
questionnaire were adequate to provide the required data
within a specified period of time. This also involved testing
the adequacy of logistics and administrative arrangements
on the ground. The data processing and analysis plans were
tested through the use of the pilot survey data. The result
of the pilot survey was used to review and improve areas
of the survey implementation, such as review of the survey
instruments and tools; and draw up the field deployment
and final fieldwork plan.
1.5.1 Training for the Pilot Survey
In the undertaking of the NIDS 2016 Pilot Survey, two types
of trainings took place namely the master training and
the Pilot training. The master training was the first stage
of training conducted for all NSA staff who were to be
part of the pilot survey to acquaint them with the survey
methodologies and instruments. This intensive training was
done for a period of one week. The second stage of the
training comprised of a large number of staff from the head
office, regional statisticians, and field staff who were to be
involved in the pilot field work and this training was called
the Pilot Training and also took one week.
1.5.2 Outcome of the pilot survey and
adjustment made
Subject matter received pilot data from data processing
on the 8th September 2016. The data was evaluated by
running basic tables from the 9th 13th September 2016.
Some challenges and errors that were found were noted
and communicated to the Data Processing on the 13th
September 2016 for corrections and for incorporating into
the CAPI questionnaire. Some findings were then used to
make changes improvements in the survey materials such
as training manuals. Some key improvements that resulted
from the pilot study were as follows:
a) Maximum age for the survey needed to be changed to
120 years instead of recording all those 95 years and
above in one age group, because there were many
cases found to be over 95 years. There is also a need
to monitor how the population is aging hence such
recommendation.
b) Other specify category came out with many
observations that need to be reclassified or create new
categories. Thus, Population Census and Demographic
Surveys and Social Statistics (SS) divisions reviewed
the field notes and it was noted that most of the notes
came as a result of enumerators not knowing where to
classify them
1.5.3 Lesson learned from pilot survey
It is worth mentioning that one of the pilot survey outcomes
revealed that the selected sample was too small as result
some variables in the questionnaire could not be tested
since the pilot survey only covered two PSUs. This was one
of the lessons learned for future NIDS and other survey in
general that we should ensure that pilot survey samples
are large enough to test all variables.
36 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 1: Methodology
1.6 Recruitment, training and fieldwork
1.6.1. Recruitment of field staff
The distribution of the survey field staff that were recruited
during the undertaking of the NIDS 2016 is presented in
table 1.1 below. In the table, the total number of field
staff who were trained and those who were employed for
the survey and how they were allocated to the respective
regions are presented.
Team Supervisors and Enumerators were recruited from
the NSA field staff database while the positions of IT Field
Technicians were advertised in the local print media.
Table 1.1: Distribution of recruited, trained and deployed staff for NIDS 2016
Region
No of
Field
Teams
Actual Employment Training It Field
Technicians
(LTFT)/ ARS
Regional
Statistician
(RS)
Team
Supervisors
Enumerators
Total
Staff
Reserves
Total Staff For
The Training
//Karas 11 11 22 33 6 40 1 1
Erongo 17 17 34 51 6 58 1 1
Hardap 11 11 22 33 6 40 1 1
Kavango East 8 8 16 24 6 31 1 1
Kavango West 7 7 14 21 6 28 1 1
Khomas 17 17 34 51 6 58 1 1
Kunene 10 10 20 30 6 37 1 1
Ohangwena 11 11 22 33 6 40 1 1
Omaheke 10 10 20 30 6 37 1 1
Omusati 12 12 24 36 6 43 1 1
Oshana 11 11 22 33 6 40 1 1
Oshikoto 12 12 24 36 6 43 1 1
Otjozondjupa 12 12 24 36 6 43 1 1
Zambezi 10 10 20 30 6 37 1 1
Namibia 159 159 318 477 84 575 14 14
1.6.2 Main fieldwork Training
In the undertaking of the NIDS 2016 main fieldwork, two
types of trainings took place namely the master training that
was combined with the training of trainers and the main
training. The master training (the training of trainers) was the
first stage of training conducted for all NSA staff who were
part of the Pilot Training and will be training the field staff
during the main training. The objective was to acquaint them
with the survey methodologies and instruments as well as to
be introduced to the changes that were made as a result of
the pilot survey outcomes. This intensive training was done
for a period of one week in preparation for the main training.
The group that attended this training comprised of a large
number of staff from the head office, regional statisticians,
and IT Field Technicians who were involved in the pilot field
work and new additional 13 IT Field Technicians who also
worked as Assistant Regional Statisticians. Those who were
trained were deployed to different training centers to carry
out the main training of the field staff.
The main training of all the field staff was conducted at three
(3) different centers namely Ongwediva, Otjiwarongo and
Rundu. All staff that were involved in the survey undertaking
went through an intensive two weeks training program
covering the survey methodology, questionnaire, concepts
and definitions and the use of data capturing applications. In
addition, all trainees were subjected to various assessments
and only the top candidates were selected to be part of the
main survey field work.
1.6.3 Survey field structure
The main survey consisted of field teams operating within a
region under the regional supervisor a position held by the
NSA Regional Statisticians (RS). Each regional supervisor was
supported by an IT technician who provided IT support to
the regional field team. There were in total 15 IT technicians
employed during the survey field work period, 14 for the
regions and one IT technician based at the NSA head office
to oversee data transmission and management. The IT
Technicians worked closely with Regional supervisors and
also assisted them with administrative issues and field
logistics.
The field teams consisted of a team supervisor and two
interviewers. Field personnel were recruited from their own
areas since they needed to be familiar with the local terrain/
locality and to facilitate interviews in local languages. In Total
491 field staff were deployed for the fieldwork for a period
of approximately one month (30 days). The work plan was
designed to include the first two weeks for listing of private
households within the selected PSUs and the last two weeks
to administer the questionnaire to the sampled 20 private
households per PSU.
Chapter 1: Methodology
37Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
1.6.4 Survey publicity and advocacy
A Communication Strategy Plan that focused on advocacy
and publicity of the NIDS 2016 both at national and
regional level was developed. The most convenient method
used was the distribution of flyers and pasting of posters
to create awareness. During this activity, the Regional
Statisticians were able to hold community meetings and
had the opportunity to elaborate on the objectives of the
survey. Mobilisation were done in each and every selected
PSU before commencement of listing and data collection
exercises to ensure that the local people were aware of the
survey and what was expected from them.
Pamphlets about the survey were posted at traffic light
intersections in PSUs with high income characteristics
specifically in Khomas and Erongo regions. This was
necessitated by the high refusals and non-contacts
experienced in these areas in past surveys. Courtesy visits
to constituency and local councillors was also undertaken
to introduce the survey and its components as well as to
request for their assistance in informing their constituency
inhabitants about the survey during their respective radio
announcements and community meetings.
In addition, road shows were held in various urban centers
in collaboration with the Namibia Broadcasting Corporation
(NBC) out broadcasting programme to create awareness in
the selected PSUs. Radio announcements complimented
by newspaper articles and newspaper advertisements were
also placed in local newspapers to inform the general public
about the survey and its approach.
Television strips were run on NBC-TV before the News
Bulletin and specific talk shows such as Good morning
Namibia and Business Today programmes to announce the
commencement of the survey. Finally, the Agency has also
made use of Community Watch groups in the Khomas region
to seek for their cooperation and support during the visitation
of households in their areas of operation. This approach
proved to be very effective in informing respondents living
in high income areas about the survey in order to minimize
non-response rate.
1.6.5 Field monitoring and data quality control
To ensure reliable, quality and timely data were collected
a series of data assurance activities were undertaken
at different levels of monitoring. This was done by the
Regional Supervisors (RS) who are constantly monitored by
the National Supervisors (NS) who reports to the Surveys
and Field Operation Manager who oversee the field work.
In addition, a monitoring team comprised of staff from the
head office were sent to regions at the beginning of the
listing and interviewing phase to ensure that the field work
started off as planned and that all data collection rules and
guidelines are followed as prescribed. Monitoring teams
also had to observe interviews by field staff at different
households to ensure that they introduce the objective
of the survey properly and questions are asked as trained
including the translations of questions from English to
vernacular languages. In doing so, remedial actions were
undertaken timely without further delays and compromise
to the data collection exercise.
In addition, daily transmission of the collected data to head
office were undertaken to ensure minimum effect in the
event of loss or damaged to the data collection tools. As a
result secondary verification and completeness checks were
carried out to ensure correct, complete and valid information
are transmitted.
38 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 1: Methodology
1.7 Sampling
1.7.1 Sample design
In the design of the sample, a national sampling frame
was used. The national sampling frame is a list of small
geographical areas called Primary Sampling Units (PSU),
created using the enumeration areas (EA) based on the
2011 Population and Housing Census. The measure of
size in the frame is the number of households within a
particular PSU of which the size ranges between 40 and
120 households. The frame units were stratified first by
regions, and then by urban/rural areas within the regions.
The sample design was therefore a two stage stratified
cluster sample, where the first stage units were the PSUs
and the second stage units were the households. Sample
sizes were determined to give reliable estimates of the
population characteristics at the regional level which is the
lowest domain of estimation for the NIDS 2016. A total of
12 480 households constituted the sample representing all
14 regions from 624 PSUs. Power allocation procedure was
adopted to distribute the sample across the regions so that
the smaller regions will get adequate samples.
1.7.2 Sample Accountability
The sample was designed such that direct survey estimates
could be produced at national, urban/rural (national) and
regional levels. The design weights were the inverse of the
selection probabilities (i.e. Inverse sampling rate) at both
first (PSU level) and second (Household level) stages. The
PSUs that were found to be larger or difficult to manage
were segmented and their design weights were adjusted
accordingly to account for the third level of selection
(selection of segment). In order to account for household
non-response, the design weights were adjusted for
household non-response. The non-response adjustment
factor is defined as the ratio of the sampled households
to the respondent households. The final step undertaken
in constructing the final weights at person level for the
NIDS 2016 was to calibrate the design weights such that
the respective aggregate totals matched the distribution of
the population across key demographic variables such as
age and sex, nationally at urban/rural and at regional level.
The control totals used for this calibration process were the
2016 population projections. This was achieved by running
a Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Macro for calibration
called GREGWT developed by the Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS).
1.7.3 Cautionary note on the application of
weights on the dataset
The calibrated weight is used for the person level analysis but
for the households only the design weight was used (Foot
note 2 under sub section 4.3). This means the population
estimates are based on the calibrated weight and the
household estimates on the design weight. It should be
noted that when ratio estimates involving the households
are derived the weight used was the design weight for
both variables. Therefore, users are being cautioned
when using ratio indicator that involves population and
households there might be slight differences if you use
direct calculation. For instance, Average households size; if
one take the estimated total population and divide it with
estimated total households given in the report , the figure
might not be equal to what was presented in this report
for the ratio as those indicators were computed using the
design weight for both variables.
1.7.4 Response rate
When the household sample was implemented it was not
possible to interview some of households due to refusals
or non-contacts. If such households were found to be
more than two per PSU, they were substituted by other
households closest to the originally selected ones. After
data processing, the response rate was 98.1%.
Chapter 1: Methodology
39Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
1.8 Data Processing
The data processing methodology that was adopted for
this study was the Computer Assisted Personal Interview
method referred to as CAPI.
Data management tools to collect, transmit and store and
clean survey data were designed and developed using
CSPro 6.3.; the process involved is shown in Figure 1.2
below.
Figure 1.2 NIDS Data capture process using CAPI
Case-Mgmt
1. Listing & Sampling
3. Questionnaire - CSEntry
5. Daily Cleaning
NSA
Headquarters
Team
Supervisor
Interviewer
FTP
(Internet)
Peer to Peer Wi-fi
(no internet required)
2. Data Transmission
4. Daily field real-time reporting
6. Data Export to SPSS, STATA and Excel
The programs developed are listed below and explained on
how they were used in the field;
a) In-field automated listing and sampling program
Data processing developed a systematic sampling
routine program. This reduced errors of supervisors not
properly following the sampling algorithm or introducing
bias in the household selection. In addition, it ensured
that replacement of households was done procedurally
in that replacement households were selected from the
same stratum as the households to be subsituted.
b) Case Management program
This program allowed for the automation of the following
field activities with minimum human interventions.
A team consisted of one supervisor and two
interviewers. Interviewers listed households and then
each independently transmitted the households
information to the supervisors tablet. The supervisor
then merged the listing files on a tablet and run the
program to sample from the listed households.
The supervisor further assign the sampled households to the
respective interviewers. During the household interview,
the interviewers will then transmit the household roster
data to the supervisor in order to ensure data quality. In
order to successfully transmit the data, the interviewers
were required to validate all household data in the
tablet, while the supervisors were required to validate all
primary sampling units (PSUs) data in the tablet before
transmitting the data further to the headquarter server.
At both levels of validation, if the data did not pass the
validation tests, the staff concern was then required to
provide an explanation as to why the submitted data are
incomplete.
Case Management and data flow was tightly controlled,
but the system allowed for some flexibility. For instance,
replacement of sampled households, was done with the
assistance of the data processing team who provided
codes to unlock the replacement action.
40 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 1: Methodology
c) Data Entry program
Data entry application was built with many consistency
checks, skipping patterns and other validations such as
maximum and minimum acceptance range per variable.
Supervisors were given minimum variables to check on
a day to day basis, especially for others specify (notes)
variables. As a result, data consistency checks, coding and
validation was done at field level. This minimized the time
spent on post data cleaning, validation and editing process.
d) Data synchronization program
This program allowed for the following; Supervisors were
given SIM cards and controlled transmission of data to
the Head Office. Since MD5 (Message Digest 5 Algorithm)
hashes was stored on the program, only modified data was
transferred and only newly collected data was sent to head
office.
Interviewers did not have SIM cards and hence, their
programs and files were updated via the supervisors tablets.
Transmissions between supervisors tablets and interviewers
tablets was done via a locally created WI-FI hotspot.
e) Post data processing programs
The implementation of the CAPI application allowed for
improved data quality due to consistency checks in the
data entry application. In-field coding using lookups files
eliminated the need for a time consuming coding process
at the Data Processing Centre (DPC). For this survey, data
cleaning was divided into two (2) parts, primary cleaning
and secondly cleaning.
Primary cleaning was done by data processing unit and it
involved the following programs and activities.
(i) Concatenate program
Data was transmitted to head office via ftp server
and stored in folders by geographical hierarchy of
the survey. The concatenate program was designed
to concatenate data from each interviewer into one
file per section. Then program takes the PSU level
generated data and concatenate files per region to
create a regional file. Subsequently, generate a national
file for each section. In the end, there was PSU, Region
and National folders created in this process.
(ii) Submission Analysis program
This program checks if all the sections have been
validated and writes the finding to three output files
(csv). These files are Kept cases, Removed cases and
Review cases. KEPT cases are all the validated and
complete households found in the data file. Removed
cases included all the households removed from the
data files. These can be blank households or replaced
households from the sampled households and/ or
household with missing sections either for household
or individual. Review cases consisted of all the
households that requires input / decision from subject
matter whether it should be KEPT or Removed from
the data file
(iii) Merge data program
This program simply merge all the data per section
into one file per household.
(iv) Data consistency check program
Numerous batch programs were developed to run
through the data to sort and fix inconsistencies. Main
programs developed were; Case specific edits program
this program allowed for the implementation of
edits which were specific to a case (household), these
edits were provided by subject matter after checking/
investigating each household. General edits program
this program fixed any data inconsistency found during
the run. Standardize data program removed deleted
persons and ensure that the head of household is on
the first row for each household. In the end, only valid
person lines are remaining in the data file. Recode
variables program this program recoded variable
values from the notes (Other specify) to different
values based on the input from subject matter (SM).
An excel sheet is provided to SM to put the correct
value for each case and variable for recoding, then
the program converted the excel sheet to CSpro
data file and implemented the changes. Add weight
program the weight was also applied through the
CSpro post data processing program. Sampling team
design weight (both individual and household) based
on the completeness of survey interviews by PSU.
Once the weight was applied to the dataset, Data
Processing (DP) runs the final Merge flatten program,
which converts and flattened the multi select answers
into more human readable data. The final step was to
drop the person identification information such as the
person name from the dataset, this was done via an
Anonymize data program.
The first stage of the data processing activities ends
at this stage, with the production of the version one
(1) dataset. The planning, design, develop, test and
implement the survey data management programs
took at least six months before actual fieldwork, while
the post data processing took only two (2) months to
complete after the fieldwork. The next process was the
secondly cleaning phase which was done by subject
matter and produced version two (2) of the dataset.
Chapter 1: Methodology
41Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
1.8.1 Secondary data validation, edit checks and analysis
The Demographic and Vital Statistics division together with the Social Statistics division, with technical assistance from the
ILO Department of STATISTICS has developed a comprehensive framework for processing NIDLS survey micro data set that
were received from the Data Processing Division. This framework is shown in figure 1.3 below.
Figure 1.3: Framework for producing standardised variable and indicators from NIDS
Concept map
1
Microdata
2
Statistical reporting
ILOSTAT/DPAU
routine
3. Output
(STATA/Excel)
ILOSTAT/DPAU
routine
1. Pre-processing
(STATA/Excel)
ILOSTAT/DPAU
routine
2. Post-processing
(STATA)
Clean the
microdata
The first phase, involves pre-processing activities of subject of the microdata set that was received from the Data Processing
division to strict and rigorous checks and validate whether the collected data followed the edits rules built into the CAPI
application before the data collection. The process involves developing STATA do-files programs to automate the checking
of all variables and flag violations of edit (e.g. skipping) rules, invalid geo-codes, missing data values, incorrect data values,
monotonic data values; and cases and section with missing values etc.
Reports generated from the STATA software particularly where there were violations of the edit rules were reviewed case
by case by the Subject matter staff and decisions where arrived at how to treat such cases.
1.8.2 Quality assurance
Data quality assurance is one of the cornerstones of a good statistical data system, and institutions mandated with the
responsibility of collecting demographic and household statistics must ensure that the data passes the test before being
released to the public. In the NIDS 2016 survey, efforts were made during the implementation of the survey to minimize
the under-coverage/over-coverage and non-response that may affect the quality of the survey estimates.
42 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 1: Methodology
1.9 Basic terminologies in
Demographic statistics
A major consideration with demographic surveys is to
ensure that the correct terminology was adopted. In
order to be able to interpret the results from the NIDS
2016, it is essential to be familiar with different concepts
and definitions that were used. Here the definition of
several key concepts used in the NIDS 2016 as well as some
standard survey terms are presented:
Population: All persons living in Namibia during the
reference period.
Total Population: All persons living in Namibia during the
reference period.
Age was defined as the number of completed years lived by
the respondent, i.e. age at last birthday.
Survey Reference Night (SRN): All interviews must relate
to SRN. The reference night was the night of 30 October
2016.
Private household: A private household is defined as one
or more persons, related or unrelated, who live together
in one (or part of one) or more than one dwelling unit and
have common catering arrangements and answerable to
the same head of household. A person who lives alone and
caters for himself/herself forms a one-person household.
Household members: Refers to all people who were actually
present in the household on the survey reference night,
including visitors, employees on night shift and resident
domestic servants and their families.
Head of household: The head of household is the person
of either sex who is looked upon by the other members
of household as their leader or main decision-maker. If
she/he was absent on the survey reference night, the next
responsible adult member should be entered as head. The
head should be 12 years or above.
De facto: A de-facto method enumerates all persons found
within the borders of a particular country at a particular
point in time (i.e. SRN). For example every person is
enumerated at a place or household where he/she spent
the SRN. This is the approach that has been adopted for
2016 NIDS.
Birth place: Birthplace refers to the place where the
respondents mother was usually living when she gave
birth, not the town or hospital where the respondent was
born.
Place of usual residence: Place of usual residence refers to
the place where a person usually lives for the most part of
any year (at least 6 months). It should not be confused with
hometown or where a person originally comes from.
Previous residence: Previous residence refers to the place
of residence 12 months prior to the survey date i.e. since
November 2015 to October 2016.
Orphan-hood: Orphan-hood refers to persons aged 18
years and below who have lost either one or both parents.
Disability: A disability is a condition of loss of physical
or mental function resulting in inability to perform daily
activities. Disability is aggravated by physical, personal and
environmental barriers. In the survey long term is defined
as a condition lasting more than six months.
Live birth: Thus, a live birth is a birth, which results in a child
that shows any sign of life irrespective of the time or period
within which these signs are manifested. Miscarriages or
abortions and stillbirths are not live births.
Chapter 1: Methodology
43Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
44 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
Chapter 2: Population
Structure, Composition
and Density
This chapter provides information on the estimated population size, structure,
composition and density. In addition, it also analyses the population trends
between 2011 and 2016 survey years.
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
45Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
2.1 Population size
The population has grown since the year 2011 and this is presented in figure 2.1.1 which shows the population
size by survey years and area. Namibian population was estimated to have increased from 2, 113,077 in 2011
and 2,324,388 in 2016.
Figure 2.1.1 Population size by year and area
Table 2.1.1 show the estimated population by urban and rural areas and regions during 2011 and 2016. The
result shows that the urban population increased from 42.8 percent in 2011 to 47.9 percent in 2016. This
indicates a high trend of rural to urban migration in Namibia. Rural population decreased from 57.2 percent
in 2011 to 52.1 percent in 2016. At regional level, Khomas region had the largest share of the total population
with 17.9 percent followed by Ohangwena (11.0%) and Omusati (10.8%). Omaheke had the smallest share of
the total population of 3.2 percent.
Table 2.1.1 Population size and percentage shared by year and area
Area
2011 2016
Population Percent Population Percent
Namibia 2 113 077 100.0 2 324 388 100.0
Urban 903 434 42.8 1 112 868 47.9
Rural 1 209 643 57.2 1 211 520 52.1
!Karas 77 421 3.7 85 759 3.7
Erongo 150 809 7.1 182 402 7.8
Hardap 79 507 3.8 87 186 3.8
Kavango East 136 823 6.5 148 466 6.4
Kavango West 86 529 4.1 89 313 3.8
Khomas 342 141 16.2 415 780 17.9
Kunene 86 856 4.1 97 865 4.2
Ohangwena 245 446 11.6 255 510 11.0
Omaheke 71 233 3.4 74 629 3.2
Omusati 243 166 11.5 249 885 10.8
Oshana 176 674 8.4 189 237 8.1
Oshikoto 181 973 8.6 195 165 8.4
Otjozondjupa 143 903 6.8 154 342 6.6
Zambezi 90 596 4.3 98 849 4.3
2.2 Sex composition and ratio
This sub-section presents information on the sex composition of the population which makes up important demographic
characteristics of the population.
Table 2.2.1 shows that female population continues to be higher than the male population, representing 51.4 percent
of the total population compared to 48.6 percent for males. A similar situation can be observed in urban and rural areas
where the females makes up 51.2 percent (urban) and 51.6 percent (rural) respectively. Some regions are characterised
by a greater number of females compared to males. The north-central regions and the two Kavango regions have higher
proportions of females ranging from 52 to 55 percent.
Sex ratio is another important measure of sex composition. It is defined as the proportion of males per 100 females in a
given population. Table 2.2.1 also provides the sex ratio by urban and rural areas and by regions. The sex ratio for Namibia
was 95 which means that there are on average 95 males for every 100 females in Namibia. The sex ratio for urban area
was slightly more than the rural areas. However, in some regions the sex ratio was recorded to be more than 100, which
means that there are relatively more males than females in those regions such as !Karas, Erongo, Hardap as well as
Kunene, Omaheke and Otjozondjupa.
Table 2.2.1 Population distribution and sex ratio by area
Area
2011
Population
2016
Population
2011 Percent
distribution
2016 Percent
distribution
2011
Sex
Ratio
2016
Sex
RatioMale Female Male Female
Namibia 2 113 077 2 324 388 48.4 51.6 48.6 51.4 94 95
Urban 903 434 1 112 868 48.7 51.3 48.8 51.2 95 95
Rural 1 209 643 1 211 520 48.1 51.9 48.4 51.6 93 94
!Karas 77 421 85 759 50.9 49.1 50.5 49.5 104 102
Erongo 150 809 182 402 52.9 47.1 52.9 47.1 112 112
Hardap 79 507 87 186 51.0 49.0 51.3 48.7 104 105
Kavango East 136 823 148 466 46.7 53.3 46.5 53.5 88 87
Kavango West 86 529 89 313 47.2 52.8 47.3 52.7 90 90
Khomas 342 141 415 780 49.6 50.4 49.6 50.4 98 98
Kunene 86 856 97 865 50.2 49.8 50.7 49.3 101 103
Ohangwena 245 446 255 510 45.7 54.3 46.2 53.8 84 86
Omaheke 71 233 74 629 52.2 47.8 52.8 47.2 109 112
Omusati 243 166 249 885 45.0 55.0 45.1 54.9 82 82
Oshana 176 674 189 237 45.3 54.7 45.4 54.6 83 83
Oshikoto 181 973 195 165 47.8 52.2 48.2 51.8 92 93
Otjozondjupa 143 903 154 342 51.4 48.6 51.5 48.5 106 106
Zambezi 90 596 98 849 48.7 51.3 49.0 51.0 95 96
46 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
2.3 Age group structure
The age distribution of the population by broad age groups and area is presented in Table 2.3.1. Namibia has a relatively
young population, with close to 36.4percent of the total population being less than 15 years of age. The share of young
people below the age of 15 years in rural areas was higher than in urban with 41.7 and 30.6 percent, respectively. Likewise,
the proportion of elderly population that is persons aged of 60 years and above in rural areas was twice as high as the
elderly population in urban areas with 8.3 percent compared to 4.1 percent. This was an indication that rural areas is
more characterised by elderly persons compare to urban areas. The situation was however different when it comes to
the working age population which made up 65.3 percent of the population in urban areas compare to only 50 percent in
rural areas. This situation can be attributed to the consequence of migration of working age population to urban areas.
Table 2.3.1 Percent distribution by broad age group and area
Area Total Age group0 - 4 5 - 14 15 - 59 60+
Namibia 2 324 388 13.8 22.6 57.3 6.3
Urban 1 112 868 13.7 16.9 65.3 4.1
Rural 1 211 520 14.0 27.7 50.0 8.3
!Karas 85 759 14.1 16.6 63.0 6.3
Erongo 182 402 12.6 15.7 66.9 4.8
Hardap 87 186 14.5 18.5 59.1 7.9
Kavango East 148 466 14.6 26.8 52.7 5.8
Kavango West 89 313 13.3 33.2 47.2 6.3
Khomas 415 780 13.3 15.6 67.8 3.3
Kunene 97 865 18.4 23.8 51.1 6.6
Ohangwena 255 510 13.7 29.5 49.1 7.6
Omaheke 74 629 20.1 19.4 54.1 6.4
Omusati 249 885 12.4 26.8 50.8 9.9
Oshana 189 237 13.5 20.7 59.2 6.6
Oshikoto 195 165 12.3 26.4 53.7 7.6
Otjozondjupa 154 342 15.4 22.3 56.3 6.0
Zambezi 98 849 12.9 26.0 56.3 4.8
Table 2.3.2 present the population distribution of youth (1534 years) by age group and area. Among the youth in Namibia
28.4 percent were in the age group of 15 19 years of age. This is characterised by 37.5 percent of the youth in this age
category who resides in rural areas as compared to 20.4 percent in urban areas. Overall the urban areas was dominated
by youth in older ages 25 to 34 years who made up 55.5 percent of the total population. At the regional level, northern
regions of Kavango West, Kavango East, Ohangwena, Omusati Oshikoto and Zambezi region had the largest proportions of
youth in younger age groups of 15 24 years. On the other hand Erongo regions had the highest proportions of over 60
percent of youth in older ages of 25 to 34 years.
Table 2.3.2 Percent distribution by youth age group and area
Area Total Age group15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34
Namibia 854 567 28.4 27.4 24.4 19.8
Urban 454 833 20.4 24.1 30.2 25.3
Rural 399 734 37.5 31.2 17.9 13.4
!Karas 30 371 19.1 25.8 29.7 25.4
Erongo 69 825 17.7 21.6 32.1 28.6
Hardap 30 139 21.5 26.5 28.6 23.4
Kavango East 55 820 33.1 28.2 21.9 16.8
Kavango West 28 981 38.2 32.5 19.3 10.0
Khomas 177 398 17.5 25.9 31.3 25.3
Kunene 31 678 27.0 24.7 28.2 20.1
Ohangwena 89 338 43.4 29.2 15.4 12.1
Omaheke 23 621 24.0 32.3 23.8 19.9
Omusati 85 289 41.5 30.7 14.4 13.5
Oshana 74 369 26.5 29.8 24.7 19.0
Oshikoto 68 733 34.4 27.6 22.7 15.3
Otjozondjupa 52 222 26.0 25.5 25.2 23.3
Zambezi 36 783 33.7 26.9 21.0 18.4
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
47Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
2.4 Age and sex pyramids
Age-sex pyramids, which are pyramids of the distribution of the population by age and sex provides an illustration of
important demographic characteristics of any population.
The national population pyramid presented in Figure 2.4.1 shows a very broad base illustrating young people and a very
narrow apex representing a small proportion of elderly people who are aged 60 years and older. Therefore Namibia can
be characterised as having a youthful population. Such shapes are a typical reflection of population that are characterised
by high fertility and mortality rates. Furthermore, the pyramid shows that the share of female population was larger than
that of males in older age groups.
Figure 2.4.1 National Population pyramid
There are significant differences in the age structure between urban and rural areas as observed in the pyramids presented
in Figures 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 respectively. The Urban pyramid is bulky in the middle relatively a narrow apex indicating that
urban areas have a larger proportion of working-age population (15-59 years) and a much smaller proportion of the elderly
people. The pyramid for the rural areas shows the opposite. It has relatively a broader base and apex which compared to
the urban pyramid was a reflection of a relatively higher proportions of both the young and old populations in that area.
This situation also reflects a selective of working age migration from rural to urban areas and vice versa for older persons.
48 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
Figure 2.4.2 Urban Population pyramid
Figure 2.4.3 Rural Population pyramid
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
49Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
2.5 Population growth
Table 2.5.1 provides the distribution of the annual population growth rates between 2011 and 2016 by area. Generally the
population of Namibia has been growing steadily and the table shows an annual population growth rate of 1.9 percent
between 2011 and 2016. The annual growth rate for urban areas was 4.2 percent, which is much higher than the national
growth rate. There was however, no growth recorded in rural areas due to high rural to urban migration.
The highest growth rates were recorded for Khomas with 3.9 percent and Erongo with 3.8 percent. The regions of Omusati
(0.5%) and Kavango West (0.6%) have the lowest growth rates across the regions.
Table 2.5.1 Population growth rate (2011 - 2016) by area
Area
Population
2011
Population
2016
Annual growth
rate (2011 -
2016)
Namibia 2 113 077 2 324 388 1.9
Urban 903 434 1 112 868 4.2
Rural 1 209 643 1 211 520 0.0
!Karas 77 421 85 759 2.0
Erongo 150 809 182 402 3.8
Hardap 79 507 87 186 1.8
Kavango East 136 823 148 466 1.6
Kavango West 86 529 89 313 0.6
Khomas 342 141 415 780 3.9
Kunene 86 856 97 865 2.4
Ohangwena 245 446 255 510 0.8
Omaheke 71 233 74 629 0.9
Omusati 243 166 249 885 0.5
Oshana 176 674 189 237 1.4
Oshikoto 181 973 195 165 1.4
Otjozondjupa 143 903 154 342 1.4
Zambezi 90 596 98 849 1.7
50 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
2.6 Population Density
Population density is the average number of people per square kilometre. Thus, it shows the relationship between a given
population to the size of the land area they are occupying. Population densities calculated for all regions are presented
in Table 2.6.
From the Table 2.6.1 the population density for Namibia has grown from 2.6 to 2.8 persons per square kilometre in 2016.
This was expected due to population growth.
At regional level, Ohangwena and Oshana were the most densely populated regions with 23.9 and 21.9 persons per
square kilometre, followed by Khomas with 11.3 persons per square kilometres. On the other hand, !Karas region was
the least densely populated region with a density of 0.5 persons per square kilometre followed by Hardap and Kunene
each with 0.8 persons per square kilometre. Omaheke also recorded a lesser density of 0.9 persons per square kilometre.
Table 2.6.1 Population density by survey years and area
Area
Area in
Km2
2011
Population
2016
Population
2011
Persons
per Km2
2016
Persons
per Km2
Namibia 825 229 2 113 077 2 324 388 2.6 2.8
!Karas 161 395 77 421 85 759 0.5 0.5
Erongo 63 639 150 809 182 402 2.4 2.9
Hardap 109 713 79 507 87 186 0.7 0.8
Kavango East 23 987 136 823 148 466 5.7 6.2
Kavango West 24 592 86 529 89 313 3.5 3.6
Khomas 36 949 342 141 415 780 9.3 11.3
Kunene 115 616 86 856 97 865 0.8 0.8
Ohangwena 10 709 245 446 255 510 22.9 23.9
Omaheke 84 742 71 233 74 629 0.8 0.9
Omusati 26 600 243 166 249 885 9.1 9.4
Oshana 8 656 176 674 189 237 20.4 21.9
Oshikoto 38 673 181 973 195 165 4.7 5.0
Otjozondjupa 105 295 143 903 154 342 1.4 1.5
Zambezi 14 663 90 596 98 849 6.2 6.7
Note: The population density for 2011 was adjusted using the correct area size
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
51Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Figure 2.4.4 Population density by area
!Karas
Kunene
Hardap
Erongo Omaheke
Otjozondjupa
Khomas
Oshikoto
Omusati
Zambezi
Kavango West
Ohangwena
Kavango EastOshana
Population density
<1.0
1.1 - 1.5
1.6- 3.6
3.7 - 6.7
6.7 - 11.2
>11.3
2.7 Marital status
All persons aged 8 years and above were asked to state their marital status in one of the following categories: never married,
married with certificate, married traditionally, consensual union, widowed, divorced, and separated. For international
comparisons the analysis focused only on the population aged 15 years and above although we acknowledge that there
could be cases of child marriage in Namibia.
Table 2.7.1 indicates that 63.5 percent of the population aged 15 years and older were never married at the time of the
survey. Slightly over 22 percent were either married with certificates or married traditionally. The table further reveals
that a higher proportion of males (66.5%) than females (60.9%) were never married. Approximately 9 percent of the
couples were in consensual unions. Furthermore there were relatively more females who were divorced, widowed or
separated than males
Table 2.7.1 Population aged 15 years and above by marital status and sex
Marital Status
Population Percent
Total Male Female Total Male Female
Total 1 478 193 703 139 775 054 100.0 100.0 100.0
Never Married 939 310 467 658 471 651 63.5 66.5 60.9
Married with Certificate 243 137 117 924 125 213 16.4 16.8 16.2
Married traditionally 87 515 41 215 46 300 5.9 5.9 6.0
Consensual Union 131 239 62 789 68 450 8.9 8.9 8.8
Windowed 51 154 5 434 45 720 3.5 0.8 5.9
Divorced 15 115 4 909 10 206 1.0 0.7 1.3
Separated 9 713 2 636 7 077 0.7 0.4 0.9
Don` t Know 1 010 574 436 0.1 0.1 0.1
52 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
2.8 Citizenship
The survey asked all people to state their country of citizenship, from which the number of Namibians and non-Namibians
was computed and the resulting outcome reported in Table 2.8.1. The largest part of the population (97%) were Namibians.
The table further indicates that amongst the non-Namibians enumerated, men (3.5%) were more than women (2.6%).
Table 2.8.1 Population by citizenship and sex
Citizenship Population PercentTotal Male Female Total Male Female
Total 2 324 388 1 129 754 1 194 634 100 100 100
Namibian 2 253 833 1 089 844 1 163 988 97.0 96.5 97.4
Non - Namibian 70 373 39 821 30 552 3.0 3.5 2.6
Not stated 182 89 93 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 2.8.2 below presents the distribution of non-Namibians by selected countries of origin. The presented countries are
only those countries of origin from which citizens constitute a substantial share of the total non-Namibian population.
Angolan nationals represented the highest proportion of foreigners residing in Namibia with 43.4 percent of which the
majority were females (44.6%) than males (42.4%). This was followed by Zambians who made up 15.2 percent followed
by Zimbabweans and South Africans who each constituted of 12.6 percent of foreign nationals in Namibia.
Table 2.8.2 Non-citizens population by sex
Citizenship Population PercentTotal Male Female Total Male Female
Total 70 373 39 821 30 552 100.0 100.0 100.0
Angola 30 521 16 883 13 638 43.4 42.4 44.6
Botswana 521 116 405 0.7 0.3 1.3
South Africa 8 839 4 694 4 145 12.6 11.8 13.6
Zambia 10 716 6 542 4 174 15.2 16.4 13.7
Zimbabwe 8 851 5 262 3 589 12.6 13.2 11.7
Other SADC Countries 1 433 936 497 2.0 2.4 1.6
Other African Countries 3 285 1 693 1 592 4.7 4.3 5.2
European Countries 3 155 1 468 1 687 4.5 3.7 5.5
American Countries 702 422 280 1.0 1.1 0.9
Asian Countries 1 925 1 640 286 2.7 4.1 0.9
Oceanic Countries 425 165 260 0.6 0.4 0.9
Figure 2.8 below shows the distribution of non-Namibians by selected countries of origin between 2011 and 2016.
Angolan nationals presented the highest proportion of foreigners in Namibia with a very high increase from 2011 to 2016.
The same trends was observed with the South Africans, Zambians and Zimbabweans. However, the proportion of other
African, European, American and Asian countries have decreased between 2011 and 2016.
Figure 2.8 Non-citizens population by year
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
53Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
2.9 Birth Registration
Information on whether the respondent was in possession of a Namibian birth registration certificate or not was collected
during the survey. Birth certificates provide proof of identity and it is essential to obtain national identity card as it facilitates
accessing of social services, such as social grants and educational services.
The result presented in Table 2.9.1 shows that a significant proportion, 87.8 percent of the population had Namibian birth
certificates while 1.5 percent had other Non-Namibian birth certificates. In contrast, the result further indicates that 10.4
percent of the population are without birth certificates. Similar results is reflected at both urban/rural and across regional
divide. In particular, at regional level, the highest proportions of people with birth certificates was in !Karas, (96.2%), Erongo
(93%), Hardap (92.4%) and Khomas (91.3%). The result further showed that the Kavango West region had the highest
percentage of the population without birth certificates (32.2 percent) followed by Kavango East with 19.9 percent and
Zambezi region with 17.2 percent respectively.
Table 2.9.1 Status of having a birth certificate by area
Area Population
With Namibian
Birth
Certificate
With Non-
Namibian Birth
Certificate
Without Birth
Certificate
Don`t
Know
Namibia 2 324 388 87.8 1.5 10.4 0.3
Urban 1 112 868 91.4 2.1 6.2 0.3
Rural 1 211 520 84.6 0.9 14.2 0.3
!Karas 85 759 96.2 1.0 2.7 0.0
Erongo 182 402 93.0 2.1 4.6 0.2
Hardap 87 186 92.4 0.4 6.6 0.6
Kavango East 148 466 79.5 0.2 19.9 0.4
Kavango West 89 313 67.3 0.3 32.2 0.2
Khomas 415 780 91.3 3.9 4.6 0.2
Kunene 97 865 90.7 0.2 8.7 0.4
Ohangwena 255 510 84.9 0.8 14.0 0.3
Omaheke 74 629 89.5 0.9 8.9 0.7
Omusati 249 885 86.2 0.8 12.6 0.3
Oshana 189 237 92.7 0.9 6.1 0.2
Oshikoto 195 165 86.9 0.6 12.3 0.3
Otjozondjupa 154 342 90.9 0.7 8.1 0.3
Zambezi 98 849 78.3 4.2 17.2 0.2
Table 2.9.2 shows the status of having a birth certificate for population aged 0-5 years. It is observed from the table that
77.6 percent of the population aged 0-5 had Namibian birth certificates, while 21.4 percent were without a Namibian
birth certificate. Those with the non-Namibian birth certificates accounts for less than 1 percent.
Table 2.9.2 Population aged 0-5 years by status of having a birth certificate and area
Area Total
Yes,
Namibian
Yes, Non
Namibian
No
Dont
Know
Total 388 178 77.6 0.5 21.4 0.5
Urban 175 305 84.4 1.0 14.5 0.1
Rural 212 874 71.9 0.2 27.1 0.9
!Karas 13 924 95.4 0.0 4.6 0.0
Erongo 26 057 90.1 0.3 9.6 0.0
Hardap 15 603 83.9 0.0 16.1 0.0
Kavango East 26 316 58.1 0.2 41.0 0.7
Kavango West 15 468 44.9 0.0 54.9 0.3
Khomas 63 961 87.9 2.0 10.0 0.0
Kunene 21 522 83.0 0.0 16.4 0.7
Ohangwena 44 472 71.5 0.3 27.6 0.7
Omaheke 17 674 79.8 0.1 18.1 2.0
Omusati 37 896 74.9 0.1 23.6 1.3
Oshana 30 826 83.3 0.7 15.9 0.0
Oshikoto 30 427 71.6 0.1 27.4 0.8
Otjozondjupa 28 197 80.7 0.0 18.6 0.7
Zambezi 15 835 65.5 1.1 33.1 0.4
54 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
2.10 National Identification Document
The Survey asked people aged 16 years and above to state whether they were in possession of national Identification
Document (ID). National Identification document are issued to Namibian citizens or permanent residence permit holders
who are 16 years or older. The ID card serves as a legal form of identity for a person to identify her/himself and is important
to access national services and facilities when dealing with public and private institutions.
The result presented in Table 2.10.1 shows that a significant proportion (82.9%) of the population had Namibian ID, with
the urban areas having the highest proportion of 88.9 percent compared to 76.2 percent in rural areas. At regional level,
the highest proportions of people with Namibian ID were in !Karas with 93.1 percent and Erongo with 91.3 percent. In
contrast, Kavango West (31.8%), Zambezi (24.9%) and Kavango East (22.1%) were the regions with the highest percentage
of the population without Namibian IDs.
Table 2.10.1 Population aged 16 years and above by national ID status and area
Area Total
With
Namibian ID
With South
West
African ID
Without ID
Don`t
Know
Not
stated
Namibia 1 427 395 82.9 0.8 12.8 0.1 3.4
Urban 754 224 88.9 0.5 7.9 0.1 2.5
Rural 673 171 76.2 1.1 18.2 0.2 4.4
!Karas 58 374 93.1 0.3 4.6 0.0 2.0
Erongo 128 276 91.3 0.4 6.0 0.1 2.2
Hardap 57 493 87.7 0.8 8.7 0.1 2.8
Kavango East 83 387 72.1 1.7 22.1 0.3 3.8
Kavango West 45 613 62.3 1.8 31.8 0.3 3.9
Khomas 290 098 89.8 0.6 7.4 0.0 2.1
Kunene 54 448 84.6 0.3 11.8 0.2 3.2
Ohangwena 135 908 75.3 0.8 18.4 0.2 5.3
Omaheke 44 306 85.3 0.7 11.3 0.1 2.6
Omusati 144 041 76.0 0.8 17.5 0.1 5.6
Oshana 120 134 87.9 0.5 8.3 0.3 3.0
Oshikoto 114 461 79.5 1.2 14.8 0.2 4.3
Otjozondjupa 93 485 85.9 0.8 10.4 0.2 2.8
Zambezi 57 372 69.7 0.7 24.9 0.1 4.5
With respect to the age classifications, Table 2.10.2 presents the distribution of national ID status among the age groups. It is
worth noting that only a smaller proportion (41.3%) of the youth aged 16 to 19 years had national identity cards as compared
to 33 percent who had no identity cards. Furthermore, there are still a notable proportion amongst the population in the age
group from 40 to 44 years and above who are still in position of the old South West Africa (SWA) ID cards.
Table 2.10.2 Population aged 16 years and above by national ID status and age group
Age
group
Population
With
Namibian
ID
With South
West African
ID
Without
ID
Don`t
Know
Not
stated
Total 1 427 395 82.9 0.8 12.8 0.1 3.4
16 - 19 192 021 41.3 0.0 33.0 0.3 25.4
20 - 24 234 097 82.6 0.0 17.2 0.2 0.0
25 - 29 208 797 90.1 0.0 9.7 0.2 0.0
30 - 34 168 854 90.4 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0
35 - 39 140 133 90.8 0.0 9.1 0.1 0.0
40 - 44 116 501 92.2 0.3 7.4 0.1 0.0
45 - 49 90 798 91.3 1.7 6.8 0.1 0.0
50 - 54 74 259 91.0 3.4 5.6 0.0 0.0
55 - 59 56 074 91.9 2.8 5.2 0.0 0.0
60 - 64 42 602 92.4 2.3 5.3 0.0 0.0
65 - 69 31 485 92.2 1.7 5.9 0.2 0.0
70 - 74 22 204 91.0 2.8 6.2 0.0 0.0
75 - 79 19 178 92.9 3.3 3.8 0.0 0.0
80 - 84 11 867 91.3 3.5 5.2 0.0 0.0
85 - 89 9 301 89.3 6.6 4.1 0.0 0.0
90 - 94 4 682 83.3 11.3 4.4 1.0 0.0
95+ 4 542 82.8 10.7 6.5 0.0 0.0
Chapter 2: Population Structure, Composition and Density
55Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
56 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
Chapter 3: Population
Characteristics
This chapter deals with characteristics of the population and the sub-topics
discussed includes: Disability, Orphan-hood, Information Communication
Technology (ICT) and health facilities.
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
57Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
3.1 Disability
Disability means physical, pyscho-social or sensory impairment that alone or in combination with social and
environmental barriers, affects the ability of a person concerned to take part in education, vocational or
recreational activities (National Disability Policy, 1997).
For the purpose of this survey, long term is defined as a condition lasting for more than six months, however,
obvious disabilities such as legs and arms amputations, were recorded even if they happened within less than
six months.
Seven types of disability were identified for this purpose: hearing impairment, visual impairment, speech
impairment, physical impairment of lower and upper limbs, mental disability and albinism. It is important to
mention that the survey collected information on albinism in order to identify these groups of people for the
formulation of special programmes and policies targeting this special group.
Although disability is manifested in any form that can be categorised as either mild or profound (severe) it is
important to note that the survey collected all the disabilities as per the definition above regardless of their
seriousness.
The result presented in Table 3.1.1 reveals that 4.7 percent of the total population were persons with disabilities
comprising of 4.8 percent males and 4.6 females. The proportion of persons with disabilities was higher in
rural (6.0%) than in urban (3.3%) areas. Regional figures show that Kavango West (7.6%) and Ohangwena
(6.8%) recorded the highest proportions of persons with disabilities, while Khomas region (2.3%) recorded the
lowest number of persons with disabilities.
Table 3.1.1 Population with disability by sex and area
Area
Population With Disabilities Percent
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
Namibia 2 324 388 1 129 754 1 194 634 108 992 54 102 54 890 4.7 4.8 4.6
Urban 1 112 868 542 893 569 975 36 404 18 247 18 156 3.3 3.4 3.2
Rural 1 211 520 586 861 624 659 72 588 35 855 36 733 6.0 6.1 5.9
!Karas 85 759 43 270 42 489 3 006 1 541 1 465 3.5 3.6 3.4
Erongo 182 402 96 524 85 878 4 955 2 769 2 186 2.7 2.9 2.5
Hardap 87 186 44 715 42 471 2 319 1 158 1 161 2.7 2.6 2.7
Kavango East 148 466 69 102 79 364 8 837 4 070 4 767 6.0 5.9 6.0
Kavango West 89 313 42 220 47 093 6 807 3 536 3 271 7.6 8.4 6.9
Khomas 415 780 206 090 209 690 9 670 5 638 4 032 2.3 2.7 1.9
Kunene 97 865 49 596 48 269 4 742 2 794 1 949 4.8 5.6 4.0
Ohangwena 255 510 117 944 137 566 17 497 8 274 9 222 6.8 7.0 6.7
Omaheke 74 629 39 382 35 247 3 287 1 912 1 375 4.4 4.9 3.9
Omusati 249 885 112 812 137 073 14 950 6 214 8 736 6.0 5.5 6.4
Oshana 189 237 85 995 103 242 11 587 5 209 6 378 6.1 6.1 6.2
Oshikoto 195 165 94 100 101 065 10 681 5 542 5 139 5.5 5.9 5.1
Otjozondjupa 154 342 79 561 74 781 6 629 3 455 3 174 4.3 4.3 4.2
Zambezi 98 849 48 443 50 406 4 024 1 990 2 033 4.1 4.1 4.0
Table 3.1.2 shows that visual impairment was the most common type of disability affecting 29.3 percent of persons with
disabilities. Similarly, Physical Impairment of Lower Limbs (26.4%) and Upper limbs (20.6%) were the second and third
most sited type of disability.
Table 3.1.2 Population with disability by type and sex
Disability type
Number
Percent
Total Male Female Total Male Female
Total (1) 108 992 54 102 54 890
Hearing impairment 17 454 7 686 9 768 16.0 14.2 17.8
Visual impairment 31 968 14 047 17 920 29.3 26.0 32.6
Speech impairment 7 488 4 285 3 204 6.9 7.9 5.8
Physical impairment - upper limb 22 450 12 266 10 184 20.6 22.7 18.6
Physical impairment - lower limb 28 745 15 232 13 513 26.4 28.2 24.6
Mental disability 16 609 8 456 8 153 15.2 15.6 14.9
Albinism 822 419 403 0.8 0.8 0.7
Other (2) 820 414 406 0.8 0.8 0.7
Dont Know 706 396 310 0.6 0.7 0.6
Note: (1). Total is the number of person with disability hence this is not the total in the column as some people have multiple disabilities
(2). Other includes person with multiple disabilities not listed such as paralyzed etc&
Table 3.1.3 shows that at a national level, visual impairment was the most common type of disability reported, affecting
29.3 percent of persons with disabilities. Urban and rural areas had a similar pattern, where visual impairment affected
32.2 and 27.4 percent respectively. At regional level, most of the regions recorded visual impairment as the most type of
disability.
58 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
Ta
bl
e
3.
1.
3
Po
pu
la
tio
n
w
ith
d
is
ab
ili
ty
b
y
ty
pe
a
nd
a
re
a
Ar
ea
To
ta
l*
He
ar
in
g
im
pa
irm
en
t
Vi
su
al
im
pa
irm
en
t
Sp
ee
ch
im
pa
irm
en
t
Ph
ys
ic
al
im
pa
irm
en
t -
up
pe
r l
im
b
Ph
ys
ic
al
im
pa
irm
en
t -
lo
w
er
li
m
b
M
en
ta
l
di
sa
bi
lit
y
Al
bi
ni
sm
O
th
er
Do
n
t
Kn
ow
N
am
ib
ia
1
08
9
92
16
.0
29
.3
6.
9
20
.6
26
.4
15
.2
0.
8
0.
8
0.
6
U
rb
an
3
6
40
4
16
.2
33
.2
7.
1
19
.2
27
.0
9.
2
0.
6
1.
0
0.
9
Ru
ra
l
7
2
58
8
15
.9
27
.4
6.
7
21
.3
26
.1
18
.2
0.
8
0.
6
0.
5
!K
ar
as
3
0
06
18
.9
37
.8
10
.1
12
.0
20
.0
18
.2
0.
0
1.
9
0.
0
Er
on
go
4
9
55
16
.8
35
.9
5.
7
16
.4
28
.5
8.
2
2.
4
0.
0
1.
2
H
ar
da
p
2
3
19
13
.5
32
.5
10
.7
9.
4
29
.6
9.
5
0.
0
2.
1
3.
4
Ka
va
ng
o
Ea
st
8
8
37
14
.4
30
.7
4.
8
22
.7
22
.5
15
.6
0.
4
0.
0
0.
0
Ka
va
ng
o
W
es
t
6
8
07
15
.2
26
.3
6.
0
22
.9
23
.7
13
.6
2.
7
0.
0
0.
8
Kh
om
as
9
6
70
19
.5
33
.6
11
.3
21
.6
21
.6
7.
0
0.
9
1.
0
0.
0
Ku
ne
ne
4
7
42
9.
8
25
.8
10
.1
20
.6
39
.7
12
.6
0.
7
0.
0
0.
6
O
ha
ng
w
en
a
1
7
49
7
18
.2
25
.5
5.
3
25
.3
25
.6
18
.0
0.
3
0.
0
0.
3
O
m
ah
ek
e
3
2
87
10
.9
30
.4
13
.1
25
.4
25
.6
20
.9
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
O
m
us
ati
1
4
95
0
18
.7
29
.5
8.
0
13
.8
20
.2
21
.8
1.
8
1.
2
1.
4
O
sh
an
a
1
1
58
7
15
.5
31
.9
6.
9
20
.3
30
.3
13
.1
0.
0
0.
0
0.
5
O
sh
ik
ot
o
1
0
68
1
11
.7
20
.5
3.
6
22
.1
38
.8
16
.1
0.
5
3.
1
0.
6
O
tjo
zo
nd
ju
pa
6
6
29
12
.8
38
.8
3.
4
22
.7
27
.4
14
.4
0.
0
0.
0
1.
4
Za
m
be
zi
4
0
24
21
.4
24
.5
7.
0
22
.3
16
.7
14
.4
0.
0
2.
5
0.
0
N
ot
e:
To
ta
l*
is
th
e
nu
m
be
r o
f p
er
so
n
w
ith
d
isa
bi
liti
es
, h
en
ce
th
is
is
no
t t
he
to
ta
l i
n
th
e
co
lu
m
n
as
so
m
e
pe
rs
on
s h
av
e
m
ul
tip
le
d
isa
bi
liti
es
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
59Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
With respect to multiple disabilities, Table 3.1.4 shows that 86.3 percent of persons with disability, where affected by one
type of disabilities. Similarly, 10.8 percent were affected by two disability types, while 2.9 percent were affected by three
types of disabilities.
Table 3.1.4 Population with multiple disabilities by area
Area Total
With one
Disability
With two
Disability
With three
Disability
Namibia 108 992 86.3 10.8 2.9
Urban 36 404 87.9 9.9 2.3
Rural 72 588 85.5 11.3 3.2
!Karas 3 006 84.1 12.9 2.9
Erongo 4 955 85.5 13.7 0.8
Hardap 2 319 89.9 9.6 0.5
Kavango East 8 837 90.4 8.1 1.5
Kavango West 6 807 90.8 7.2 2.0
Khomas 9 670 87.8 8.0 4.2
Kunene 4 742 85.5 9.2 5.4
Ohangwena 17 497 83.3 15.1 1.7
Omaheke 3 287 82.1 9.5 8.4
Omusati 14 950 87.7 8.2 4.1
Oshana 11 587 84.0 13.5 2.5
Oshikoto 10 681 86.7 9.5 3.8
Otjozondjupa 6 629 82.2 14.6 3.2
Zambezi 4 024 91.3 8.7 0.0
Table 3.1.5 shows that about 63.6 percent of the population that were aged 15 years and above with disabilities had
difficulties engaging in any economic activity of which there were no major differences between females (64.2%) and
males ( 62.8%). A high proportions of these persons were in rural (68.9%) than in urban (53.3%) areas.
Table 3.1.5 Population aged 15 years and above with difficulties to engage in any economic activities
Area
With Disabilities Inability Percent
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
Namibia 94 328 45 890 48 438 59 953 28 833 31 120 63.6 62.8 64.2
Urban 32 215 15 890 16 324 17 168 7 924 9 244 53.3 49.9 56.6
Rural 62 113 30 000 32 113 42 785 20 908 21 876 68.9 69.7 68.1
!Karas 2 597 1 469 1 128 1 543 850 693 59.4 57.9 61.4
Erongo 4 555 2 477 2 077 2 529 1 406 1 123 55.5 56.8 54.1
Hardap 1 942 1 028 914 1 102 657 445 56.7 63.9 48.7
Kavango East 7 513 3 373 4 140 5 302 2 045 3 257 70.6 60.7 78.7
Kavango West 5 517 2 775 2 742 4 275 2 172 2 103 77.5 78.3 76.7
Khomas 8 800 4 953 3 846 4 360 2 344 2 016 49.5 47.3 52.4
Kunene 3 997 2 376 1 620 2 460 1 419 1 041 61.6 59.7 64.2
Ohangwena 14 835 6 794 8 042 10 237 4 790 5 447 69.0 70.5 67.7
Omaheke 2 775 1 555 1 219 1 641 966 675 59.1 62.1 55.4
Omusati 13 148 5 393 7 755 9 237 3 842 5 396 70.3 71.2 69.6
Oshana 10 236 4 465 5 770 6 490 2 770 3 719 63.4 62.0 64.5
Oshikoto 8 790 4 232 4 558 5 330 2 893 2 437 60.6 68.3 53.5
Otjozondjupa 6 088 3 370 2 718 3 126 1 731 1 394 51.3 51.4 51.3
Zambezi 3 536 1 629 1 907 2 322 946 1 376 65.7 58.1 72.1
60 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
The result presented in Table 3.1.6 shows that 52.2 percent of persons aged 4 years and above had difficulties engaging
in any learning activity. The majority (56.7%) of these persons are found in rural areas as oppose to urban areas (43.2%).
At regional disaggregation, the result showed that Kavango West (71.3%), !Karas (62.3%) and Omusati (61.9%) regions had
the highest percentage of person aged 4 years and above having difficulties in any learning activities. On the other hand
the percentage where lowest in Khomas region accounting for 36.1 percent.
Table 3.1.6 Population aged 4 years and above with difficulties to engage in any learning activities
Area
With Disabilities Inability Percent
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
Namibia 107 171 53 145 54 026 55 938 27 263 28 675 52.2 51.3 53.1
Urban 35 724 17 830 17 894 15 439 7 074 8 365 43.2 39.7 46.8
Rural 71 447 35 315 36 133 40 498 20 189 20 309 56.7 57.2 56.2
!Karas 2 941 1 541 1 400 1 850 853 997 62.9 55.3 71.3
Erongo 4 810 2 624 2 186 2 169 1 117 1 052 45.1 42.6 48.1
Hardap 2 271 1 158 1 112 978 480 498 43.1 41.4 44.8
Kavango East 8 573 3 951 4 622 5 245 2 391 2 854 61.2 60.5 61.8
Kavango West 6 727 3 484 3 243 4 798 2 390 2 407 71.3 68.6 74.2
Khomas 9 670 5 638 4 032 3 491 1 788 1 703 36.1 31.7 42.2
Kunene 4 575 2 709 1 866 1 987 1 094 892 43.4 40.4 47.8
Ohangwena 17 394 8 226 9 168 9 235 4 375 4 860 53.1 53.2 53.0
Omaheke 3 186 1 811 1 375 1 566 930 636 49.2 51.4 46.3
Omusati 14 645 6 063 8 582 9 067 3 982 5 085 61.9 65.7 59.3
Oshana 11 393 5 170 6 223 5 329 2 356 2 973 46.8 45.6 47.8
Oshikoto 10 334 5 325 5 010 5 052 2 758 2 294 48.9 51.8 45.8
Otjozondjupa 6 629 3 455 3 174 3 107 1 669 1 438 46.9 48.3 45.3
Zambezi 4 024 1 990 2 033 2 064 1 079 985 51.3 54.2 48.4
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
61Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
3.2 Orphan-hood
For this survey, orphan hood refers to the state of being 18 years of age and below, who is without one or both parents
due to death. Although this analysis only look at orphan hood for this age group, Information on orphans was collected
from all members of the households.
Table 3.2.1 reveals that 11.1 percent of all children aged 18 years and below had lost at least one parent, with only 1.4
percent indicated having lost both parents. Orphan hood was more prevalent in rural than in urban areas with 13 percent
of the population in this age group being orphaned by at least one parent compared to rural areas which had 8.2 percent.
At regional level, the highest levels of orphan hood was recorded in Zambezi with 16.6 percent followed by Kavango East
and Ohangwena with 15.9 and 15.5 percent of children who were orphaned respectively. A slightly low levels of orphan
hood were recorded in Erongo and Khomas with 6.2 and 7.8 percent respectively.
Table 3.2.1 Percent distribution of orphans aged 18 years and below by Orphan-hood status and area
Area
Population age
18 years and
below
With one
parent
dead
With both
parent
dead
Namibia 1 043 323 11.1 1.4
Urban 413 196 8.2 1.1
Rural 630 128 13.0 1.6
!Karas 30 942 8.6 1.6
Erongo 61 667 5.6 0.6
Hardap 33 811 11.0 1.3
Kavango East 76 569 13.9 2.0
Kavango West 50 793 12.9 1.1
Khomas 142 915 6.8 1.0
Kunene 48 322 13.5 1.3
Ohangwena 142 376 13.9 1.6
Omaheke 33 673 7.3 0.7
Omusati 128 305 13.0 1.6
Oshana 80 996 11.7 1.4
Oshikoto 95 116 12.5 1.3
Otjozondjupa 68 672 7.3 1.0
Zambezi 49 166 14.6 2.0
62 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
In addition, Table 3.2.2 presents a comparison of orphans with at least one parent dead between 2011 and 2016. It is
evident from the table that overall at national level, there has been a decline in 2016 in the number of orphans aged
18 years and below from 2011. This result is further observed at urban/rural levels. However a different picture can be
observed at regional level, where regions such as !Karas, Hardap, Kavango East, Kavango West, Kunene, Otjozondjupa and
Zambezi showing an increase in the percentage of orphans in 2016. The highest increase were recorded in Kunene (2.7%),
Kavango East (1.4%) and Zambezi (1.2%), whereas Khomas region has recorded no change in the percentage of orphans
with at least one parent dead.
Table 3.2.2 Percent distribution of orphans aged 18 years and below by orphan with at least one parent dead and
area, 2011 and 2016
Area
Orphan with at
least one parent
dead 2011
Orphan with at
least one parent
dead 2016
Namibia 150 589 129 920
Urban 28.6 29.6
Rural 71.4 70.4
!Karas 2.3 2.4
Erongo 3.2 3.0
Hardap 2.6 3.2
Kavango East 8.0 9.4
Kavango West 4.9 5.4
Khomas 8.5 8.5
Kunene 2.8 5.5
Ohangwena 18.1 17.0
Omaheke 2.5 2.1
Omusati 16.8 14.5
Oshana 10.2 8.2
Oshikoto 10.8 10.1
Otjozondjupa 4.3 4.4
Zambezi 5.1 6.3
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
63Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
3.3. Information Communication Technology (ICT)
This section provides valuable information on ICT which is required by institutions that deals with ICT infrastructure and
regulations such as Telecommunication of Namibia, Mobile Tele Communication (MTC) and Communications Regulatory
Authority of Namibia (CRAN), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and Scan Information and Communication
(ICT).
Information on mobile phone usage is presented in Table 3.3.1. The results show that 79.2 percent of the population
aged 15 years and above owned mobile phones, with a high proportion (88.0%) in urban areas than rural areas (69.6%).
At regional level, Erongo and Khomas had the highest proportion of well over 90 percent, while Kavango West was the
lowest with 52.1 percent.
Table 3.3.1 Percent of population aged 15 years and above by mobile phone status in the last three months and area
Area
Population
aged 15+
Owns a
mobile phone
Neither owns
nor used a
mobile phone
Does not own
a mobile but
used one
Owns a
mobile phone
Neither owns
nor used a
mobile phone
Does not own
a mobile but
used one
Namibia 1 478 193 1 171 307 143 689 163 029 79.2 9.7 11.0
Urban 772 262 679 804 35 609 56 705 88.0 4.6 7.3
Rural 705 931 491 503 108 079 106 325 69.6 15.3 15.1
!Karas 59 447 50 720 3 836 4 891 85.3 6.5 8.2
Erongo 130 791 120 219 3 216 7 357 91.9 2.5 5.6
Hardap 58 401 44 603 5 482 8 316 76.4 9.4 14.2
Kavango East 86 941 58 836 13 335 14 770 67.7 15.3 17.0
Kavango West 47 746 24 887 10 104 12 754 52.1 21.2 26.7
Khomas 295 684 270 069 8 327 17 288 91.3 2.8 5.8
Kunene 56 549 35 867 11 186 9 496 63.4 19.8 16.8
Ohangwena 145 074 101 811 24 171 19 092 70.2 16.7 13.2
Omaheke 45 155 33 496 6 350 5 285 74.2 14.1 11.7
Omusati 151 780 110 807 20 179 20 794 73.0 13.3 13.7
Oshana 124 524 106 863 6 808 10 801 85.8 5.5 8.7
Oshikoto 119 561 92 224 16 062 11 275 77.1 13.4 9.4
Otjozondjupa 96 136 80 155 6 169 9 748 83.4 6.4 10.1
Zambezi 60 404 40 750 8 466 11 160 67.5 14.0 18.5
Information on the population that own a mobile phone by type is presented in Table 3.3.2. It was observed that 58.2
percent of the population aged 15 years and above owned a basic phone. The majority (73.1%) who owns a basic phone
were in rural area as opposed to 47.5 percent who are in urban areas. Similarly, feature phones were also common in
rural areas owned by 15.1 percent of the population ages 15 years and above compared to 12.7 percent owned in urban
areas. However in contrast, smart phones appear to be more common with urban population with 39.8 percent of the
population 15 years and above owning one compare to only 11.8 percent in rural areas.
The above results are further reflected at regional levels, where most urbanised regions appear to have low percentage
of the population owning feature phones and high on the proportion owning smart phones.
64 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
Table 3.3.2 Percent of population aged 15 years and above owning mobile phones by type of mobile phone and area
Area Population
Basic
phone
Feature
phone
Smart
phone
Basic
phone
Feature
phone
Smart
phone
Namibia 1 171 307 682 122 160 709 328 475 58.2 13.7 28.0
Urban 679 804 322 926 86 478 270 401 47.5 12.7 39.8
Rural 491 503 359 196 74 232 58 075 73.1 15.1 11.8
!Karas 50 720 26 503 7 493 16 724 52.3 14.8 33.0
Erongo 120 219 46 090 18 227 55 902 38.3 15.2 46.5
Hardap 44 603 29 261 6 018 9 324 65.6 13.5 20.9
Kavango East 58 836 38 726 9 251 10 859 65.8 15.7 18.5
Kavango West 24 887 20 444 2 052 2 391 82.1 8.2 9.6
Khomas 270 069 121 000 30 471 118 598 44.8 11.3 43.9
Kunene 35 867 23 088 5 073 7 706 64.4 14.1 21.5
Ohangwena 101 811 76 175 12 451 13 185 74.8 12.2 13.0
Omaheke 33 496 18 913 6 417 8 165 56.5 19.2 24.4
Omusati 110 807 85 377 15 853 9 576 77.1 14.3 8.6
Oshana 106 863 64 858 11 317 30 689 60.7 10.6 28.7
Oshikoto 92 224 59 832 15 681 16 712 64.9 17.0 18.1
Otjozondjupa 80 155 45 366 12 730 22 059 56.6 15.9 27.5
Zambezi 40 750 26 488 7 677 6 585 65.0 18.8 16.2
The result on the distribution of the population aged 15 years and above who used a computer in the last 3 months by
area is presented in Table 3.3.3. The results shows that 71.5 percent of the population aged 15 years and above have not
used a computer in the last three months, of which the majority (87.6%) were in rural areas.
At regional level, Kavango West (92.7%) had the highest proportion of the population that have not used a computer while
Erongo region recorded the lowest proportion of 47.4 percent.
Table 3.3.3 Percent of population aged 15 years and above who used a Computers in last three months by area
Area
Population
aged 15+
Not used
Used his
or her own
computer
or laptop
Used the
household
computer
or laptop
Used a
computer
or laptop at
work, school
or Internet
Cafe
Used a
mobile
phone that
you do not
own
Used a
computer/
laptop/
tablet that
you do not
own
Dont
know
Namibia 1 478 193 71.5 15.5 4.1 5.2 1.1 2.0 0.5
Urban 772 262 56.9 22.8 6.5 8.8 1.5 2.9 0.5
Rural 705 931 87.6 7.6 1.4 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.6
!Karas 59 447 64.8 19.9 4.9 6.5 1.1 2.6 0.2
Erongo 130 791 47.4 33.0 7.7 6.1 2.5 2.7 0.8
Hardap 58 401 83.3 8.8 1.8 4.4 0.8 0.8 0.1
Kavango East 86 941 82.3 11.0 2.3 1.8 0.4 1.4 0.7
Kavango West 47 746 92.7 4.0 0.6 1.6 0.2 1.0 0.0
Khomas 295 684 51.2 22.3 9.7 12.8 1.1 2.7 0.3
Kunene 56 549 84.4 8.8 1.7 3.1 0.9 0.9 0.1
Ohangwena 145 074 86.5 9.4 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.5 0.2
Omaheke 45 155 78.8 12.7 1.8 3.7 1.2 1.3 0.5
Omusati 151 780 86.9 7.6 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.9
Oshana 124 524 66.4 17.4 3.2 5.7 1.9 3.6 1.8
Oshikoto 119 561 82.3 9.7 1.6 2.7 1.1 1.8 0.9
Otjozondjupa 96 136 73.0 17.9 2.6 4.1 0.8 1.4 0.0
Zambezi 60 404 82.2 9.6 3.2 2.2 0.7 1.7 0.4
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
65Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Similarly, the result of the distribution of the population aged 15 years and above who used internet in the last 3 month
presented in Table 3.3.4 shows that 80 percent of the population have not used internet in the last three months. Rural
areas had the highest proportion (92.7%) of the population who did not use internet in the last 3 months, contributing to
this were the rural regions of Kavango West, Omusati, Ohangwena and Kunene with over 90 percent.
Table 3.3.4 Percent of population aged 15 years and above who used internet in the last 3 months
Area
Population
aged 15+
Not used
Used the
Internet
on own
mobile
phone
only
Used it
only on a
computer/
laptop/
tablet
Used it on
own mobile
phone
and on a
computer/
laptop/
tablet
Dont
know
Namibia 1 478 193 80.0 7.9 4.1 7.4 0.5
Urban 772 262 68.4 12.6 7.1 11.4 0.6
Rural 705 931 92.7 2.8 0.9 3.1 0.5
!Karas 59 447 75.3 8.5 6.0 9.8 0.4
Erongo 130 791 67.0 11.1 8.5 12.5 0.8
Hardap 58 401 88.1 5.4 2.8 3.7 0.1
Kavango East 86 941 86.6 5.0 2.5 5.3 0.6
Kavango West 47 746 95.5 1.9 0.7 2.0 0.0
Khomas 295 684 59.9 18.5 9.3 12.0 0.3
Kunene 56 549 90.3 4.1 1.5 3.9 0.1
Ohangwena 145 074 91.9 2.6 1.4 4.0 0.1
Omaheke 45 155 85.0 5.2 2.0 7.3 0.5
Omusati 151 780 92.6 1.7 0.4 4.5 0.8
Oshana 124 524 77.4 7.5 2.9 10.4 1.7
Oshikoto 119 561 88.7 4.2 1.2 5.3 0.6
Otjozondjupa 96 136 85.3 6.8 3.4 4.0 0.4
Zambezi 60 404 87.2 4.1 3.2 5.0 0.4
66 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
3.4 Health facility
Table 3.4.1 presents the percent distribution of population acquiring medical services by type of health facility and area.
The table shows that the majority (43.9%) of the population acquires their medical services from clinics, while 28.1 percent
receive their medical services from hospitals. Overall, clinics (54%) and health centres (15.1%) were most common in the
rural areas, while facilities like hospitals (33.7%), private doctor (17.8%) and spiritual healers (0.5%) were common in
urban centres.
At regional level, the result show that a large percentage of people in most regions, with exceptions of Erongo, Khomas,
Kunene, Omaheke, Oshana and Otjozondjupa utilise clinics for medical care. On the other hand, hospitals were more
prominent in regions such as Erongo, Kunene, Oshana and Omusati, having the highest proportion of the population
receiving medical services from hospitals. Private Doctors were more prominent in Khomas with a large share of 25.6
percent receiving medical services from this facility compare to other regions.
Table 3.4.1 Percent distribution of population acquiring medical services by type of health facility and area
Area Population Hospital
Health
Centre
Clinic VCT
Traditional
Healers
Spiritual
healers
Private
Doctor
Other None
Dont
Know
Namibia 2 324 388 28.1 12.6 43.9 0.0 0.1 0.3 9.7 2.8 2.5 0.1
Urban 1 112 868 33.7 10.0 33.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 17.8 2.1 2.8 0.1
Rural 1 211 520 22.9 15.1 54.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.2 3.4 2.2 0.0
Karas 85 759 16.3 8.4 61.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.8 0.2 1.8 0.1
Erongo 182 402 42.8 13.3 22.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 15.6 3.1 2.1 0.1
Hardap 87 186 15.1 1.4 69.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.5 2.8 0.0
Kavango East 148 466 15.8 3.4 75.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.8 1.2 0.0
Kavango West 89 313 3.5 40.4 49.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.1 3.7 1.7 0.0
Khomas 415 780 22.2 11.6 36.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 25.6 1.8 2.6 0.1
Kunene 97 865 43.2 14.4 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.5 4.0 0.0
Ohangwena 255 510 27.1 13.0 52.2 0.1 0.5 0.0 2.8 3.2 1.1 0.0
Omaheke 74 629 22.3 25.1 37.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.6 1.9 3.5 0.0
Omusati 249 885 30.6 18.9 45.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.4 1.5 0.1
Oshana 189 237 45.8 10.8 32.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 6.4 2.8 1.2 0.0
Oshikoto 195 165 25.0 7.8 49.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 8.7 3.0 0.1
Otjozondjupa 154 342 45.9 4.5 25.0 0.0 0.3 2.9 9.3 4.7 7.1 0.2
Zambezi 98 849 17.7 16.5 56.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.2 0.8 3.3 0.1
Note: Other: Includes health facilities not in the list provided by MoHSS
Chapter 3: Population Characteristics
67Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
68 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 4: Education And Literacy
Chapter 4: Education
And Literacy
This chapter deals with information on education (including early
childhood development) and literacy which are crucial for planning
and monitoring national development programs and plans that aim to
address challenges in the education sector.
Chapter 4: Education And Literacy
69Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
4.1 Early Childhood Development (ECD)
Information on early childhood development (ECD) were collected from children aged 0-5 years on the type of
ECD programmes attended, which were Edu-care (day-care, crèche, and kindergarten), pre-primary and primary
school.
Table 4.1.1 below shows that the 2016 Intercensal survey estimated a total of 388,202 children aged 0-5 years
and out of this number, 24.6 percent were attending ECD programmes country wide. The access in urban areas
was better with 30.4 percent of the population aged 0-5 years attending ECD facilities compared to rural areas
where only 19.9 percent were attending. Slightly more boys than girls were attended ECD in urban areas.
At regional level, a higher proportion of children attended ECD were in Erongo (37.7%), Khomas (34.3%) and
Oshana (33.6%), while Kunene region had the lowest (8.8%) proportion of children attending ECD.
Table 4.1.1 Population aged 0-5 years attending ECD by sex and area
Area
Children 0 - 5 years
Attending ECD
Percent attending
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
Namibia 388 202 196 165 192 037 95 659 47 399 48 260 24.6 24.2 25.1
Urban 175 328 88 476 86 852 53 298 27 402 25 896 30.4 31.0 29.8
Rural 212 874 107 689 105 185 42 361 19 997 22 364 19.9 18.6 21.3
!Karas 13 924 6 605 7 319 3 723 1 620 2 103 26.7 24.5 28.7
Erongo 26 057 12 977 13 080 9 830 5 072 4 758 37.7 39.1 36.4
Hardap 15 603 7 585 8 019 2 864 1 234 1 630 18.4 16.3 20.3
Kavango East 26 316 13 679 12 637 4 052 1 807 2 245 15.4 13.2 17.8
Kavango West 15 468 7 762 7 706 3 136 1 660 1 476 20.3 21.4 19.1
Khomas 63 961 32 490 31 471 21 930 12 199 9 731 34.3 37.5 30.9
Kunene 21 522 10 731 10 791 1 888 805 1 083 8.8 7.5 10.0
Ohangwena 44 472 22 862 21 610 11 397 6 013 5 383 25.6 26.3 24.9
Omaheke 17 674 8 741 8 933 2 072 992 1 080 11.7 11.3 12.1
Omusati 37 896 18 558 19 337 8 033 3 802 4 232 21.2 20.5 21.9
Oshana 30 826 15 300 15 526 10 350 4 564 5 787 33.6 29.8 37.3
Oshikoto 30 427 15 934 14 494 8 110 3 510 4 600 26.7 22.0 31.7
Otjozondjupa 28 197 14 655 13 543 5 163 2 652 2 511 18.3 18.1 18.5
Zambezi 15 858 8 287 7 572 3 111 1 469 1 642 19.6 17.7 21.7
Table 4.1.2 shows the population aged 0 to 5 years who were attending ECD by type of programme and areas.
Attendance in Edu-care programmes was higher (79.1%) followed by pre-primary (19.2%). As expected for
children in this age group, primary school recorded the lowest proportion (1.7%) of children attending this
program. Edu-care programme was the most common in all the regions, exception in Kavango East which has a
lower percentage of 47.8 percent.
Table 4.1.2 Percentage of children aged 0-5 years attending ECD by type and area
Area Total ECD
ECD Programme
Edu-care Pre-Primary
Primary
School
Namibia 95 659 79.1 19.2 1.7
Urban 53 297 81.7 16.5 1.8
Rural 42 362 75.8 22.5 1.6
!Karas 3 723 75.9 22.6 1.5
Erongo 9 830 88.1 11.3 0.5
Hardap 2 864 85.6 12.5 2.0
Kavango East 4 051 47.8 46.5 5.7
Kavango West 3 136 74.1 24.8 1.2
Khomas 21 930 78.9 18.8 2.4
Kunene 1 888 68.7 31.3 0.0
Ohangwena 11 397 90.1 9.9 0.0
Omaheke 2 072 73.8 26.2 0.0
Omusati 8 033 79.0 18.6 2.4
Oshana 10 350 79.9 19.8 0.3
Oshikoto 8 110 83.1 16.1 0.8
Otjozondjupa 5 163 70.8 23.6 5.6
Zambezi 3 111 66.2 30.1 3.7
Table 4.1.3 shows population aged 4-5 years attending ECD by type. Information on various types of ECD programmes were
collected with the main focus being pre-primary, which lays a foundation for a childs enrolment into primary education.
The total number of children aged 4-5 years was 129,932 and out of this number, 38 percent were attending Edu-care,
12.5 percent were attending pre-primary school and only 1.6 percent were attending primary school. In contrast, 47.8
percent were not attending any ECD programme.
With respect to urban/rural, most (45.1%) of the population aged 4-5 years that are attending ECD were in urban areas,
while the majority (54.4%) of those in rural areas where not attending ECD.
At regional level, the percentage of the population who are attending ECD where higher in areas such as Oshana (53.5%)
and Ohangwena (51.0%), while those that are not attending were more prominent in regions such as Kunene (76.0%),
Omaheke (72.4%) and Kavango East (60.1%).
Table 4.1.3 Population aged 4-5 years attending ECD by type and area
Area Population Edu-care
Pre-
Primary
Attending
Primary
School
Not
Attending
ECD
Dont
know
Namibia 129 932 38.0 12.5 1.6 47.8 0.1
Urban 52 197 45.1 14.5 2.2 38.0 0.1
Rural 77 735 33.2 11.0 1.2 54.4 0.2
!Karas 3 864 41.5 17.1 1.5 39.9 0.0
Erongo 8 676 48.3 12.6 0.6 38.5 0.0
Hardap 5 043 40.6 6.7 1.1 51.6 0.0
Kavango East 8 502 17.1 19.3 3.1 60.1 0.3
Kavango West 6 230 33.1 11.4 0.6 55.0 0.0
Khomas 19 643 42.3 17.6 3.4 36.7 0.0
Kunene 6 985 16.1 8.0 0.0 76.0 0.0
Ohangwena 16 700 51.0 5.5 0.7 42.5 0.3
Omaheke 5 244 17.2 10.3 0.0 72.4 0.0
Omusati 13 191 36.7 9.8 2.2 51.3 0.0
Oshana 10 514 53.5 17.7 0.3 28.1 0.0
Oshikoto 11 245 44.4 11.2 1.0 43.4 0.0
Otjozondjupa 8 478 27.6 11.2 3.4 56.9 1.0
Zambezi 5 616 24.0 16.0 2.0 57.9 0.0
Note: Educare includes Day-care, Crèche, Kinder-garten
70 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 4: Education And Literacy
Similarly, Table 4.1.4 presents the distribution of the number of children aged 4-5 years by reason for not attending
ECD. The main reason for not attending ECD at national level was distance to centres cited by 41.6 percent of the target
population, while 36.2 percent were not attending due to financial constraints. Illness and disability accounted for less
than 2 percent of the reasons for not attending ECD. Furthermore, at urban/rural level, financial constraints (56.5%) was
the main reason for not attending ECD in urban areas as opposed to distance to centre (53.1%) which was prominent in
rural areas. These results translate further at the regional levels.
Table 4.1.4 Percentage of children aged 4-5 years by reason of not attending ECD and area
Area Total
Reason not attending ECD
Financial
constraints
Illness Disability
Distance
to centre
Other
Dont
know
Namibia 62 109 36.2 1.4 1.1 41.6 15.7 4.0
Urban 19 825 56.5 3.8 1.2 16.9 18.1 3.6
Rural 42 284 26.8 0.3 1.1 53.1 14.5 4.2
!Karas 1 543 42.2 2.2 0.0 26.5 21.3 7.8
Erongo 3 340 42.2 0.5 0.0 32.0 22.1 3.2
Hardap 2 602 71.9 1.5 0.0 13.8 9.2 3.5
Kavango East 5 112 36.3 1.1 1.4 43.3 9.9 7.9
Kavango West 3 427 24.2 2.8 2.5 48.1 16.6 5.8
Khomas 7 205 65.1 6.8 2.2 13.2 10.3 2.5
Kunene 5 305 35.9 0.0 0.4 35.9 23.9 3.9
Ohangwena 7 095 22.4 0.3 0.8 59.8 15.5 1.2
Omaheke 3 798 33.4 1.7 1.9 45.9 16.0 1.1
Omusati 6 765 24.6 0.0 1.2 54.0 11.7 8.5
Oshana 2 958 44.0 0.0 2.5 34.7 18.8 0.0
Oshikoto 4 885 17.1 0.0 0.7 69.3 12.0 0.8
Otjozondjupa 4 823 30.7 0.0 0.0 35.7 28.8 4.8
Zambezi 3 251 35.9 1.6 1.4 45.4 9.8 5.8
Chapter 4: Education And Literacy
71Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
4.2 Formal Education
Formal education was defined as a full-time attendance at any regular educational institution, public or private, for
systematic instruction.
The categories of formal education used during the survey were: pre-primary, primary schools, secondary or high schools,
technical schools, agricultural institutions, teacher training colleges and universities.
4.2.1 School Attendance
Figure 4.2.1 presents the population aged 6 years and above by school attendance and area. The figure indicates that
54.2 percent had left school, followed by 34.1 percent who were currently attending school while only 9.2 percent never
attended school. A similar trend was observed for urban and rural areas.
Figure 4.2.1 Percent distribution of population aged 6 years and above by school attendance and area
4.2.2 School Enrolment
Figure 4.2.2a shows percent school enrolment for school-going population aged 6 to 24 years. Enrolment rates were high
for ages 7 to 15 years, exceeding 90 percent but started decreasing at age 18. The highest enrolment rate was at age 10
for girls (97%) and for boys it was highest at age 11 (96%). The population aged 24 years had the lowest enrolment rate,
which was recorded to be close to 12 percent for both boys and girls.
Figure 4.2.2a School enrolment of the school going population aged 6-24 years by sex
72 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 4: Education And Literacy
Figure 4.2.2b provides school enrolment rates for persons aged 6-24 by sex and area. The result shows that enrolment
rates were slightly higher in rural area (72.5%) than in urban area (68.7%). The figure further reveals that school enrolment
was high in Omusati region where it was above 78.2 percent. By contrast, the lowest rates of enrolment were recorded in
Kunene region where only less than half of the school-going population was enrolled in school.
Figure 4.2.2b Enrolment rate for school going population aged 6-24 years by area
Primary school enrolment rate is presented in table 4.2.2. The result shows that overall the enrolment rate for Primary
school was 94.7 percent for children aged 7-13 years old. The enrolment rate was higher (97%) in urban than in rural
areas (93%). More girls in this age group were likely to enrol in school than boys. At regional level, the highest enrolment
rate of 98 percent was recorded in Oshana region, while Kunene region recorded the lowest enrolment rate of children
in Primary school of 68 percent.
Table 4.2.2 Primary school enrolment for population aged 7-13 years old by sex and area
Area
Population aged 7 - 13
Enrolled
Enrolment rate
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
Total 357 736 179 444 178 293 338 772 168 334 170 438 94.7 93.8 95.6
Urban 129 444 63 999 65 445 125 503 61 509 63 994 97.0 96.1 97.8
Rural 228 292 115 445 112 848 213 269 106 825 106 444 93.4 92.5 94.3
!Karas 9 587 5 110 4 477 9 269 5 004 4 265 96.7 97.9 95.3
Erongo 19 148 9 466 9 682 18 539 9 160 9 379 96.8 96.8 96.9
Hardap 10 847 5 789 5 057 10 007 5 219 4 788 92.3 90.1 94.7
Kavango East 27 299 13 071 14 229 26 059 11 917 14 142 95.5 91.2 99.4
Kavango West 20 725 10 500 10 225 20 001 10 019 9 982 96.5 95.4 97.6
Khomas 44 563 22 773 21 790 43 207 22 158 21 049 97.0 97.3 96.6
Kunene 14 471 7 429 7 041 9 841 4 860 4 981 68.0 65.4 70.7
Ohangwena 50 770 25 264 25 506 48 443 23 810 24 633 95.4 94.2 96.6
Omaheke 9 149 5 010 4 139 8 020 4 183 3 837 87.7 83.5 92.7
Omusati 48 110 24 172 23 938 46 842 23 489 23 353 97.4 97.2 97.6
Oshana 26 416 13 072 13 344 25 894 12 794 13 100 98.0 97.9 98.2
Oshikoto 35 575 17 642 17 933 34 143 16 679 17 464 96.0 94.5 97.4
Otjozondjupa 23 624 11 655 11 968 21 890 10 957 10 933 92.7 94.0 91.3
Zambezi 17 453 8 490 8 964 16 618 8 084 8 535 95.2 95.2 95.2
Chapter 4: Education And Literacy
73Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Figure 4.2.2c presents the primary school enrolment rate by area and years. The results show that overall the enrolment
rate for children aged 7-13 years old had increased with 8 percentage points, from 87 percent in 2011 to 95 percent in
2016. The enrolment rate also increased in both urban and rural areas as well as across regions. At the regional level,
the highest increase in enrolment was in Kavango West with an increment of 16 percent between 2011 and 2016, while
Hardap region recorded the lowest increase of 3 percent.
Figure 4.2.2c Primary school enrolment for population aged 7-13 years old by area and year
4.2.3 Educational Attainment
Table 4.2.3 shows that the largest proportion (49.7 percent) of the population aged 15 years and above had completed
primary education before leaving school, while another 22.6 percent had completed secondary school. On the other
hand, 18.4 percent of the population aged 15 years and above did not complete primary, with only 0.5 percent having no
formal education. The percentage of those who left school after completing tertiary education was only 8 percent.
Table 4.2.3 Percent of the population aged 15 years and above who left school by sex and educational attainment
Educational attainment Total Male Female Total Male Female
Total 1 000 768 470 626 530 142 100 100 100
No formal education 4 922 1 653 3 269 0.5 0.4 0.6
Incomplete primary 184 234 93 210 91 025 18.4 19.8 17.2
Complete primary 497 459 224 718 272 741 49.7 47.7 51.4
Complete Secondary education 225 874 109 816 116 058 22.6 23.3 21.9
Complete Tertiary 79 638 36 543 43 095 8.0 7.8 8.1
Other 2 925 1 236 1 689 0.3 0.3 0.3
Dont Know 5 716 3 449 2 266 0.6 0.7 0.4
74 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 4: Education And Literacy
With respect to comparison between 2011 and 2016, Figure 4.2.3 shows that generally the level of education is increasing
in Namibia although the population who completed primary education still dominates among the levels of education
attainment. The proportion of those with Primary education had increased from 48.5 percent in 2011 to 49.7 percent in
2016. It is also worth noting that the proportion of those with incomplete primary education, had decreased from 23.7
percent in 2011 to 18.4 percent in 2016.
Figure 4.2.3 Percent of the population aged 15 years and above who left school by educational attainment and year
Chapter 4: Education And Literacy
75Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
4.3 Literacy
During the survey, specific Information on education and literacy was collected from all persons aged 6 years and above
but the analysis focused on 15 years and above.
Literacy is defined as the ability to read and write with understanding in any language. All people aged 6 years and above
were asked whether they could read and write in any language with understanding, however no test was administered to
actually determine the level of literacy, hence it is possible that literacy rate could be overestimated.
Table 4.3.1 provides information on literacy rates for the population aged 15 years and above, usually referred to as the
adult literacy rate. This table shows that literacy rate in Namibia was 88.7 percent with more literate males (89.4%) than
their females (87.9%) counterparts. The adult literacy rate in urban stood at 94.1 compared to 82.7 percent in rural areas.
Furthermore, literacy was high in the region of Khomas (96.7%) and low in Kunene (66.5%) region.
Table 4.3.1 Literate population aged 15 years and above by sex and area
Area
Population aged 15 years and above Literate Literacy rate
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
Namibia 1 478 193 703 139 775 054 1 310 456 628 848 681 609 88.7 89.4 87.9
Urban 772 262 372 270 399 992 726 497 350 777 375 720 94.1 94.2 93.9
Rural 705 931 330 869 375 062 583 959 278 070 305 889 82.7 84.0 81.6
!Karas 59 447 30 044 29 403 57 109 28 985 28 125 96.1 96.5 95.7
Erongo 130 791 70 462 60 329 125 414 67 891 57 524 95.9 96.4 95.4
Hardap 58 401 30 154 28 247 49 483 25 282 24 201 84.7 83.8 85.7
Kavango East 86 941 38 362 48 579 73 677 33 841 39 835 84.7 88.2 82.0
Kavango West 47 746 21 065 26 681 36 103 16 548 19 555 75.6 78.6 73.3
Khomas 295 684 145 757 149 927 286 072 140 039 146 033 96.7 96.1 97.4
Kunene 56 549 28 589 27 960 37 582 20 167 17 415 66.5 70.5 62.3
Ohangwena 145 074 62 384 82 690 124 204 53 690 70 515 85.6 86.1 85.3
Omaheke 45 155 24 297 20 858 34 021 18 291 15 730 75.3 75.3 75.4
Omusati 151 780 63 482 88 298 133 021 57 158 75 863 87.6 90.0 85.9
Oshana 124 524 53 895 70 629 117 077 51 031 66 045 94.0 94.7 93.5
Oshikoto 119 561 55 773 63 788 105 252 48 376 56 877 88.0 86.7 89.2
Otjozondjupa 96 136 49 891 46 245 79 817 41 334 38 483 83.0 82.8 83.2
Zambezi 60 404 28 984 31 420 51 625 26 216 25 409 85.5 90.4 80.9
The level of literacy in Namibia for the population 15 years and above remained the same between 2011 and 2016 with
88.7 percent of the population being literate this trend is also observed in the rural areas.
Furthermore, for urban areas, the literacy rate recorded a decrease in 2016 when compared to 2011. Literacy rate
decreases in most regions in 2016 except for regions such as Kavango East, Kunene, Omaheke and Zambezi respectively.
Figure 4.3.1 Literate population aged 15 years and above by area and year
76 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 4: Education And Literacy
Table 4.3.2 indicates that the literacy rate for the youth (15-34 years) in Namibia was 93.6 percent, with slightly high
proportions of women (97.1%) than men (96.4%) being literate. The urban areas showed a higher rate of youth literate
with 96.7 percent compare to rural areas which had a rate of 90 percent. The table also shows that youth literacy was
highest in !Karas (98.1%) and lowest in Kunene (70.9%).
Table 4.3.2 Literate youth population aged 15 - 34 years by sex and area
Area
Population aged 15 - 34 years and
above
Literate Literacy rate
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
Namibia 854 567 419 535 435 032 799 782 390 533 409 249 93.6 93.1 94.1
Urban 454 833 217 038 237 795 439 976 209 156 230 821 96.7 96.4 97.1
Rural 399 734 202 497 197 237 359 806 181 377 178 428 90.0 89.6 90.5
!Karas 30 371 15 191 15 180 29 787 14 849 14 938 98.1 97.8 98.4
Erongo 69 825 37 062 32 763 68 252 36 406 31 846 97.7 98.2 97.2
Hardap 30 139 15 813 14 326 27 540 14 396 13 144 91.4 91.0 91.7
Kavango East 55 820 25 519 30 301 53 191 24 222 28 969 95.3 94.9 95.6
Kavango West 28 981 13 432 15 549 25 852 11 690 14 162 89.2 87.0 91.1
Khomas 177 398 86 034 91 364 173 523 83 580 89 943 97.8 97.1 98.4
Kunene 31 678 16 061 15 617 22 476 11 853 10 623 70.9 73.8 68.0
Ohangwena 89 338 42 309 47 029 82 704 38 650 44 054 92.6 91.4 93.7
Omaheke 23 621 12 842 10 779 18 905 10 214 8 691 80.0 79.5 80.6
Omusati 85 289 40 613 44 676 80 912 38 748 42 164 94.9 95.4 94.4
Oshana 74 369 34 242 40 127 72 630 33 353 39 277 97.7 97.4 97.9
Oshikoto 68 733 34 993 33 740 64 075 31 974 32 101 93.2 91.4 95.1
Otjozondjupa 52 222 27 264 24 958 46 188 23 878 22 310 88.4 87.6 89.4
Zambezi 36 783 18 160 18 623 33 748 16 721 17 027 91.7 92.1 91.4
In addition, the distribution of literate population aged 15 years and above by sex and first language in which they
are literate presented in Table 4.3.3 indicates that about 25.5 percent of all literate persons can write and read with
understanding in Oshindonga, followed by Oshikwanyama (21.9%) and English (14.6%).
Table 4.3.3 Percentage of Literate population aged 15 years and above by sex and first language in which they are
literate
First language Total Male Female
Literate Population 1 310 456 628 848 681 609
Ju/hoansi 0.1 0.1 0.1
Silozi (Sikololo) 4.2 4.3 4.0
Otjiherero 5.8 5.9 5.7
Rukwangali 6.5 6.1 6.7
Thimbukushu 1.3 1.3 1.2
Rumanyo 1.7 1.9 1.6
Khoekhoegowab 3.5 3.6 3.4
Oshikwanyama 21.9 21.5 22.3
Oshindonga 25.5 24.4 26.5
Setswana 0.2 0.2 0.2
Afrikaans 13.2 13.6 12.8
German 0.6 0.5 0.6
English 14.6 15.1 14.1
French 0.6 0.8 0.4
Italian 0.1 0.0 0.1
Other Language 0.4 0.5 0.3
Dont know 0.1 0.1 0.0
Chapter 4: Education And Literacy
77Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
78 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 5: Population Trends
Chapter 5: Population Trends
This chapter discusses fertility and mortality estimates as well as migration
presented at national, rural/urban and regional levels. The indices of fertility
and mortality presented herein are: crude birth rate (CBR) and crude death
rate (CDR).
Chapter 5: Population Trends
79Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
5.1 FERTILITY
The survey collected information on live births from women aged 12-54 years as well as month and year of last
live birth. However, for the sake of comparability, the fertility indicators will be computed for women of child
bearing ages 15 to 49. This section only presents Crude Birth Rate (CBR). Crude birth rate is a general indicator of
fertility in a population for a particular country or area. CBR is defined as the number of births in a year divided
by the mid-year population, times 1,000. The indicator on CBR includes all births in the population including
from women outside the reproductive age group 15 49. CBR is given by the formula:
x 1000
B
p
Where B is births in a year, P is the total population or mid-year population.
By international standards a crude birth rate (CBR) of more than 30 per 1,000 is considered high, while a CBR of
less than 18 is considered low.
5.1.1 Reported Births
The reported CBR for Namibia was 32.6 births per 1,000 persons, which is slightly high. This implies that for
every 1,000 population there were about 33 births, which is slightly less than what was reported in 2011 (29.4
births). There is a slight difference between urban and rural areas with the CBR of 31.7 and 33.4 births per 1,000
population respectively. At regional level, Kavango East and Kunene had the highest CBR of 45.5 and 43.7 births,
respectively, which is much higher than the national CBR, while Erongo region recorded the lowest CBR of 22.5
births for every 1,000 population.
Table 5.1 Reported Crude birth rate by area, NIDS 2016
Area Population
Reported
Births 15-49
CBR
Namibia 2 324 388 75 765 32.6
Urban 1 112 868 35 309 31.7
Rural 1 211 520 40 457 33.4
!Karas 85 759 2 890 33.7
Erongo 182 402 4 101 22.5
Hardap 87 186 2 548 29.2
Kavango East 148 466 6 751 45.5
Kavango West 89 313 3 095 34.7
Khomas 415 780 12 043 29.0
Kunene 97 865 4 277 43.7
Ohangwena 255 510 9 750 38.2
Omaheke 74 629 1 962 26.3
Omusati 249 885 8 396 33.6
Oshana 189 237 6 371 33.7
Oshikoto 195 165 6 274 32.1
Otjozondjupa 154 342 3 776 24.5
Zambezi 98 849 3 532 35.7
Figure 5.1 Shows that there were slight difference in terms of CBR for 2011 (29.4) and 2016 (32.6) births at national level.
Furthermore, at regional level, most regions had recorded an increase in the CBR in 2016 except for Erongo, Omaheke
and Otjozondjupa region.
Figure 5.1 Reported Crude Birth rate, 2011 Census and 2016 NIDS by area
80 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 5: Population Trends
5.2 Mortality
Mortality is one of the three factors that affect the population size, age and sex distribution. Other factors are fertility and
migration. Information on deaths in the last 12 months, starting from November 2015 to October 2016 was collected to
give indication of the mortality situation in the households during the above mentioned period.
5.2.1 Reported Deaths
Table 5.2 presents the number of reported deaths in the last 12 months by sex and area. The results show that a total of
25,096 deaths has occurred during the last 12 months prior to the survey. Households in rural areas reported 4,558 more
deaths than those in urban areas. At regional level, Omusati reported the highest number of deaths (2,859), followed by
Ohangwena with 2,533 and Kavango East with 2,509 deaths.
Table 5.2 Number of reported deaths in the last 12 months by sex and area
Area Total Female Male
Namibia 25 096 11 609 13 487
Urban 10 269 4 932 5 337
Rural 14 827 6 677 8 150
!Karas 829 360 468
Erongo 1 800 920 881
Hardap 1 374 632 743
Kavango East 2 509 1 417 1 092
Kavango West 1 535 695 840
Khomas 2 197 956 1 241
Kunene 856 327 528
Ohangwena 2 533 936 1 597
Omaheke 1 454 532 922
Omusati 2 859 1 182 1 677
Oshana 1 595 825 770
Oshikoto 2 300 1 169 1 130
Otjozondjupa 2 021 980 1 040
Zambezi 1 234 677 558
Furthermore, Figure 5.2 shows the percent distribution of reported deaths in the last 12 months by sex and areas. The
majority (53.7%) of the reported deaths were for males as compared to 46.3 percent of reported deaths attributed to
females. The same trend was also observed in urban and rural areas.
Figure 5.2 Percent distribution of reported deaths in the last 12 months by sex and area
Chapter 5: Population Trends
81Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Figure 5.3 shows the distribution of reported deaths by age and sex. The results show that deaths are more among
children under five years and this is mainly attributed to infant deaths who are dying before reaching the age of one.
Regarding the population in the working ages, deaths were more among the males than females, while at older ages of
90 and above it is observed that female deaths were more than males.
Figure 5.3 Distribution of reported deaths by age and sex, Namibia 2016
5.2.2 Crude Death Rate (CDR)
Crude Death Rate (CDR) is defined as the number of deaths that occurred in a given calendar year per 1,000 people in
the population.
At national level, the CDR was estimated to be 10.8 deaths per 1,000 people (Table 5.2.1). Furthermore, there were more
deaths reported in rural (12.2) compared to urban (9.2) areas. At regional level the highest death rate was in Omaheke
with 19.5 deaths per 1000 people, while Khomas reported the lowest CDR of 5.3.
Table 5.2.1 Number of reported deaths in the last 12 months and Crude death rate by area
Area Population
Reported
deaths
CDR
Namibia 2 324 388 25 096 10.8
Urban 1 112 868 10 269 9.2
Rural 1 211 520 14 827 12.2
!Karas 85 759 829 9.7
Erongo 182 402 1 800 9.9
Hardap 87 186 1 374 15.8
Kavango East 148 466 2 509 16.9
Kavango West 89 313 1 535 17.2
Khomas 415 780 2 197 5.3
Kunene 97 865 856 8.7
Ohangwena 255 510 2 533 9.9
Omaheke 74 629 1 454 19.5
Omusati 249 885 2 859 11.4
Oshana 189 237 1 595 8.4
Oshikoto 195 165 2 300 11.8
Otjozondjupa 154 342 2 021 13.1
Zambezi 98 849 1 234 12.5
82 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 5: Population Trends
Similarly, the distribution of the age-specific mortality is presented in Table 5.2.2. It can be observed that although deaths
is high among children from ages 0 to 4 years, the distribution continue to fluctuate with respect to various age groups.
For instance the proportion of deaths is relatively low among children in the age groups of 5 to 19 years before gradually
increased from the age group of 20 to 24 to older age groups.
Table 5.2.2 Percent by age and sex, Namibia
Reported
age at
death
Population Death Percent died
Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male
under1 67 735 33 319 34 417 2 351 1 268 1 083 3.5 3.8 3.1
1-4 254 190 125 826 128 363 1 542 960 582 0.6 0.8 0.5
5-9 284 647 141 151 143 496 284 154 129 0.1 0.1 0.1
10-14 239 623 119 284 120 339 452 260 192 0.2 0.2 0.2
15-19 242 819 122 491 120 328 452 251 201 0.2 0.2 0.2
20-24 234 097 119 344 114 753 1 210 384 825 0.5 0.3 0.7
25-29 208 797 106 322 102 475 1 612 503 1 109 0.8 0.5 1.1
30-34 168 854 86 875 81 979 1 985 846 1 139 1.2 1.0 1.4
35-39 140 133 72 053 68 080 2 417 815 1 602 1.7 1.1 2.4
40-44 116 501 60 720 55 781 1 477 648 829 1.3 1.1 1.5
45-49 90 798 48 349 42 449 1 273 562 711 1.4 1.2 1.7
50-54 74 259 40 664 33 595 1 492 701 791 2.0 1.7 2.4
55-59 56 074 31 965 24 109 656 192 464 1.2 0.6 1.9
60-64 42 602 24 274 18 328 1 156 580 577 2.7 2.4 3.1
65-69 31 485 17 326 14 159 1 023 651 372 3.2 3.8 2.6
70-74 22 204 13 080 9 124 1 114 526 588 5.0 4.0 6.4
75-79 19 178 11 417 7 762 663 396 267 3.5 3.5 3.4
80+ 30 391 20 174 10 217 3 938 1 913 2 024 13.0 9.5 19.8
5.2.3 Death Registration
Table 5.2.3 indicates that most deaths (93.5) in Namibia were registered. Death registration was over 90 percent in both
urban and rural areas. At regional level, the highest registered deaths were recorded in Hardap where 98.4 percent
of deaths were registered. It is also worth noting that all regions except Kavango East (83.1%), Kunene (79.4%) and
Otjozondjupa region (85.4%) have death registration of over 90 percent.
Table 5.2.3 Reported deaths in the last 12 months by registration status and area
Area Total
Percent
death
registered
Percent
death
NOT
registered
Percent
Dont
know
Namibia 25 096 93.5 4.4 2.4
Urban 10 269 92.7 2.7 4.8
Rural 14 827 94.0 5.6 0.8
!Karas 829 94.3 0.0 5.7
Erongo 1 800 96.0 4.2 0.0
Hardap 1 374 98.4 0.0 1.7
Kavango East 2 509 83.1 14.6 4.8
Kavango West 1 535 94.1 4.8 1.4
Khomas 2 197 96.6 0.0 3.4
Kunene 856 79.4 26.1 0.0
Ohangwena 2 533 97.9 2.1 0.0
Omaheke 1 454 96.1 4.0 0.0
Omusati 2 859 97.9 2.1 0.0
Oshana 1 595 97.6 2.4 0.0
Oshikoto 2 300 93.8 2.2 4.0
Otjozondjupa 2 021 85.4 3.9 11.2
Zambezi 1 234 92.5 8.2 0.0
Chapter 5: Population Trends
83Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
5.3 Migration
The survey also asked questions to determine the migration status of each person. Persons were enumerated at the
place where they spent the survey Reference Night of 30 October 2016. However, it should be noted that some people
were not counted at their usual place of residence. Likewise, some members of the population were no longer residing
in their original place of birth. Others have moved to other regions. In an effort to capture information on inter-regional
population movements, the survey collected information on place of birth and the place of usual residence for each
individual at the time of the survey. Such information will provide indicators on lifetime as well as short time migration
movements within the country.
In this report therefore, migration was analysed according to place of enumeration, place of usual residence and place of
birth for each person that was enumerated.
5.3.1 Lifetime migration
Table 5.3.1 provides information on the movement of people between their place of birth and places of usual residence
which sometimes is referred to as lifetime migration.
Migration rate of 100 percent indicate that the number of in-migrants was equal to the out-migrants in that area. On
the other hand, migration rate below 100 percent was an indication that there are more in-flows of migrants from other
places than people who were born in that region. Table 5.3.1 shows that Khomas and Erongo regions have experienced
high rate of life time migration, as more than 40 percent of residents in these regions were born elsewhere. There has also
been high rates of migration into Otjozondjupa and Karas. On the other hand, Ohangwena, Kavango West, and Omusati,
regions have had high percentages of out-life migration, with 37, 33.8, 27.3, percent respectively of the people who were
born in those regions migrated to other regions.
Table 5.3.1 Population by place of usual residence and place of birth
Area
Usual
Residence
Place of
birth
Percent
Total 2 324 178 2 324 206 100.0
!Karas 79 126 70 615 89.2
Erongo 180 659 102 424 56.7
Hardap 86 719 94 091 108.5
Kavango East 150 532 141 867 94.2
Kavango West 93 034 124 512 133.8
Khomas 403 901 235 397 58.3
Kunene 98 981 106 752 107.9
Ohangwena 259 933 356 066 137.0
Omaheke 73 881 72 401 98.0
Omusati 253 372 322 591 127.3
Oshana 186 747 183 492 98.3
Oshikoto 194 398 189 159 97.3
Otjozondjupa 150 891 126 463 83.8
Zambezi 97 927 94 405 96.4
Outside Namibia 13 212 99 953 756.5
Dont know 866 4 018 463.7
84 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 5: Population Trends
5.3.2 Duration at place of usual residence
To determine migration status and duration the survey asked questions on how many years individuals had resided at the
current place of usual residence.
Table 5.3.2 shows that the majority 577 842 of the enumerated population had lived at their current place of usual
residence for between 4 and 9 years. The majority (38.9% and 30.1%) of those who were usual residence between 4 and
9 years were recorded for Europe and Khomas respectively.
Table 5.3.2 Percent distribution of duration at usual residence (in years) by regions
Area
Usual
Residence
Reported
Duration
Less than 1 1-3 4-9 10-19 20+
Dont
Know
Total 2 324 178 2 323 860 240 891 468 816 577 842 524 776 490 654 20 881
Percent Distribution
!Karas 79 126 79 126 13.4 23.8 22.2 18.4 21.4 0.8
Erongo 180 659 180 659 11.7 20.3 28.8 21.0 16.7 1.4
Hardap 86 719 86 719 11.8 25.4 19.3 18.4 24.6 0.5
Kavango East 150 532 150 532 10.7 23.4 22.8 23.5 18.5 1.3
Kavango West 93 034 93 034 5.2 17.6 25.2 26.7 24.3 1.0
Khomas 403 901 403 901 10.4 23.4 30.1 21.4 14.4 0.2
Kunene 98 981 98 800 11.3 19.1 25.9 18.6 23.3 1.8
Ohangwena 259 933 259 894 9.7 15.7 22.3 26.7 24.8 0.8
Omaheke 73 881 73 881 17.5 24.6 25.1 15.4 17.0 0.4
Omusati 253 372 253 372 7.8 15.0 21.9 26.2 28.2 0.9
Oshana 186 747 186 697 8.2 18.9 23.3 23.2 25.9 0.4
Oshikoto 194 398 194 349 9.1 16.6 24.1 25.9 23.8 0.4
Otjozondjupa 150 891 150 891 13.6 26.6 23.6 16.6 17.5 2.1
Zambezi 97 927 97 927 8.8 19.5 26.6 24.4 18.9 1.8
Outside Namibia
Africa 11 801 11 801 33.4 15.5 16.2 12.7 20.9 1.2
Asia 220 220 0.0 82.7 17.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Europe 623 623 19.4 6.2 38.9 13.3 22.1 0.0
All other countries 569 569 56.7 28.3 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dont know 866 866 17.4 10.3 12.5 0.0 0.0 59.8
Chapter 5: Population Trends
85Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
5.3.3 Age Sex Structure of Lifetime migrants
Table 5.3.3 shows the distribution of lifetime migration by age and sex. The results indicate that 76.6 percent of lifetime
migrants were mostly people of the working ages (15 to 64). Males made up the lager number of migrants compare to
females particularly in the age groups of 25 to 64 years.
Sex ratio also confirm the higher number of male migrant among age groups particularly 25 to 64 years, where sex ratios
in those ages are more than 100.
Table 5.3.3 Distribution of lifetime migration by age and sex ratio
Age group
Total Migrants Migrants by sex Sex
RatioTotal Percent Female Male
Total 786 363 100.0 392 321 394 042 100.4
0-4 51 542 6.6 27 418 24 124 88.0
5-9 54 011 6.9 27 859 26 152 93.9
10-14 47 350 6.0 24 099 23 251 96.5
15-19 61 829 7.9 33 820 28 009 82.8
20-24 94 182 12.0 47 932 46 249 96.5
25-29 106 576 13.6 52 849 53 727 101.7
30-34 92 495 11.8 44 514 47 980 107.8
35-39 75 866 9.6 35 438 40 428 114.1
40-44 58 039 7.4 26 459 31 580 119.4
45-49 44 612 5.7 21 049 23 563 111.9
50-54 31 643 4.0 15 263 16 380 107.3
55-59 22 205 2.8 10 956 11 249 102.7
60-64 13 872 1.8 6 764 7 108 105.1
65-69 11 221 1.4 5 685 5 536 97.4
70-74 6 129 0.8 3 397 2 732 80.4
75-79 5 619 0.7 2 971 2 648 89.1
80+ 9 172 1.2 5 848 3 324 56.8
86 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 5: Population Trends
5.3.4 Non-Citizens
The survey further collected information on the respondents country of citizenship. Table 5.3.4 indicates that 97 percent
of the enumerated persons where Namibians compared to only 3 percent of the respondents who are non-Namibians.
This trend was further observed across the regions.
Table 5.3.4 Citizens and Non-citizens population by usual residents
Usual Residence
Usual
residence
Citizenship
Percent
Namibian
Non-
Namibian
Namibian
Non-
Namibian
Total 2 324 178 2 253 805 70 373 97.0 3.0
!Karas 79 126 77 993 1 133 98.6 1.4
Erongo 180 659 176 429 4 230 97.7 2.3
Hardap 86 719 85 478 1 241 98.6 1.4
Kavango East 150 532 149 010 1 522 99.0 1.0
Kavango West 93 034 92 015 1 019 98.9 1.1
Khomas 403 901 385 319 18 582 95.4 4.6
Kunene 98 981 98 152 829 99.2 0.8
Ohangwena 259 933 255 129 4 804 98.2 1.8
Omaheke 73 881 73 061 819 98.9 1.1
Omusati 253 372 248 485 4 887 98.1 1.9
Oshana 186 747 182 605 4 141 97.8 2.2
Oshikoto 194 398 191 039 3 359 98.3 1.7
Otjozondjupa 150 891 148 443 2 449 98.4 1.6
Zambezi 97 927 86 691 11 236 88.5 11.5
Outside Namibia 13 212 3 089 10 123 23.4 76.6
Dont know 866 866 - 100.0 0.0
Chapter 5: Population Trends
87Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
88 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
Chapter 6: Household
Characteristics
This chapter provides information on household characteristics, particularly
on household sizes, composition and by head of household, main language
spoken in the household, main income and assets. A household is defined as
a group of people related or unrelated who live in the same dwelling unit and
share or have common catering arrangements.
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
89Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
6.1 Household size
The average household size is a summary measure that gives the average number of persons in the household
and is given by the total number of population over the total number of households in a given area at a particular
point in time.
Table 6.1.1 shows that Namibian household consists of 3.9 persons on average. This figure has decreased from
an average of 4.4 persons recorded in 2011. The average household size was smaller in urban areas (3.4 persons)
than in rural areas (4.6 persons). At regional level, Kavango West and Ohangwena regions recorded the highest
average number of persons in their households with 5.2 persons each respectively. On the other hand, Hardap
region recorded the lowest average household size, having registered 2.9 persons in 2016.
Table 6.1.1 Average household size by year (2011 & 2016) and area
Area 2011 2016
Namibia 4.4 3.9
Urban 3.8 3.4
Rural 5.1 4.6
!Karas 3.6 3.3
Erongo 3.3 3.1
Hardap 4.0 2.9
Kavango East 5.8 4.1
Kavango West 6.3 5.2
Khomas 3.7 3.5
Kunene 4.6 4.6
Ohangwena 5.6 5.2
Omaheke 4.3 3.5
Omusati 5.2 4.6
Oshana 4.5 4.2
Oshikoto 4.8 4.3
Otjozondjupa 4.2 3.9
Zambezi 4.2 3.7
6.2 Head of Household
The survey also collected information on the characteristics of the head of households as well as linkages in terms of
relationships of other members of the household to the head. The head of household refer to a person, of either sex
who is looked upon by other members of the household as their leader or main decision-maker. In the absence of the
head of household during the survey reference night, the next responsible adult member was regarded as the head of
the household.
6.2.1 Sex of Household Heads
Table 6.2.1 shows that the majority (53.6%) of households in Namibia are headed by males. However female heads
have increased by 2.6 percentage points between 2011 and 2016. The difference between urban and rural households
are small, with 55.5 percent of urban households being headed by males compared to 51.4 percent in rural areas. The
sex of household head varies between regions. The majority of the households in most of the regions were headed by
males except households in regions such as: Kavango East, Ohangwena, Omusati, Oshana and Oshikoto regions that were
headed by females.
Table 6.2.1 Percent distribution of household head by sex, year and area
Area
Households
2011
Sex of household
heads (%) 2011
Households
2016
Sex of household
heads (%) 2016
Male Female Male Female
Namibia 464 839 56.2 43.8 589 787 53.6 46.4
Urban 228 955 58.1 41.9 325 335 55.5 44.5
Rural 235 884 54.4 45.6 264 452 51.4 48.6
!Karas 20 988 62.9 37.1 26 348 61.2 38.8
Erongo 44 116 65.6 34.4 58 486 62.4 37.6
Hardap 19 307 63.6 36.4 30 108 62.3 37.7
Kavango East 23 050 55.4 44.6 35 848 44.7 55.3
Kavango West 13 691 60.0 40.0 17 046 57.6 42.4
Khomas 89 438 61.2 38.8 119 217 59.9 40.1
Kunene 18 495 60.3 39.7 21 099 50.5 49.5
Ohangwena 43 723 43.5 56.5 49 470 38.0 62.0
Omaheke 16 174 66.4 33.6 21 169 63.2 36.8
Omusati 46 698 44.7 55.3 54 383 43.1 56.9
Oshana 37 284 46.3 53.7 44 544 43.1 56.9
Oshikoto 37 400 51.4 48.6 45 407 49.3 50.7
Otjozondjupa 33 192 63.4 36.6 39 761 61.1 38.9
Zambezi 21 283 55.8 44.2 26 901 58.0 42.0
90 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
6.2.2 Households Headed by Children
Table 6.2.2 gives information on households headed by children who were 18 years and younger. A total of 6, 937
households or 1.2 percent of all households in Namibia were headed by children aged 18 years and younger in 2016. It is
worth noting that there was a decrease both in number and percent of households that were headed by children in 2016
compared to 2011. The number of households headed by children decreased with 734 households in 2016 compared to
the 7671 recorded in 2011. The proportion of households that were headed by children were more in rural (1.6%) than
in urban areas (0.8%). At regional level, Ohangwena (2.4%); Oshikoto (2.0%) and Zambezi (2.0%) had the highest number
of households headed by children. On the other hand, !Karas and Oshana regions had the lowest proportions having
recorded 0.5 percent of the households headed by children in their respective regions.
Table 6.2.2 Percent distribution of child headed households by year and area
Area
2011
Households
2011 Child-
headed
households
Percent
2016
Households
2016 Child-
headed
households
Percent
Namibia 464 839 7 671 1.7 589 787 6 937 1.2
Urban 228 955 2 761 1.2 325 335 2 615 0.8
Rural 235 884 4 910 2.1 264 452 4 322 1.6
!Karas 20 988 223 1.1 26 348 131 0.5
Erongo 44 116 426 1.0 58 486 511 0.9
Hardap 19 307 236 1.2 30 108 225 0.7
Kavango East 23 050 315 1.4 35 848 233 0.6
Kavango West 13 691 220 1.6 17 046 265 1.6
Khomas 89 438 1 018 1.1 119 217 735 0.6
Kunene 18 495 522 2.8 21 099 244 1.2
Ohangwena 43 723 1 171 2.7 49 470 1 180 2.4
Omaheke 16 174 321 2.0 21 169 332 1.6
Omusati 46 698 944 2.0 54 383 996 1.8
Oshana 37 284 595 1.6 44 544 244 0.5
Oshikoto 37 400 802 2.1 45 407 902 2.0
Otjozondjupa 33 192 550 1.7 39 761 397 1.0
Zambezi 21 283 328 1.5 26 901 543 2.0
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
91Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
6.2.3 Orphan headed households
Table 6.2.3a presents information on households headed by orphans 18 years and younger. A total of 2,040 (0.3%)
orphan-headed households were reported in 2016 and this number has decreased from 2,953 (0.6%) reported in 2011.
More households headed by orphans were found in rural (0.6%) than urban areas (0.1%). Ohangwena had the highest
proportion (1.1%) of households headed by orphans while Erongo, Hardap, Kavango East and Khomas had the lowest
(0.1%) proportion of households headed by orphans.
Table 6.2.3a Percent distribution of orphan headed household by year and area
Area
2011
Households
2011 Orphan-
headed
households
Percent
2016
Households
2016 Orphan-
headed
households
Percent
Namibia 464 839 2 953 0.6 589 787 2 040 0.3
Urban 228 955 984 0.4 325 335 406 0.1
Rural 235 884 1 969 0.8 264 452 1 634 0.6
!Karas 20 988 78 0.4 26 348 82 0.3
Erongo 44 116 165 0.4 58 486 67 0.1
Hardap 19 307 113 0.6 30 108 28 0.1
Kavango East 23 050 136 0.6 35 848 50 0.1
Kavango West 13 691 95 0.7 17 046 134 0.8
Khomas 89 438 343 0.4 119 217 83 0.1
Kunene 18 495 143 0.8 21 099 72 0.3
Ohangwena 43 723 533 1.2 49 470 541 1.1
Omaheke 16 174 100 0.6 21 169 110 0.5
Omusati 46 698 385 0.8 54 383 229 0.4
Oshana 37 284 249 0.7 44 544 97 0.2
Oshikoto 37 400 288 0.8 45 407 307 0.7
Otjozondjupa 33 192 159 0.5 39 761 101 0.3
Zambezi 21 283 166 0.8 26 901 137 0.5
In addition, Table 6.2.3b gives the number of households with orphans who are 18 years old and younger. Out of the
total 589, 787 households in Namibia, 82,283 households representing 14.0 percent had orphans. Rural areas (19.1%)
had more households with orphans than urban areas (9.7%). At regional level, Ohangwena had the highest percentage
(26.6%) of households with orphans, while Erongo recorded the lowest percentage (4.9%).
Table 6.2.3b Percent distribution of households with orphans by area
Area Households
Households
with Orphans
2016
Percent
Namibia 589 787 82 283 14.0
Urban 325 335 31 719 9.7
Rural 264 452 50 564 19.1
!Karas 26 348 1 747 6.6
Erongo 58 486 2 892 4.9
Hardap 30 108 3 631 12.1
Kavango East 35 848 8 452 23.6
Kavango West 17 046 3 922 23.0
Khomas 119 217 7 910 6.6
Kunene 21 099 2 648 12.5
Ohangwena 49 470 13 167 26.6
Omaheke 21 169 1 854 8.8
Omusati 54 383 11 369 20.9
Oshana 44 544 6 760 15.2
Oshikoto 45 407 8 079 17.8
Otjozondjupa 39 761 4 095 10.3
Zambezi 26 901 5 757 21.4
92 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
6.2.4 Household and disability
Table 6.2.4a gives information on households which were headed by persons with disabilities. The result shows that 8.0
percent of the households in Namibia were headed by person with disabilities in 2016, an increase of 0.2 percent from
7.8 percent recorded in 2011. More households that were headed by persons with disabilities were found in rural (11.5%)
than urban areas (5.3%). At regional level, Kavango West (15.2%) and Ohangwena (14.9%) had the highest percentage of
households headed by persons with disabilities. On the other hand, Khomas (3.2%) and Erongo (3.9%) regions recorded
the lowest percent of households headed by person with disabilities.
Table 6.2.4a Percent distribution of household headed by person with disability by year and area
Area
2011
Households
2011 Person with
disability headed
households
Percent
2016
Households
2016 Person with
disability headed
households
Percent
Namibia 464 839 36 041 7.8 589 787 47 389 8.0
Urban 228 955 10 324 4.5 325 335 16 974 5.2
Rural 235 884 25 717 10.9 264 452 30 416 11.5
!Karas 20 988 953 4.5 26 348 1 464 5.6
Erongo 44 116 1 519 3.4 58 486 2 285 3.9
Hardap 19 307 1 184 6.1 30 108 1 267 4.2
Kavango East 23 050 2 657 11.5 35 848 4 304 12.0
Kavango West 13 691 1 593 11.6 17 046 2 598 15.2
Khomas 89 438 3 896 4.4 119 217 3 871 3.2
Kunene 18 495 1 156 6.3 21 099 2 022 9.6
Ohangwena 43 723 5 148 11.8 49 470 7 383 14.9
Omaheke 16 174 861 5.3 21 169 1 222 5.8
Omusati 46 698 5 947 12.7 54 383 5 929 10.9
Oshana 37 284 3 293 8.8 44 544 5 667 12.7
Oshikoto 37 400 4 269 11.4 45 407 3 778 8.3
Otjozondjupa 33 192 2 004 6.0 39 761 3 490 8.8
Zambezi 21 283 1 561 7.3 26 901 2 110 7.8
Similarly, Table 6.2.4b presents the distribution of households with persons with disabilities by area in 2011 and 2016.
There was a decrease in the percentage of households that had persons with disabilities in 2016 having recorded a
proportion of 15.6 percent down from 17 percent recorded in 2011. Rural areas (22.0%) had more households with
person with disabilities than urban areas (10.3%), whereas at regional level, Kavango West (34.7%) recorded the highest
percentage of households that had persons with disabilities, while Khomas and Erongo recorded the lowest proportion of
households with persons with disabilities, having recorded a 7.4 percent each respectively.
Table 6.2.4b Percent distribution of households with persons with disabilities by area
Area Households
Households with
persons with
Disabilities 2011
Percent Households
Households with
persons with
Disabilities 2016
Percent
Namibia 464 839 78 960 17.0 589 787 91 768 15.6
Urban 228 955 24 376 10.6 325 335 33 649 10.3
Rural 235 884 54 314 23.0 264 452 58 119 22.0
!Karas 20 988 2 240 10.7 26 348 2 358 9.0
Erongo 44 116 3 116 7.1 58 486 4 322 7.4
Hardap 19 307 2 634 13.6 30 108 2 495 8.3
Kavango East 23 050 6 038 26.2 35 848 8 379 23.4
Kavango West 13 691 3 655 26.7 17 046 5 918 34.7
Khomas 89 438 8 810 9.9 119 217 8 805 7.4
Kunene 18 495 2 656 14.4 21 099 3 270 15.5
Ohangwena 43 723 10 522 24.1 49 470 13 774 27.8
Omaheke 16 174 2 020 12.5 21 169 2 873 13.6
Omusati 46 698 12 115 25.9 54 383 12 290 22.6
Oshana 37 284 7 194 19.3 44 544 9 470 21.3
Oshikoto 37 400 9 487 25.4 45 407 8 056 17.7
Otjozondjupa 33 192 5 003 15.1 39 761 6 005 15.1
Zambezi 21 283 3 200 15.0 26 901 3 752 13.9
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
93Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
6.2.6 Households Headed by elderly persons (60+)
Table 6.2.6 gives information on households headed by elderly persons aged 60 years and above. A total of 109,947
households were headed by elderly persons in 2016, which constituted 18.6 percent of all households. Although there
was a reduction in the proportion with respect to 2011, the number of households has actually increased by 11,682
households in 2016. More households headed by elderly persons were found in rural (29.9%) than in urban areas (9.5%).
While at regional level, Omusati recorded the highest percent (36.5%) followed by Ohangwena (29.4%), Oshikoto (24.6%)
and Kavango West (24.4%). The two most urbanised regions namely Erongo (8.7%) and Khomas (7.6%) had the least
percentages of households headed by elderly persons.
Table 6.2.5 Percent distribution of household headed by elderly persons (60+) by year and area
Area
2011
Households
2011
Elderly
persons
headed
households
Percent
2016
Households
2016 Elderly
persons
headed
households
Percent
Namibia 464 839 98 265 21.1 589 787 109 947 18.6
Urban 228 955 21 612 9.4 325 335 30 971 9.5
Rural 235 884 76 653 32.5 264 452 78 976 29.9
!Karas 20 988 2 720 13.0 26 348 3 953 15.0
Erongo 44 116 5 057 11.5 58 486 5 100 8.7
Hardap 19 307 3 612 18.7 30 108 6 109 20.3
Kavango East 23 050 5 497 23.8 35 848 7 848 21.9
Kavango West 13 691 4 013 29.3 17 046 4 156 24.4
Khomas 89 438 6 705 7.5 119 217 9 116 7.6
Kunene 18 495 3 418 18.5 21 099 4 241 20.1
Ohangwena 43 723 16 331 37.4 49 470 14 538 29.4
Omaheke 16 174 3 003 18.6 21 169 3 547 16.8
Omusati 46 698 18 820 40.3 54 383 19 867 36.5
Oshana 37 284 9 285 24.9 44 544 9 888 22.2
Oshikoto 37 400 10 986 29.4 45 407 11 157 24.6
Otjozondjupa 33 192 4 907 14.8 39 761 6 423 16.2
Zambezi 21 283 3 911 18.4 26 901 4 005 14.9
94 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
6.3 Language spoken
Information on the main language spoken in the household was collected from all households. Table 6.3 shows that
Oshiwambo as the main language spoken by 49.7 percent of the households in Namibia followed by Nama/Damara with
11.0 percent and Kavango languages with 10.4 percent. Other European languages (0.1%) and Tswana (0.3%) where the
least main languages spoken in most of the Namibian households.
Table 6.3 Percent distribution of households by main language spoken at home in Namibia
Main Language spoken Households Percent
Namibia 589 787 100.0
San Languages 4 075 0.7
Zambezi Languages (1) 28 625 4.9
Herero Languages (2) 54 008 9.2
Kavango Languages (3) 61 292 10.4
Nama/Damara Languages 64 961 11.0
Oshiwambo Languages 293 149 49.7
Tswana 1 614 0.3
Afrikaans 55 205 9.4
German 3 726 0.6
English 13 325 2.3
Other European Languages 747 0.1
Other African Languages 2 689 0.5
Asian Languages 200 0.0
Other Languages 6 052 1.0
Dont Know 37 0.0
Not stated 81 0.0
Note: (1) Zambezi language includes: Silozi(Sikololo), Sifwe, Sisubiya, Siyeyi (Yei) and Totela.
(2) Herero languages includes: Otjiherero, Otjimbanderu, Oruzemba, Otjizimba, Otjihakahona, Otjindongona and Otjitjavikwa
(3) Kavango languages includes: Rukwangali, Rushambyu, Rugciriku, Thimbukushu, Rumanyo and Rukavango, Not Elsewhere Classified
6.4 Household main source of livelihood
Information on the livelihood of household are very important for the elimination of poverty and hunger and the
improvement of the living standard of the people. Livelihood referred to here is not only in monetary terms but can
also be the main products being produced for consumption/sale, for instance some farmers cultivate and depend on
Omahangu, in this case farming is the main source of income for these farmers.
Information on the main source of income was collected to determine the livelihood of a household. The main source
of income included salaries and wages; farming; business activities (non- farming); cash remittances; pension; grants
(orphans and persons with disability etc&) and so on.
Table 6.9 shows that wages and salaries was the leading main source of income for most households in Namibia, reported
by 52.0% of households. This is followed by farming (14.4%) and state old age pension (10.2%). business activities- non-
farming also seems to be very important for a large number of households in Namibia as 7.2 percent of households
depended on this source for income.
Major differences in the sources of income between urban and rural areas can further be observed. In urban areas,
70.2 percent of the households depended mainly on wages and salaries as the source of income. Furthermore, business
activities non-farming also plays a major role for 9.9 percent of all households in urban areas. In rural areas, a large
number of households which makes up 31.1 percent depended on subsistence farming as the main source of income,
followed by salaries and wages (29.6%) and state old age pension (17.0%) respectively.
At a regional level, wages and salaries was predominantly common in Erongo, Khomas and Karas, regions where more
than 70 percent of households reported to have depended on this source. By contrast, farming activities were the main
sources of income for northern regions, particularly in Omusati where more than 50 percent of households depended
on this source for income. Ohangwena (35.9%), Oshikoto (31.5%) and Kavango West (30.7%) also reported subsistence
farming as their main source of income.
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
95Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Table 6.4 Percent distribution of households by m
ain source of livelihood/survival and area
Area
Households
Salaries
and/or
w
ages
Subsistence
farm
ing
Com
m
ercial
farm
ing
Business
activities,
non-farm
ing
Pensions
from
em
ploym
ent
and/or
annuity
funds
Cash
rem
itt
ances
(not incl.
alim
ony/
child
support)
State
old age
pension
Disability
grants for
adults (over
16 years)
State child
m
aintenance
grants
Drought
relief
assistance
In-kind
receipts
O
ther
N
am
ibia
589 787
52.0
14.4
0.6
7.2
1.3
4.7
10.2
0.8
0.7
2.9
3.1
2.1
U
rban
325 335
70.2
0.8
0.2
9.9
1.4
5.1
4.7
0.6
0.5
0.8
3.3
2.5
Rural
264 452
29.6
31.1
1.1
3.8
1.1
4.3
17.0
1.0
1.0
5.5
2.9
1.6
!Karas
26 348
74.4
0.4
1.6
3.8
1.3
1.5
11.0
0.3
0.8
0.3
2.3
2.3
Erongo
58 486
77.5
0.4
0.4
7.2
0.7
1.6
5.3
0.7
0.3
0.7
3.1
2.3
H
ardap
30 108
61.1
1.6
1.8
3.7
4.7
3.5
9.2
2.0
1.7
1.0
7.4
2.4
Kavango East
35 848
38.9
15.2
0.5
9.6
1.2
5.8
16.7
2.0
0.5
3.4
4.2
2.0
Kavango W
est
17 046
25.0
30.7
0.7
9.0
0.5
3.4
12.5
2.8
2.1
3.6
6.8
3.0
Khom
as
119 217
74.5
0.2
0.1
9.7
1.4
5.6
1.9
0.1
0.2
0.5
3.5
2.3
Kunene
21 099
35.6
10.6
2.0
4.4
1.0
2.1
14.0
0.9
1.4
15.0
10.1
3.1
O
hangw
ena
49 470
22.6
35.9
0.5
3.5
0.6
6.2
19.4
0.6
1.8
5.5
1.6
1.8
O
m
aheke
21 169
58.2
9.6
1.5
6.9
2.2
5.2
10.9
1.5
0.1
0.5
2.3
1.2
O
m
usati
54 383
17.2
53.0
0.2
4.0
0.2
5.0
13.0
0.6
0.1
5.4
0.9
0.3
O
shana
44 544
46.0
11.9
0.2
11.5
0.6
9.6
14.3
0.9
0.8
1.2
0.6
2.4
O
shikoto
45 407
38.3
31.5
0.1
4.6
1.0
4.5
13.0
0.8
0.6
3.6
0.9
1.0
O
tjozondjupa
39 761
65.5
1.9
1.3
7.0
2.2
1.9
9.6
0.5
0.8
3.7
2.3
3.3
Zam
bezi
26 901
45.1
7.7
0.1
11.6
1.4
6.7
11.8
1.1
1.6
5.1
4.6
3.3
N
ote:
O
thers includes rental incom
e, Interest from
savings/ investm
ents, W
ar veterans/ Ex-com
batants grant, State foster care grant, Vulnerable grant, State special m
aintenance grants (disabled under 16 years),
Alim
ony and sim
ilar allow
ances and any other kind of incom
e.
96 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
6.5 Household assets
The ownership of assets is an important indicator of social welfare and living standards, and therefore households that
are owning certain assets depict a higher standards of living. The survey collected information on a wide range of assets
including cars, televisions, radios and mobile phones. These can be categorized into assets used for transportation,
communication and domestic utilities. It should be noted that a household can own or access more than one asset.
6.5.1 Transportation assets
Figure 6.5.1a provide information on access to selected type of transportation assets. The result indicates that 52.9
percent of households had access to a car/bus/minibus as the means of transportation. Pickup trucks and bakkie were
more used in rural areas accessed by 24.7 percent of the households.
Figure 6.5.1a Percent distribution of households with access to selected transportation assets and area
Similarly, Figure 6.5.1b provide information on households ownerships of selected type of transportation assets. It can be
observed from the figure that car was the most owned asset, owned by 23.1 percent of the households, while jet/plane was
the least owned asset, owned by only 0.1 percent of the households. The same trend can be observed for urban and rural.
Figure 6.5.1b Percent distribution of households with owning selected transportation assets and area
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
97Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
6.5.2 Communication assets
In addition, Figure 6.5.2a shows the distribution of households having access to selected communication assets. The majority
of the households had access to radio (13.2%), followed by television (6.5%) and radio was common in rural areas.
Figure 6.5.2a Percent distribution of households with access to selected communication assets and area
Figure 6.5.2b shows the distribution of households owning selected communication assets. The majority of households
owned telephone mobiles (81.3%), followed by radio (61.7%) and television (39.3%). A similar trend can be observed in
urban and rural areas.
Figure 6.5.2b Percent distribution of households with owning selected communication assets and area
98 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
6.5.3 Housing asset/utilities
Figure 6.5.3 provides information on the distribution of households owning selected housing utilities. The result indicates
that stoves were the most owned housing utilities, owned by 44.9 percent of the households, followed by refrigerators
(41.0%), microwave ovens (26.1%) and washing machine (18.1%). These assets were overwhelmingly owned by urban
households as compared to rural households.
Figure 6.5.3 Percent distribution of households owning selected housing utilities by area
Chapter 6: Household Characteristics
99Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
100 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
Chapter 7: Housing
Characteristics
This Chapter presents the analysis of the housing characteristics, which
include the type of housing units, tenure, materials used for building, source
of energy, water supply and sanitation, and garbage /waste disposal.
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
101Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
7.1 Housing type
The different types of housing units as defined in the survey were: detached house, semi-detached/townhouse,
apartment/flat, guest flat, part commercial/industrial, mobile home (caravan, tent), single quarters, traditional
dwelling and improvised housing unit (shack).
The results presented in Table 7.1.1 indicates that traditional dwellings were the most common housing units,
made up 32.6 percent of the households in Namibia, followed by detached house/semi-detached making up
of 30.8 percent and improvised housing units or shacks accounting for 26.6 percent of the households. The
improvised housing units or shacks were mostly common in urban areas accounting for 39.7 percent of the
households as oppose to 10.6 percent of households in rural areas. On the other hand, modern houses namely,
detached houses or semi-detached and apartments or flats were mostly found in urban areas where they account
for 52.1 percent of the households. Traditional houses are mostly common in rural areas where they account for
68.8% of the households.
At regional level, traditional dwellings were most common in the northern regions where over 80 percent of the
households in Omusati and Ohangwena and over 70 percent of the households in Kavango West and Zambezi
regions were traditional dwellings. On the other hand, detached/semi-detached and improvised housing (shacks)
were predominantly found in the most urbanised regions such as Omaheke, Otjozondjupa, !Karas, Hardap, Erongo
and Khomas.
Table 7.1.1. Percent distribution of households by type of housing unit and area
Area Households
Detached
house/Semi-
detached
Apartment/
Flat
Single
quarters
Traditional
dwelling
Improvised
housing
unit(Shack)
Other
Namibia 589 787 30.8 6.1 2.4 32.6 26.6 1.4
Urban 325 335 42.9 9.2 3.5 3.1 39.7 1.6
Rural 264 452 15.9 2.3 1.1 68.8 10.6 1.2
!Karas 26 348 47.1 14.1 3.7 8.1 25.2 1.9
Erongo 58 486 42.2 11.4 0.3 1.4 43.6 1.1
Hardap 30 108 37.5 3.7 5.1 0.0 52.8 0.8
Kavango East 35 848 16.5 0.7 2.4 33.3 46.7 0.4
Kavango West 17 046 7.3 1.0 0.6 77.1 13.7 0.2
Khomas 119 217 44.2 6.2 5.1 0.0 42.3 2.0
Kunene 21 099 26.1 3.1 1.4 42.3 22.6 4.5
Ohangwena 49 470 7.9 3.6 2.0 81.2 4.8 0.5
Omaheke 21 169 53.0 3.3 1.6 6.2 34.3 1.7
Omusati 54 383 6.4 3.6 0.1 86.3 3.0 0.6
Oshana 44 544 33.7 13.8 3.3 35.0 13.2 0.9
Oshikoto 45 407 19.6 6.9 0.5 60.3 10.5 2.3
Otjozondjupa 39 761 52.3 4.9 2.6 7.9 30.3 2.0
Zambezi 26 901 17.8 1.7 0.5 76.6 2.7 0.7
Note: Other includes guest flats, part commercial/industrial. Mobile home (caravan/tent)
Furthermore, Figure 7.1 shows the comparison for detached/semi-detached with improvised housing units for 2011 and
2016. In general, there was a decline in the detached/semi-detached and an increase in the improvised housing units.
These similar pattern were further observed for urban and rural and the contributing factors to this pattern were the
urbanised regions.
Figure 7.1 Percent distribution of detached/semi-detached and improvised (shacks) households by year and area
102 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
7.2 Tenure status
Tenure refers to the conditions which govern the rights of individuals to occupy dwelling units. The most frequent forms
are tenancy (in which rent is paid to a landlord) and owner occupancy which can be subdivided into owner-occupier
without mortgage or owner occupied with mortgage. In the case of tenancy, the landlord can be a private individual, non-
profit organization such as a housing association, or a government body which provides public housing.
Table 7.2.1 shows that 50.8 percent of the households were owner occupied without mortgage. These type of housing
units were mostly common in rural areas where they made up 66.4 percent of the rural households compared to the
urban areas (38.2%). This may be expected as most dwellings in rural areas are traditional houses that do not have title
deeds therefore cannot be mortgaged. Furthermore, housing units that are occupied rent free accounts for 17.9 percent
of the households in Namibia, while those that are rented from individuals accounts for 13.7 percent of the households.
At regional level, most households that are owned without mortgage were mostly found in Kavango West having the
highest proportion of 83.3 percent. On the other hand, Otjozondjupa recorded the lowest percent of households owning
housing units without mortgage with 23.9 percent.
Table 7.2.1 Percent distribution of households by type of tenure status and area
Area Households
Owner
occupied with
mortgage
Owner
occupied
without
mortgage
Rented from
employer
Rented from
Individual
Occupied
rent free
Other
Namibia 589 787 12.4 50.8 4.8 13.7 17.9 0.2
Urban 325 335 18.5 38.2 7.1 23.7 12.3 0.2
Rural 264 452 4.9 66.4 2.0 1.5 24.9 0.2
!Karas 26 348 8.8 28.3 20.3 10.5 32.1 0.0
Erongo 58 486 16.6 28.1 5.3 39.5 10.4 0.1
Hardap 30 108 12.8 58.0 1.6 4.5 23.1 0.0
Kavango East 35 848 4.9 77.0 1.9 2.8 13.4 0.0
Kavango West 17 046 3.8 83.3 0.6 0.7 11.6 0.0
Khomas 119 217 21.4 35.1 6.3 22.5 14.6 0.0
Kunene 21 099 16.6 33.7 7.1 4.6 37.5 0.6
Ohangwena 49 470 2.3 77.8 1.4 5.3 13.1 0.0
Omaheke 21 169 8.3 47.1 5.2 5.6 33.6 0.2
Omusati 54 383 2.2 69.9 2.4 3.9 21.6 0.0
Oshana 44 544 6.5 61.9 5.6 18.9 7.2 0.0
Oshikoto 45 407 7.3 58.3 4.8 8.3 19.9 1.4
Otjozondjupa 39 761 34.0 23.9 4.4 9.2 27.8 0.8
Zambezi 26 901 8.2 65.7 1.1 11.8 13.2 0.0
Note: Rent from employer includes rent from government; local authority, parastatal and private firms
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
103Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
7.3 Average number of people per room
The Survey collected information on the number of sleeping rooms in the households. The average number of persons
per sleeping room (or room occupancy) was derived from the number of sleeping room in a household by the household
population. This indicator measures crowding in a household. For health purposes, international standards requires that
a standard room be occupied by one person or at most by two persons.
Table 7.3.1 shows that the average number of persons per sleeping room is 1.5, which indicates that most households
were not overcrowded. There were slight differences between urban (1.6) and rural (1.5) areas.
Kunene (2.6), Zambezi (2.3) and Omaheke (2.2) regions had the highest room occupancy, whereas Omusati region (1.2)
had the lowest average number of people per room.
Table 7.3.1 Average number of persons per sleeping room by area
Area
Household
Population
Number of
sleeping rooms
Average
persons per
sleeping room
Namibia 2324 388 1520 633 1.5
Urban 1112 868 696 144 1.6
Rural 1211 520 824 489 1.5
!Karas 85 759 51 499 1.7
Erongo 182 402 113 969 1.6
Hardap 87 186 55 777 1.6
Kavango East 148 466 91 785 1.6
Kavango West 89 313 51 228 1.7
Khomas 415 780 256 304 1.6
Kunene 97 865 37 400 2.6
Ohangwena 255 510 197 309 1.3
Omaheke 74 629 33 411 2.2
Omusati 249 885 209 793 1.2
Oshana 189 237 140 848 1.3
Oshikoto 195 165 147 706 1.3
Otjozondjupa 154 342 90 172 1.7
Zambezi 98 849 43 432 2.3
In addition, a comparative of the average number of person per sleeping room between the 2011 and 2016 years is
presented in Figure 7.3. The result indicates that on average there was no difference between the occupancy rate in 2011
and 2016 as the average number of persons per room were approximated to 2.
Figure 7.3.2 Average number of persons per sleeping room by year and area
104 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
7.4 Materials used for construction
This section presents information on the materials used to construct roofs, walls and floors of housing units which are
important indicators for housing conditions and welfare of households. The materials used for construction of houses can
be broadly divided into those that are harvested from local resources, namely, grass, stick, mud and dung etc. and those
that are purchased from markets/shops, for example, cement bricks or blocks and corrugated iron sheets.
Table 7.4.1 shows that a large number of the households (40.0%) resided in dwellings where walls are made from Cement
blocks/Bricks/Stones. This trend can be observed more in urban (48.5%) than rural areas (29.5%). This was followed by
households whose outer walls were made from corrugated iron/zinc accounting for 31.3 percent of the households,
which were mainly from urban areas (39.6%) as well.
At regional level, housing units with walls that were constructed from Cement blocks/Bricks/Stones were predominant
in !Karas (56.5%), Otjozondjupa (51.5%), Erongo (51.4) and Oshana (50.2%). Households which occupied housing units
constructed with corrugated iron/Zinc sheets were more common in Hardap (63.5%) and Khomas (50.4%), while those
with outer walls made from sticks with mud/clay/Cow dung were mostly found in the Zambezi region (53.3%).
Table 7.4.1 Percent distribution of household by main material used for outer wall and area
Area Households
Cement
blocks/ Bricks/
Stones
Mud/
Clay
brick
Corrugated
iron/ Zinc
Wood poles/
Sticks or
Grass/ Reeds
Sticks with mud/
Clay/ Cow dung
Other
Namibia 589 787 40.0 5.4 31.3 11.6 6.9 4.9
Urban 325 335 48.5 0.8 39.6 2.9 2.0 6.3
Rural 2 452 29.5 11.1 21.1 22.2 12.9 3.2
!Karas 26 348 56.5 2.4 28.7 6.3 0.0 6.0
Erongo 58 486 51.4 0.3 10.1 14.0 0.7 23.4
Hardap 30 108 34.1 0.1 63.5 0.0 0.0 2.3
Kavango East 35 848 18.0 10.6 42.1 10.7 15.7 2.9
Kavango West 17 046 14.6 12.8 11.9 11.9 46.5 2.3
Khomas 119 217 47.4 0.0 50.4 0.4 0.0 1.7
Kunene 21 099 28.5 2.6 24.0 2.7 38.2 3.9
Ohangwena 49 470 32.2 18.6 15.1 32.4 0.6 1.2
Omaheke 21 169 44.1 0.5 46.5 0.3 4.8 3.8
Omusati 54 383 32.6 4.6 18.6 36.2 3.1 4.8
Oshana 44 544 50.2 4.5 32.7 9.4 0.3 3.0
Oshikoto 45 407 42.4 4.1 27.2 22.5 1.5 2.3
Otjozondjupa 39 761 51.5 3.9 37.7 0.9 1.0 5.1
Zambezi 26 901 15.3 26.3 1.0 3.1 53.3 1.1
Note: Other include: Prefabricated; Burnt bricks/ Face bricks; prefabricated; tin, wood/board/plastic .
Other for Erongo includes wood/board and plastic (10.1%) and prefabricated materials (9.8%)
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
105Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Similarly, distribution of households by main material used for roofing presented in Table 7.4.2 shows that the majority
(72.1%) of the households used corrugated iron sheets as the main material for roofing, which were predominantly in
urban areas (83.1%) compared to rural areas (58.6%).
At regional level, housing units which had roofs made from corrugated iron/zinc were predominantly found in most
regions, except in Kavango West (42.8%), Ohangwena (41.4%) and Erongo (27.3%) respectively. However, asbestos was
the most common main material used for roofing in the Erongo region used in 40.0 percent of the households.
Table 7.4.2 Percent distribution of households by main material used for roof and area
Area Households
Corrugated
iron/ zinc
sheet
Asbestos
sheet
Brick
tiles
Concrete
Thatch/
Grass
Other
Namibia 589 787 72.1 4.9 0.9 0.4 17.1 4.5
Urban 325 335 83.1 8.7 1.4 0.4 0.7 5.7
Rural 264 452 58.6 0.3 0.3 0.4 37.4 3.2
!Karas 26 348 82.0 11.9 1.1 0.1 4.4 0.4
Erongo 58 486 27.3 40.0 3.4 0.7 0.1 28.5
Hardap 30 108 96.6 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.9 0.9
Kavango East 35 848 76.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.2 0.5
Kavango West 17 046 42.8 0.2 0.6 0.2 54.8 1.5
Khomas 119 217 96.7 0.8 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.2
Kunene 21 099 73.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 3.9 20.9
Ohangwena 49 470 41.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 57.2 1.1
Omaheke 21 169 95.7 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8
Omusati 54 383 50.7 0.2 0.2 0.6 47.5 0.8
Oshana 44 544 80.7 0.5 0.0 0.4 18.2 0.2
Oshikoto 45 407 70.6 0.5 0.9 0.5 24.4 3.1
Otjozondjupa 39 761 94.3 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.2 2.7
Zambezi 26 901 71.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 26.5 1.9
Note: other include: slate; wood covered with melthoid; sticks with mud and cow dung; tin, wood/ board/ plastic.
Other for Kunene includes sticks with mud and cow dung and tin (13.6%, 4.4%)
Other for Erongo includes wood/board and plastic (11.8%)
106 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
Furthermore, Table 7.4.3 presents information on the materials used for construction for the floor of the housing units.
The result showed that 35.8 percent of all households lived in housing units where the floors were made of cement,
followed by sand or earth (32.2%). Tiles (Ceramic/wood/plastic) was used in the 17.7 percent of the households. Cement
and tiles were particularly common in urban areas (37.4% and 29.4%) while sand/earth was more common in rural areas
accounting for 42.2 percent of the households. Similar results were also observed at regional level.
Table 7.4.3 Percent distribution of households by main material used for floor and area
Area Households Sand/ Earth Cement Mud/ Clay Wood Concrete
Tiles
(Ceramic/
Wood/
Plastic)
Other
Namibia 589 787 32.2 35.8 8.5 0.5 5.0 17.7 0.3
Urban 325 335 24.0 37.4 2.3 0.5 6.1 29.4 0.3
Rural 264 452 42.2 33.9 16.1 0.6 3.7 3.3 0.2
!Karas 26 348 20.5 38.0 0.0 2.3 10.5 28.1 0.7
Erongo 58 486 23.1 33.4 0.1 1.1 1.7 39.9 0.5
Hardap 30 108 42.0 45.1 0.2 1.3 1.8 9.4 0.2
Kavango East 35 848 28.9 42.1 22.0 0.0 0.4 6.6 0.1
Kavango West 17 046 26.6 16.7 50.9 1.0 1.9 2.9 0.0
Khomas 119 217 24.6 30.1 0.7 0.4 12.1 31.8 0.3
Kunene 21 099 30.0 39.1 20.5 1.3 1.3 6.9 0.8
Ohangwena 49 470 48.0 33.4 14.8 0.0 0.2 3.5 0.1
Omaheke 21 169 24.0 49.7 1.7 0.3 12.3 11.5 0.6
Omusati 54 383 58.5 35.4 2.8 0.0 0.3 2.9 0.1
Oshana 44 544 29.4 42.7 3.6 0.1 3.2 21.0 0.0
Oshikoto 45 407 42.5 36.5 4.3 0.4 3.2 12.8 0.4
Otjozondjupa 39 761 25.0 52.3 0.7 0.5 9.4 11.8 0.3
Zambezi 26 901 16.9 12.9 56.5 0.1 2.3 11.1 0.2
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
107Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
7.5 Sources of energy
Information was also collected on the types of energy the households used for cooking, lighting and heating. This
information is useful in measuring housing conditions as well as progress with regard to households electrification in the
country. This information also provides good indication on the use of renewable energy, such as solar and wind power and
other energy sources, for instance wood and coal. Use of some sources of energy for example fire wood are considered
to cause environmental degradation therefore they need to be controlled. The use of paraffin and candles also seem to
cause destruction of many housing units and are therefore not encouraged.
The result presented in Table 7.5.1 indicates that 50 percent of the households relied on woods/firewood as the main
source of energy for cooking. Electricity from the main grid/generator accounted for 34.7 percent of households. On the
other hand 55.5 percent of the households in urban areas relied on electricity for cooking while 85 percent of households
in rural areas used wood/firewood for cooking. It is interesting to note that a large percent (21.5%) of households in urban
areas also used wood for cooking.
At the regional level, electricity from the main grid/generator was mostly used by households in Erongo (73.2%), Khomas
(59.2%) and !Karas (48.2%), while the majority of the households in northern regions use wood/firewood . Over 20
percent of households in !Karas and Khomas use gas as a main source of cooking.
Table 7.5.1 Percent distribution of households by main source of energy used for cooking and area
Area Households
Electricity from
mains/generator
Gas
Paraffin/
Kerosene
Wood/
Firewood
Other
Namibia 589 787 34.7 11.9 2.0 50.0 1.3
Urban 325 335 55.5 18.5 3.7 21.5 0.8
Rural 264 452 9.1 3.9 0.0 85.0 1.9
0.0 0.0
!Karas 26 348 48.2 26.2 0.0 25.3 0.3
Erongo 58 486 73.2 12.7 0.2 13.7 0.3
Hardap 30 108 36.8 3.9 0.0 58.5 0.8
Kavango East 35 848 12.9 12.1 0.0 74.9 0.1
Kavango West 17 046 6.0 2.0 0.2 91.0 0.7
Khomas 119 217 59.2 23.9 9.7 6.6 0.5
Kunene 21 099 18.9 3.8 0.0 69.4 7.9
Ohangwena 49 470 10.5 2.6 0.0 86.6 0.3
Omaheke 21 169 29.6 6.6 0.2 62.7 1.0
Omusati 54 383 7.9 1.2 0.1 89.8 1.0
Oshana 44 544 29.4 18.3 0.3 46.6 5.4
Oshikoto 45 407 18.8 9.0 0.2 70.9 1.1
Otjozondjupa 39 761 39.7 11.4 0.0 47.9 1.0
Zambezi 26 901 17.9 2.8 0.2 77.6 1.5
Note: other includes charcoal; solar energy; animal dung and none
Other for Oshana includes animal dung (5.4%)
With respect to the source of energy for lighting, the result presented in Table 7.5.2 shows that the most common source
of energy for lighting was electricity from the main grid/generator used in 44.8 percent of the households, followed by
battery lamp/torch/cell phone used by 31.6 percent of the households. Most households (66.0%) in urban areas relied
on electricity, while 53.8 percent of the households in rural areas used battery lamp/touch/cell phone for lighting. Solar
energy is not widely used, but played a more important role in rural areas where 6.9 percent of the households use
this source of energy for lighting. Furthermore, most households in !Karas, Erongo, Hardap, Khomas and Otjozondjupa
regions used electricity for lighting. It is also interesting to note that over 70 percent of the households in Omusati and
Ohangwena regions relied on battery, lamp, torch or cell phone for lighting. This situation is also common in Kavango West
and Oshikoto regions where more than 50 percent of the households relied on this sources of energy for lighting.
108 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
Table 7.5.2 Percent distribution of households by main source of energy for lighting and area
Area Households
Electricity /
Generator
Paraffin/
Kerosene
Solar
energy
Battery
lamp/
Torch/ Cell
phone
Wood Candles Other
Namibia 589 787 44.8 2.2 4.9 31.6 2.4 12.0 2.0
0.0
Urban 325 335 66.0 1.5 3.3 13.6 0.5 13.0 2.0
Rural 264 452 18.7 3.1 6.9 53.8 4.7 10.8 1.9
0.0
!Karas 26 348 69.1 1.5 5.3 8.1 0.8 14.5 0.8
Erongo 58 486 76.4 2.3 3.0 7.6 0.9 9.1 0.6
Hardap 30 108 55.7 0.7 5.2 5.2 0.1 22.8 10.4
Kavango East 35 848 25.7 0.1 5.9 45.2 1.4 18.7 3.1
Kavango West 17 046 12.1 0.0 2.7 57.3 6.4 16.0 5.5
Khomas 119 217 64.2 3.0 5.0 11.8 0.1 15.2 0.6
Kunene 21 099 29.4 6.2 7.6 22.7 15.4 8.9 9.8
Ohangwena 49 470 15.0 0.2 3.4 71.0 8.0 1.8 0.5
Omaheke 21 169 45.3 12.3 11.4 8.4 1.3 18.7 2.6
Omusati 54 383 11.3 0.3 6.1 76.0 4.0 1.5 0.8
Oshana 44 544 42.9 2.8 6.2 42.2 1.3 3.4 1.1
Oshikoto 45 407 30.8 0.3 3.5 56.6 1.8 5.8 1.2
Otjozondjupa 39 761 63.3 5.1 4.9 7.3 1.8 16.4 1.1
Zambezi 26 901 34.7 0.0 2.0 28.4 0.0 33.8 1.2
Note: Other includes: gas, charcoal, animal dung, none
Figure 7.5.2 below presents a comparison of households using candle and battery/cell-phones for lighting for 2011 and
2016. Generally, there has been a decrease in the usage of candles, however, the trend was overtaken by the usage of
battery/cell-phones for lighting. The same trend can be observed in some northern regions, particularly Ohangwena,
Omusati and Oshikoto regions.
Figure 7.5.2 Percent distribution of households using candle and battery for lighting by year and area
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
109Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
7.6 Water Supply and Sanitation
This section covers the main source of water for drinking and cooking. Inadequate access to safe water and poor sanitation
are public health concerns because they create conditions conducive for spread of diseases. For the purpose of this
survey, safe water was defined as water from the following sources: piped water inside/outside and public pipe; borehole
covered, well protected and bottled water.
Information on the type of toilet facilities, and disposal of waste or garbage for households was also collected during the
survey to find out the level of access to proper toilet facilities in the country and the practices in disposing waste.
Table 7.6.1 shows that 92.9 percent of households in Namibia have access to safe water for drinking. This percent
increased from 80 percent that was recorded in 2011. The table also indicates that 33.4 percent of households had access
to piped water outside their housing units while another 30.1 percent have access to piped water inside their dwellings.
Almost all households (99.6%) in urban have access to safe water, with 40 and 31.9 percent of the households having
access to piped water inside and piped water outside respectively.. Similarly, 85.0 percent of rural households share
the same privilege, although there is still 7.7 and 7.1 percent of the rural households that relied on unsafe water from
boreholes with tank uncovered and unprotected wells and river, dams or canal respectively.
At regional level, households in Khomas region had the highest percent (99.8%) of households which had access to safe
water, followed by Oshana (98.4%), Otjozondjupa (98.3%), Hardap (97.6%), Erongo (97.5%) and !Karas (97.4%) region .
The region with the lowest percent of household with access to safe water was Kunene region with 74.6 percent. This
region also recorded the highest percent (15.8%) of households who drew water from borehole with uncovered tank and
unprotected wells.
Table 7.6.1 Percent distribution of households by main source of water for drinking and area
Area Households
Piped water
inside
Piped
water
outside
Public
piped
Borehole/with
tank covered
and Well
protected
Bottled
water
Safe
water
Borehole
with tank
uncovered
and Well
unprotected
River/
Dams and
Canal
Other
Namibia 589 787 30.1 33.4 21.6 7.0 0.8 92.9 3.6 3.3 0.2
Urban 325 335 40.0 31.9 26.1 0.2 1.2 99.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Rural 264 452 18.0 35.2 16.2 15.4 0.2 85.0 7.7 7.1 0.2
!Karas 26 348 40.9 32.2 20.8 3.2 0.2 97.4 0.4 2.3 0.0
Erongo 58 486 45.1 30.7 14.7 4.3 2.8 97.5 0.6 1.9 0.0
Hardap 30 108 25.7 36.0 30.8 4.8 0.3 97.6 0.9 0.9 0.6
Kavango East 35 848 16.6 48.1 6.3 14.9 0.0 85.9 0.9 13.2 0.0
Kavango West 17 046 6.8 11.3 19.9 38.3 0.0 76.3 2.1 21.6 0.0
Khomas 119 217 42.3 22.4 32.5 1.1 1.4 99.6 0.2 0.1 0.0
Kunene 21 099 14.6 18.5 19.9 21.4 0.2 74.6 15.8 9.6 0.0
Ohangwena 49 470 28.9 27.9 20.9 8.4 0.1 86.2 13.1 0.7 0.0
Omaheke 21 169 21.2 38.2 20.9 15.2 0.4 96.0 3.5 0.0 0.5
Omusati 54 383 14.2 47.5 16.3 7.4 0.3 85.6 6.1 8.2 0.1
Oshana 44 544 37.0 45.6 14.7 0.4 0.7 98.4 0.8 0.3 0.6
Oshikoto 45 407 30.3 38.2 19.9 4.5 0.2 93.0 5.6 0.6 0.8
Otjozondjupa 39 761 31.1 36.9 25.6 3.8 1.0 98.3 1.6 0.0 0.1
Zambezi 26 901 11.7 36.9 23.8 13.5 0.0 85.9 8.7 5.3 0.0
Note: Safe water includes piped water inside/outside and public pipe; borehole covered, well protected and bottled water
110 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
Figure 7.6.1 shows the comparison for access to safe water for drinking for 2011 and 2016. It is pleasing to note
improvement with regard to access to safe water for drinking in Namibia between the two periods. In particular, access to
safe water increased from 80.0 in 2011 to 92.9 percent in 2016. The same trend can be observed in urban and rural and
across the regions with households in Kavango West, Ohangwena and Omusati regions had the highest increase in access
to safe water in 2016.
Figure 7.6.1 Percent distribution of households access to safe water for drinking, by year and area
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
111Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
In Table 7.6.2, the result shows that 45.7 percent of households had no toilet facilities, while 40.9 percent had private/
shared flush toilets.
It was observed that no toilet facilities was common in rural areas (70.0%), while private/shared flush toilets were common
in urban areas (63.2%). At regional level, Kavango west and Zambezi had the highest proportion of no toilet facilities, with
84.5 and 82.1 percent, respectively.
Table 7.6.2 Percent distribution of households by main toilet facilities and area
Area Households
Private/
Shared flush
Pit latrine
with
ventilation
pipe
Covered pit
latrine without
ventilation
pipe
Uncovered
pit latrine
without
ventilation
pipe
Bucket toilet
(manually
removed)
No toilet
facility
(bush,
riverbed,
fields)
Other
Namibia 589 787 40.9 5.6 4.0 2.8 1.0 45.7 0.1
Urban 325 335 63.2 3.7 3.0 2.8 1.1 26.0 0.1
Rural 264 452 13.4 7.8 5.3 2.7 0.8 70.0 0.0
!Karas 26 348 64.0 7.0 0.1 0.9 2.9 25.1 0.1
Erongo 58 486 75.6 3.1 4.1 3.5 0.6 12.9 0.1
Hardap 30 108 34.7 9.5 2.4 2.4 7.0 44.0 0.1
Kavango East 35 848 20.0 6.2 5.3 5.0 0.5 63.0 0.0
Kavango
West
17 046 6.3 7.1 1.4 0.2 0.5 84.5 0.0
Khomas 119 217 71.4 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 25.2 0.0
Kunene 21 099 23.6 7.0 3.3 1.2 0.3 64.5 0.1
Ohangwena 49 470 11.0 7.9 5.2 3.6 0.2 72.1 0.0
Omaheke 21 169 39.8 2.3 0.8 0.4 0.3 56.1 0.3
Omusati 54 383 9.3 7.1 7.1 5.5 0.1 71.0 0.0
Oshana 44 544 38.7 15.9 12.0 5.6 0.5 27.2 0.0
Oshikoto 45 407 27.3 6.3 7.2 1.9 0.0 56.8 0.5
Otjozondjupa 39 761 48.0 2.9 3.7 4.5 1.8 39.2 0.0
Zambezi 26 901 13.7 2.0 1.1 0.9 0.1 82.1 0.0
112 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
Table 7.6.3 shows that the most common means of disposing garbage was regular collection (35.4%), followed by burning
(32.1%), while roadside dumping and rubbish pits accounts for 10.3 and 9.6 percent respectively. The results further
shows that regular waste collection was mostly common in urban (60.5) households as opposed to rural areas (57.6%).
However at regional level, regular waste collection was most commonly used in the Erongo, Khomas and !Karas (75.8%,
62.5% and 61.5%) regions.
Table 7.6.3 Percent distribution of households by main means of waste disposal and area
Area Households
Regularly
collected
Irregularly
collected
Burning
Roadside
dumping
Rubbish
Pit
Burying
Dump
in the
bush/
field
Other
Namibia 589 787 35.4 4.5 32.1 10.3 9.6 6.4 1.3 0.5
Urban 325 335 60.5 7.3 11.4 10.1 8.4 2.1 0.1 0.1
Rural 264 452 4.4 1.1 57.6 10.5 11.1 11.6 2.8 0.9
!Karas 26 348 61.5 2.3 12.3 12.7 9.1 2.0 0.0 0.0
Erongo 58 486 75.8 5.4 8.8 6.4 2.8 0.7 0.0 0.1
Hardap 30 108 39.7 1.5 24.6 6.7 23.5 3.9 0.0 0.1
Kavango East 35 848 5.6 3.2 47.1 3.7 25.3 13.8 1.2 0.0
Kavango West 17 046 2.6 0.0 69.7 9.9 1.8 15.8 0.2 0.1
Khomas 119 217 62.5 8.6 13.4 9.6 5.0 0.6 0.0 0.2
Kunene 21 099 18.5 2.2 45.7 16.5 5.2 10.4 0.3 1.2
Ohangwena 49 470 7.1 1.0 67.7 2.3 8.4 12.6 0.7 0.2
Omaheke 21 169 21.3 1.7 28.9 6.7 24.0 17.1 0.3 0.0
Omusati 54 383 7.0 1.3 48.8 23.5 6.7 3.6 7.6 1.5
Oshana 44 544 40.3 6.1 33.4 4.3 5.2 7.8 2.3 0.6
Oshikoto 45 407 15.7 4.3 45.6 8.3 8.6 12.5 3.6 1.3
Otjozondjupa 39 761 32.5 4.4 27.0 24.0 8.1 4.0 0.0 0.0
Zambezi 26 901 20.0 8.8 25.5 10.6 25.7 8.3 0.0 1.2
Chapter 7: Housing Characteristics
113Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
114 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical
Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
115Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
NAMIBIA INTERCENSAL DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY
2016 SAMPLING TECHNICAL REPORT
SURVEYS AND FIELD OPERATIONS
Sampling Frame and Business Register
Enquiries: Status: Date:
Survey and Field Operations Version 1.0 August 2017
Tel: 061 431 3200
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 118
1.1. Background to the NIDS 2016 118
1.2. Objective of the NIDS 2016 118
2. The sample 119
2.1. Target Population 119
2.2. The Sampling Frame 119
2.3. The Sample Design 119
3. Sample Actualization 120
3.1. The response rate 120
4. The sample weight 121
4.1. The design/base weight 121
4.2. The design weight adjustment 121
4.3. Weight Calibration 122
4.4 Final weights 123
5. Estimation 124
5.1. Data Quality Indicators 124
116 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Sample distribution by area 119
Table 2: Response rate by area 120
Table 5.1: Estimates of Total population by area with measures of precision 125
Table 5.2: Estimates of sex ratio by area with the measures of precision 125
Table5.3: Estimates of the literacy rate by area with measures of precision 126
Table 5.4: The estimated number of orphans by area with measure of precision 126
Table 5.5: Estimates of the average age at first live birth for women by area with measures of precision 127
Table 5.6: Estimates of the Crude Birth Rate (CBR) by area with measures of precision 127
Table 5.7: Estimates of the total number of deaths by area with measures of precision 128
Table 5.8: The Estimates of total number of infants deaths by sex with the measures of precision 128
Table 5.9: The Estimates of total number of infants deaths by sex with the measures of precision 128
Table 5.10: The Estimates of total number of households by area with the measures of precision 129
Table 5.11: The estimated average household size by area with measure of precision 129
Population by age and sex, Namibia 133
Births in the last 12 months by females aged 15-49 years, Namibia 134
Death in the last 12 months by age group and sex, Namibia 134
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
117Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
1. Introduction
This technical report presents the methods used in conducting the 2016 Namibia Intercensal Demographic Survey (NIDS
2016) focusing on the technical aspects of the survey methodology. The report also provides the quality indicators of the
survey data and the survey estimates.
1.1. Background to the NIDS 2016
Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA) conducted the Namibia Intercensal Demographic Survey (NIDS) to monitor the population
dynamics between censuses. The 2016 NIDS data was collected using Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI)
methodology by ways of using tablets.
1.2. Objective of the NIDS 2016
The 2016 survey was conducted with the objective of generating timely collection and release of key demographic
indicators to update information on population size and growth, fertility, mortality, migration and other population
characteristics as well as household facilities and amenities. More specifically, the survey was designed to provide
detailed information on the followings:
1. Information on the size and structure of the countrys population
2. To provide data for the evaluation of the performance of NDP4, MDGs for monitoring the improvement of social
welfare of the Namibia people
3. To collect data for estimation of benchmark indicators for monitoring of development initiatives such as NDP5
4. Provide base indicators to update population projections
5. To serve as pilot for the 2021 Population and Housing Census
118 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
2. The sample
2.1. Target Population
The target population for the 2016 NIDS was members of
private households in Namibia. The population living in
institutions, such as hospitals, hostels, police barracks and
prisons were not covered in this survey.
However, private households within institutional settings
such as teachers houses in school premises were covered.
2.2. The Sampling Frame
A national sampling frame is a list of small geographical
areas called Primary Sampling Units (PSU). There are a
total of 6245 PSUs in Namibia. They were created using
the enumeration areas (EA) of the 2011 Population and
Housing Census.
The measure of size in the frame is the number of
households within the PSU. The frame units were stratified
first by region, and then by urban/rural areas within each
region.
2.3. The Sample Design
The sample design was a stratified two-stage cluster
sample, where the first stage units were the PSUs and the
second stage units were the households. Sample sizes were
determined to give reliable estimates of the population
characteristics at the regional level (i.e. lowest domain of
estimation). A total of 12480 households constituted the
sample from all 14 regions and from a sample of 624 PSUs.
Power allocation procedures was adopted to distribute the
sample across the regions so that the smaller regions will
get adequate samples.
2.3.1 Selection of PSUs
The sample of 624 PSUs was selected in the first stage
using the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling
procedure together with systematic sampling.
2.3.2. Selection of Segments
The PSUs which were found to be larger in terms of the
number of households, were then divided into manageable
sizes of segments of which one segment was selected
using PPS approach. Listing was then done in the selected
segment.
2.3.3. Selection of Households
The second stage of the sampling exercise was the selection
of households to be interviewed from each of the selected
PSUs. This process began with listing of all the households
in each selected PSUs using the tablets.
Once the listing of households in the PSU was completed,
the required 20 households were randomly selected from
those listed using a Systematic Sampling procedure. The
sampling algorithm was an integral component of the CAPI
application.
2.3.4. The 2016 NIDS Sample distribution
The final sample for the NIDS 2016 was 12480 households
sampled from a sample of 624 PSU selected throughout
the country. The sample distribution by region and national
urban/rural is given below in Table2.1.
Table 2.1: Sample distribution by area
Region Households PSU
Namibia 12480 624
Urban 6000 300
Rural 6480 324
!Karas 880 44
Erongo 1340 67
Hardap 840 42
Kavango East 620 31
Kavango West 520 26
Khomas 1380 69
Kunene 780 39
Ohangwena 860 43
Omaheke 760 38
Omusati 940 47
Oshana 860 43
Oshikoto 920 46
Otjozondjupa 980 49
Zambezi 800 40
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
119Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
3. Sample Actualization
After data collection and structural editing process, the household file and person file were made available for the
calculation of weights. Prior to weighting it is important to verify the number of households and PSUs received against the
actual sample. This will allow each sample to be accounted for during the weighting process. The household file received
had 12239 records which was used for the weights calculation.
3.1. The response rate
The response rate is defined as the proportion (expressed in percentage) of households which have responded to the
survey questionnaires out of the total expected households in the survey. When the household sample was implemented
it was not possible to interview some of households due to refusals or non-contacts etc., therefore, if such households
were found to be more than two per PSU, they were substituted with other households having more or less similar
characteristics to the original selected ones. The response rate (RR) was calculated using the following equation:
RR = x 100
Responding Households
Sampled Households
(1)
After data processing, 12 239 out of 12 480 sampled households were successfully interviewed, resulting in a 98.1 percent
response rate which is highly satisfactory given that the NSA subscribes to a response rate of 80 percent for all data
collection in the social statistics domain. Lowest response rate of 97.4% was observed in //Karas, Khomas and Zambezi
regions.
Table 2: Response rate by area
Region
Sampled
Households
Responding
Households
Response rate
Namibia 12480 12239 98.1
Urban 6000 5867 97.8
Rural 6480 6372 98.3
!Karas 880 857 97.4
Erongo 1340 1320 98.5
Hardap 840 828 98.6
Kavango East 620 611 98.5
Kavango West 520 511 98.3
Khomas 1380 1344 97.4
Kunene 780 764 97.9
Ohangwena 860 858 99.8
Omaheke 760 741 97.5
Omusati 940 926 98.5
Oshana 860 841 97.8
Oshikoto 920 900 97.8
Otjozondjupa 980 959 97.9
Zambezi 800 779 97.4
1A total of 289 households were substituted in the sample.
120 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
4. The sample weight
Weighting is a process of accounting for the selection probabilities and non-response in a sample survey. The inverse of
these selection probabilities adjusted for non-response is called the design (base) weight. Given the population projections
from the Demographic and Vital Statistics Division, weight adjustment of the design weight was undertaken in order to
ensure that the calculated survey estimates conforms to the projection totals. However, due to the limitations of post
stratified weight adjustment in controlling a large number of cells at different levels, a complex procedure known as
weight calibration was instead applied.
4.1. The design/base weight
Generally, population figures were estimated by raising sample figures using design weights. Design weights were
calculated based on the probabilities of selection at each stage. The first stage weights were calculated using the sample
selection information from the sampling frame and the second stage weights were calculated based on the sample
selection information of household listing.
The first stage probability of selection p1 was calculated using the following equation:
p1 =
Mhi * nh
Mh
(2)
where;
Mhi = Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h (PSU size)
Mh = Total number of households in stratum h (stratum size)
nh = Number of PSUs selected from the stratum h
The second stage probability of selection p2 was calculated using the following equation:
p2 =
mhi
Mhi
(3)
Where;
mhi = Number of households in the sample from the i
th PSU in stratum h
Mhi = Number of households in the i
th PSU in stratum h according to survey listing
Therefore, the Inverse Sampling Rate (ISR) which is the design weights was calculated as follows:
* = *
mhi
Mhi
ISR =
1
p1
1
p2 Mhi * nh
Mh (4)
4.2. The design weight adjustment
4.2.1. Adjustment for Segmented PSU
For the PSUs that were segmented, additional probability of selection was introduced. Let t be the number of households
in the selected segment and T the total number of households in a segmented PSU, then equation 2 above can be
adjusted to account for segments selection as follows:
* T
t
p1
adj =
Mh
Mhi * nh (5)
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
121Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
4.2.2. Adjustment for Household Non-response
Unit non-response can be accounted for during surveys by applying non response adjustment factor to weights. An
adjustment is usually made to the design weight on the assumption that the characteristics of the responding units are
similar to those of the non-responding units. The household non-response was carried out for the NIDS 2016 by getting
the selection probability of households (p2) using the responding households instead of expected households. Therefore,
mhi in equation 3 was replaced by the number of responding households within each PSU and hence equation 3 becomes:
p2
r =
mhi
r
Mhi
(6)
where;
mhi
r = Number of responding households in the sample from the ith PSU in stratum h
Therefore, the design weights was calculated by incorporating equation 5 and equation 6 to form the following equation:
* = *
t
T
ISRadj =
1
p1
adj
1
p2
r Mhi * nh
Mh
*
mhi
r
Mhi( ) (7)
4.3. Weight Calibration
Weight calibration is a post survey weight adjustment method that is used when auxiliary information related to the
population of interest is available. This auxiliary information generally is in the form of population totals for various
categories of the unit of interest e.g. age groups, sex of respondents etc. Assuming the auxiliary information is true and
correct, this information can be used to benchmark the survey estimates to sum up to these known population totals
(within each categories) but more importantly, will improve the quality of the survey estimates. Weight calibration is
generally applied as a final step in the development of the survey weights at the person4 level. The weight calibration was
achieved using a GREGWT5 macro implemented in the Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) package.
4.3.1. Preparation of the data file
Before the weight calibration procedure is applied, the required datasets need to be provided and setup in the required
format to be read into the weight calibration macro. In addition, the Demographic and Vital Statistics Division provided
a set of 2016 population projections at national and regional level were used to derive the control totals for weight
calibration within the required cells at national and regional levels.
There are two sets of control totals that was prepared and used in the calibration of the design weights:
" At national level: Totals were defined by the cross-classification of Urban/Rural, age, and Sex. Urban/ rural was
defined into two group of Urban (1) and Rural (2), Age was classified into the 14 five-year age groups of 0-4, 5-9,
10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, and 65+, while Sex was categorized into
two groups of female (1) and male (2). The cross-classification resulted in 56 weight calibration cells at national level.
" At regional level: Totals were defined by the cross-classification of Age and Sex. In particular, the age was defined into
four broad age groups of 0-14 (1), 15-34 (2), 35-64 (3) and 65+ (4), while sex was defined as female (1) and male(2).
These matrices resulted into 112 weight calibration cells for 2014 -2016 surveys and 104 weight calibration cells for
2012-2013 surveys.
2The weight calibration was only done for person level weights. Households were estimated using design weights. Calibration could not be done
for household level weight because there was no independent estimates for households to be used as control total.
3SAS macro developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the weight calibration process.
122 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
4.4 Final weights
The final weights for the person level (Wp) is defined as the product of the design weight (ISR
adj) and the person level
calibration factor (calib_factor) calculated during the weight calibration process. A variable called calibwgt16 was the final
weights used for the NIDS 2016 analysis of individual level data:
Wp = ISR
adj * Calib _ factor
(8)
For the household level data, the final weight was taken as the design weight, calculated as:
Wh = ISR
adj
(9)
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
123Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
5. Estimation
The most common measure of quality of the survey estimates reported from the sample surveys was the level of precision
of the estimates. The quality indicators were meant to ascertain the analysts about the level of precision of the estimates
at different analysis domains. The statistical precision of the survey estimates were expressed using different types of
statistical measures such as Standard errors (SE), the coefficient of variation (CV) and the Confidence Interval (CI). These
statistics were used to indicate the level of precision of the survey estimates in estimating the population parameters
of interest. There are a number of factors that can affect the precision of the survey estimates namely the size of the
sample relative to the population size, the sample design and how the variability of the characteristics of interest in the
population. The data quality indicators were discussed in details in the following sub-section.
5.1. Data Quality Indicators
The following measures of precision was calculated for the NIDS 2016 key indicators.
a) Confidence Interval
The interval within which a population parameter is likely to be found, determined by sample data and a chosen
confidence level(1 - a[a refers to the level of significance]). At standard level, a significance level a = 0.05 resulting in
a 95% Confidence Interval is used. The 95% Confidence Interval for the sample statistic b is expressed as:
CI(b) = b ± (1.96 x sê(b) (10)
The confidence interval gives a range where the population parameter lies. A wider confidence intervals implies that
there is too much variability in the statistics to estimate the population parameter while a narrower interval indicates less
variability, signifying a desirable outcome.
b) Coefficient of variation
The Coefficients of Variation of the sample statistics, b is given by:
CV(b) =
sê(b)
b
(11)
The coefficient of variation is based on the Standard Error (SE), which is a function of the sample variation and sample
size. The standard error is the standard deviation of the statistics which measures the variability in the estimates around
the expected value. The standard error given in this report were estimated using the Taylor series Linearization method
in Stata 12.1 program. The Coefficient of variation is the ratio of the standard error of the survey estimates to the value
of the estimates itself. The coefficient of variation is a measure of spread that describes the amount of variability relative
to the estimates.
Figure 1: Level of the Coefficient of Variation for the survey estimates
CV level Interpretation
a. 0.0% - 1.0%
b. 1.1% - 5.0%
c. 5.1% - 15.0%
d. 15.1% - 25.5%
e. 25.6% +
Estimates are reliable
Estimates can be used
with Caution
Estimates are
unreliable
124 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
5.1.1. Total Population
Table 5.1 below presents the measures of precision achieved at national and regional level for the total population. The
precision estimates were well within the thresholds defined in figure 5.1 above and therefore the population parameter
estimates were reliable at all domains of estimation. However, the estimated population for Hardap should be used with
caution, as the coefficient of variation for the estimates is about 18%.
Table 5.1: Estimates of Total population by area with measures of precision
Area Estimates
Standard
error
95% Confidence Interval Observation Coefficient
of VariationLower bound Upper bound Unweighted Weighted
%
Namibia 2324388 44176 2237629 2411147 47345 2324388 1.9
Urban 1112868 36221 1041732 1184004 21601 1112868 3.3
Rural 1211520 25289 1161853 1261187 25744 1211520 2.1
!Karas 85759 6004 73967 97551 2523 85759 7.0
Erongo 182402 8850 165020 199784 3989 182402 4.9
Hardap 87186 15558 56631 117741 3059 87186 17.8
Kavango East 148466 17014 115052 181880 3261 148466 11.5
Kavango West 89313 11987 65770 112856 2672 89313 13.4
Khomas 415780 17636 381144 450416 4641 415780 4.2
Kunene 97865 11799 74692 121038 2554 97865 12.1
Ohangwena 255510 9880 236107 274913 4278 255510 3.9
Omaheke 74629 4430 65929 83329 2561 74629 5.9
Omusati 249885 8908 232391 267379 4116 249885 3.6
Oshana 189237 9073 171418 207056 3441 189237 4.8
Oshikoto 195165 7709 180024 210306 3787 195165 4.0
Otjozondjupa 154342 18446 118116 190568 3446 154342 12.0
Zambezi 98849 5755 87546 110152 3017 98849 5.8
5.1.2. Sex Ratio
Table 5.2 below presents measures of precision for the sex ratio by area. The precision estimates fall well within the
Coefficient of Variation reliability thresholds.
Table 5.2: Estimates of sex ratio by area with the measures of precision
Area Sex ratio
Standard
error
95% Confidence Interval Observation Coefficient
of Variation
Design
effects
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Unweighted weighted
%
Namibia 95 1.1 92 97 47345 2324388 1.16 1.59
Urban 95 1.7 92 99 21601 1112868 1.78 1.80
Rural 94 1.4 91 97 25744 1211520 1.51 1.40
!Karas 102 6.1 90 114 2523 85759 5.96 1.55
Erongo 112 4.3 104 121 3989 182402 3.86 1.38
Hardap 105 3.0 99 111 3059 87186 2.90 0.37
Kavango East 87 5.2 77 97 3261 148466 6.00 2.70
Kavango West 90 4.2 82 98 2672 89313 4.63 0.97
Khomas 98 2.7 93 104 4641 415780 2.77 1.63
Kunene 103 6.6 90 116 2554 97865 6.38 2.03
Ohangwena 86 2.7 80 91 4278 255510 3.15 1.29
Omaheke 112 6.5 99 125 2561 74629 5.83 1.29
Omusati 82 2.2 78 87 4116 249885 2.70 0.92
Oshana 83 3.5 77 90 3441 189237 4.15 1.64
Oshikoto 93 4.7 84 102 3787 195165 5.08 2.56
Otjozondjupa 106 3.8 99 114 3446 154342 3.61 1.03
Zambezi 96 4.3 88 104 3017 98849 4.43 0.99
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
125Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
5.1.3. Literacy rate (Adult Literacy rate)
Table 5.3 below presents the measures of precision achieved at national and regional levels for the adult literacy rate. The
coefficient of variation for the population parameter estimates were found to be well within the thresholds defined in
figure 5.1 and therefore the population parameter estimates were reliable at all domains of estimation.
Table5.3: Estimates of the literacy rate by area with measures of precision
Area Estimates
Sampling
Error
95% Confidence Interval Observation Coefficient
of Variation
Design
EffectsLower bound Upper Bound Unweighted Weighted
% % % % %
Namibia 88.7 0.39 87.9 89.4 29740 1478025 0.44 4.55
Urban 94.1 0.48 93.2 95.0 14497 772118 0.51 6.43
Rural 82.7 0.66 81.4 84.0 15243 705907 0.79 4.40
!Karas 96.1 0.70 94.7 97.4 1840 59447 0.73 1.57
Erongo 95.9 0.90 94.1 97.7 2876 130791 0.94 5.46
Hardap 84.7 2.58 79.7 89.8 2033 58401 3.05 6.12
Kavango East 84.7 1.20 82.4 87.1 1821 86941 1.42 1.98
Kavango West 75.6 2.95 69.8 81.4 1415 47746 3.91 4.60
Khomas 96.7 0.49 95.8 97.7 3379 295684 0.51 4.62
Kunene 66.5 4.23 58.2 74.8 1496 56549 6.36 9.24
Ohangwena 85.6 1.22 83.2 88.0 2309 145074 1.43 3.59
Omaheke 75.4 2.51 70.5 80.3 1653 45131 3.33 3.12
Omusati 87.6 0.92 85.8 89.5 2401 151780 1.05 2.43
Oshana 94.1 0.60 92.9 95.2 2200 124472 0.63 1.62
Oshikoto 88.0 1.49 85.1 91.0 2241 119561 1.70 5.15
Otjozondjupa 83.1 1.39 80.4 85.8 2274 96072 1.67 2.68
Zambezi 85.5 1.20 83.2 87.9 1802 60376 1.40 1.43
5.1.4. Total Number of orphans
Table 5.4 presents the measures of precision for the total number of people who are orphans. The coefficient of variation
for the population parameter estimates were found to be well within the thresholds for National as well as the urban and
rural estimates and therefore the population parameter estimates were reliable at these domains of estimation. However,
the estimates for Erongo, Hardap, Kavango west, Khomas, Omaheke, and Otjozondjupa has to be used with some level of
caution as the sample size was not sufficient enough to capture the total number of orphans with high level of precision
(It could be that there are few orphans in these region and to get a high level precision we needed a much bigger sample).
Furthermore, estimates for Kunene falls with the unreliable thresholds.
Table 5.4: The estimated number of orphans by area with measure of precision
Area Estimates
Standard
error
95% Confidence Interval Observation Coefficient
of Variation
Design
effectsLower bound Upper Bound Unweighted Weighted
%
Namibia 129920 5300 119512 140328 2560 129920 4.1 4.66
Urban 38416 2708 33098 43735 898 38416 7.0 3.95
Rural 91504 4556 82557 100451 1662 91504 5.0 4.81
!Karas 3155 728 1726 4585 94 3155 23.1 3.42
Erongo 3844 597 2671 5016 86 3844 15.5 1.89
Hardap 4156 894 2401 5912 156 4156 21.5 3.92
Kavango East 12164 1795 8639 15688 260 12164 14.8 5.42
Kavango West 7081 1402 4327 9834 184 7081 19.8 5.67
Khomas 11100 1874 7419 14780 134 11100 16.9 6.47
Kunene 7152 1935 3351 10952 158 7152 27.1 10.70
Ohangwena 22043 2529 17076 27009 329 22043 11.5 5.97
Omaheke 2691 425 1856 3525 94 2691 15.8 1.37
Omusati 18844 1635 15633 22054 281 18844 8.7 2.91
Oshana 10666 1123 8461 12871 179 10666 10.5 2.42
Oshikoto 13127 1355 10467 15787 236 13127 10.3 2.86
Otjozondjupa 5745 975 3831 7659 132 5745 17.0 3.38
Zambezi 8154 815 6553 9755 237 8154 10.0 1.67
126 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
5.1.5. Average Age at first live birth
Table 5.5 below presents the measures of precision achieved at national and regional levels for the average age at first
live birth for women. The coefficient of variation for the estimates were found to be well within the thresholds defined in
figure 5.1 and therefore the estimates were reliable at all domains of estimation.
Table 5.5: Estimates of the average age at first live birth for women by area with measures of precision
Area Estimates Standard error
95% Confidence Interval Coefficient of
variation
Design
effectsLower bound Upper bound %
Namibia 21.1 0.1 21.0 21.3 0.40 3.29
Urban 21.4 0.1 21.2 21.7 0.64 4.99
Rural 20.7 0.1 20.6 20.9 0.43 1.64
!Karas 20.9 0.3 20.4 21.4 1.23 1.61
Erongo 21.9 0.2 21.4 22.3 1.03 2.22
Hardap 20.3 0.2 20.0 20.7 0.86 1.06
Kavango East 18.8 0.2 18.4 19.2 1.11 1.95
Kavango West 18.8 0.2 18.4 19.2 1.15 1.08
Khomas 22.2 0.2 21.7 22.6 1.05 4.85
Kunene 19.8 0.3 19.2 20.4 1.56 1.87
Ohangwena 20.9 0.2 20.5 21.3 0.90 1.80
Omaheke 20.3 0.2 19.9 20.8 1.07 0.79
Omusati 22.2 0.2 21.8 22.7 1.05 2.05
Oshana 22.1 0.3 21.5 22.7 1.31 3.17
Oshikoto 21.4 0.3 20.9 21.9 1.22 2.45
Otjozondjupa 20.2 0.3 19.7 20.8 1.36 2.77
Zambezi 20.0 0.2 19.6 20.4 1.11 1.25
5.1.6. Crude Birth Rate
Table 5.6 below presents the measures of precision achieved at national and regional levels for the crude birth rate. The
coefficient of variation for the estimates were found to be well within the reliable thresholds for the National estimates
as well as urban/ rural domain of estimation. However, cautiousness should be exercised when using or interpreting the
estimates for !Karas.
Table 5.6: Estimates of the Crude Birth Rate (CBR) by area with measures of precision
Area Estimates
Standard
error
95% Confidence Interval Observation Coefficient
of variation
Design
effects
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Unweighted Weighted %
Namibia 32.6 1.0 30.7 34.6 1483 75832 3.01 1.39
Urban 31.8 1.5 28.8 34.8 659 35375 4.80 1.63
Rural 33.4 1.3 30.9 35.9 824 40457 3.77 1.18
!Karas 33.7 5.7 22.5 44.9 80 2890 16.90 1.50
Erongo 22.5 2.8 17.0 28.0 95 4101 12.47 1.30
Hardap 29.4 3.5 22.6 36.3 86 2567 11.83 0.75
Kavango East 45.7 3.9 38.0 53.3 139 6778 8.55 1.03
Kavango West 34.7 2.9 28.9 40.4 87 3095 8.47 0.46
Khomas 29.0 2.8 23.5 34.4 121 12043 9.53 2.27
Kunene 43.7 4.3 35.3 52.1 113 4277 9.79 0.74
Ohangwena 38.2 3.8 30.7 45.6 153 9750 9.95 1.92
Omaheke 26.6 3.0 20.6 32.5 74 1982 11.39 0.53
Omusati 33.6 2.8 28.1 39.1 120 8396 8.40 1.23
Oshana 33.7 2.8 28.1 39.3 103 6371 8.46 0.93
Oshikoto 32.1 3.1 26.0 38.3 115 6274 9.74 1.23
Otjozondjupa 24.5 2.6 19.4 29.5 91 3776 10.45 0.85
Zambezi 35.7 4.2 27.4 44.0 106 3532 11.84 1.03
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
127Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
5.1.7. Total number of deaths
Table 5.7 below presents the measures of precision achieved at national and regional levels for the total number of
deaths. The coefficient of variation for the estimates were found to be well within the thresholds defined in figure 5.1 for
the national level of estimation. However, cautiousness should be exercised when using or interpreting the estimates for
most of the regions, except for !Karas and Kavango West were the estimates were found to be unreliable.
Table 5.7: Estimates of the total number of deaths by area with measures of precision
Area Estimates
Standard
Error
95% Confidence Interval Observation Coefficient
of Variation Design
effectsLower
bound
Upper
bound
Unweighted Weighted %
Namibia 25096 1455 22239 27953 12239 589787 5.80 1.47
Urban 10269 1077 8154 12384 5867 325335 10.49 2.10
Rural 14827 978 12907 16748 6372 264452 6.60 1.05
!Karas 829 253 331 1326 857 26348 30.57 1.20
Erongo 1800 383 1049 2552 1320 58486 21.25 1.51
Hardap 1374 273 837 1912 828 30108 19.90 0.90
Kavango East 2509 537 1454 3564 611 35848 21.42 2.09
Kavango West 1535 443 665 2405 511 17046 28.86 2.32
Khomas 2197 503 1209 3185 1344 119217 22.89 2.25
Kunene 856 210 443 1268 764 21099 24.53 1.02
Ohangwena 2533 415 1718 3348 858 49470 16.38 1.09
Omaheke 1454 315 836 2072 741 21169 21.64 0.90
Omusati 2859 380 2113 3605 926 54383 13.28 0.91
Oshana 1595 365 879 2312 841 44544 22.87 1.37
Oshikoto 2300 458 1400 3199 900 45407 19.91 1.40
Otjozondjupa 2021 449 1139 2902 959 39761 22.22 1.93
Zambezi 1234 299 647 1822 779 26901 24.23 0.94
5.1.8. Child Mortality
Table 5.8 presents the measures of precision achieved at national levels for the total number of child deaths. The precision
estimates were within the reliable estimates thresholds for the total. On the other hand, the coefficient of variation for
the sex is falling within the use with caution categories.
Table 5.8: The Estimates of total number of infants deaths by sex with the measures of precision
Estimates
Standard
error
95% Confidence Interval Observation Coefficient of
variationLower bound Upper bound Unweighted Weighted %
Total 1542 215 1103 1981 35 1542 13.9
Female 960 187 577 1343 20 960 19.5
Male 582 132 312 852 15 582 22.7
5.1.9. Infants Mortality
Table 5.9 presents the measures of precision achieved at national levels for the total number of infants deaths. The
precision estimates were within the reliable estimates thresholds for the total. On the other hand, the coefficient of
variation for the sex is falling within the use with caution categories.
Table 5.9: The Estimates of total number of infants deaths by sex with the measures of precision
Estimates
Standard
error
95% Confidence Interval Observation Coefficient of
variation
Lower bound Upper bound Unweighted Weighted %
Total 2351 197 1956 2746 57 2351 8.4
Female 1268 208 851 1685.043 30 1268 16.4
Male 1083 172 737 1428.111 27 1083 15.9
128 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
5.1.10. Total Number of households
Table 5.10 presents the measures of precision achieved at national and regional levels for the total number of households.
The precision estimates were well within the thresholds defined in figure 5.1 for most of the domain and therefore the
population parameter estimates were reliable at all domains of estimation with exception for Hardap.
Table 5.10: The Estimates of total number of households by area with the measures of precision
Area Estimates
Standard
Error
95% Confidence Interval Observation Coefficient of
VariationLower bound Upper bound Unweighted Weighted %
Namibia 589787 11883 566449 613124 12239 589787 2.0
Urban 325335 11142 303453 347217 5867 325335 3.4
Rural 264452 4131 256339 272564 6372 264452 1.6
!Karas 26348 1674 23059 29636 857 26348 6.4
Erongo 58486 2661 53260 63712 1320 58486 4.5
Hardap 30108 7428 15519 44697 828 30108 24.7
Kavango East 35848 5008 26012 45684 611 35848 14.0
Kavango West 17046 1758 13593 20500 511 17046 10.3
Khomas 119217 4713 109960 128474 1344 119217 4.0
Kunene 21099 1492 18169 24029 764 21099 7.1
Ohangwena 49470 1535 46455 52485 858 49470 3.1
Omaheke 21169 1338 18540 23797 741 21169 6.3
Omusati 54383 1225 51978 56788 926 54383 2.3
Oshana 44544 1992 40631 48456 841 44544 4.5
Oshikoto 45407 1793 41886 48928 900 45407 3.9
Otjozondjupa 39761 2926 34015 45508 959 39761 7.4
Zambezi 26901 1460 24034 29769 779 26901 5.4
5.1.11. Average Household Size
Table 5.11 presents the measures of precision achieved at national and regional level for the Average household size.
The precision estimates were within the thresholds defined in figure 5.1 and therefore the estimates were reliable at all
domains of estimation.
Table 5.11: The estimated average household size by area with measure of precision
Area Estimates
Standard
error
95% Confidence Interval Observation Coefficient
of variation
Design
effectsLower bound Upper bound Unweighted Weighted% % % % %
Namibia 3.9 0.05 3.8 4.0 12239 589787 1.16 3.06
Urban 3.7 0.07 3.5 3.8 5867 325335 1.78 3.91
Rural 4.2 0.06 4.1 4.4 6372 264452 1.44 2.19
!Karas 2.9 0.13 2.7 3.2 857 26348 4.46 1.93
Erongo 3.0 0.07 2.9 3.2 1320 58486 2.17 1.15
Hardap 3.5 0.23 3.0 3.9 828 30108 6.54 5.40
Kavango East 5.3 0.21 4.9 5.7 611 35848 3.94 2.98
Kavango West 5.6 0.33 5.0 6.3 511 17046 5.86 2.69
Khomas 3.4 0.08 3.3 3.6 1344 119217 2.38 2.86
Kunene 3.5 0.27 3.0 4.0 764 21099 7.62 3.49
Ohangwena 5.0 0.14 4.8 5.3 858 49470 2.69 1.60
Omaheke 3.4 0.11 3.2 3.6 741 21169 3.26 0.73
Omusati 4.4 0.16 4.1 4.7 926 54383 3.74 3.34
Oshana 4.0 0.12 3.7 4.2 841 44544 2.93 1.44
Oshikoto 4.1 0.17 3.8 4.4 900 45407 4.19 3.05
Otjozondjupa 3.9 0.25 3.4 4.4 959 39761 6.49 6.38
Zambezi 3.9 0.08 3.7 4.0 779 26901 1.94 0.59
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
129Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
5.2. Cautionary Note
The calibrated weight is used for the person level analysis but for the households only the design weight is used (Foot
note 2 under sub section 4.3). This means the population estimates are based on the calibrated weight and the household
estimates on the design weight. It should be noted that when ratio estimates involving the households are derived the
weight used is the design weight for both variables. Therefore, users are being cautioned when using ratio indicator
that involves population and households there might be slight differences if you use direct calculation. For instance,
Average households size; if one take the estimated total population and divide it with estimated total households given
in the report , the figure might not be equal to what was presented in this report for the ratio as those indicators were
computed using the design weight for both variables.
For the mortality indicator, there was some strata with no deaths, hence at analysis stage the strata was further collapsed
to a national level. However as it can be seen from tables above (tables 5.1.7 - 5.1.9), most of the mortality indicator are
not reliable at lower domains of estimation.
130 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
Annex A: Sampling Technical Report
131Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
132 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex B: Tables
Annex B: Tables
Annex B: Tables
133Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Population by age and sex, Namibia
Age Female Male Total Age Female Male Total
Total 1194634 1129754 2324388 48 9631 8222 17853
0 33319 34417 67735 49 8475 7295 15770
1 30698 32653 63351 50 10139 7913 18051
2 29539 33996 63535 51 7168 6880 14048
3 32714 30934 63648 52 6292 6615 12907
4 32875 30780 63655 53 8991 6008 14999
5 32892 33385 66277 54 8073 6179 14253
6 29467 29463 58930 55 6515 5089 11604
7 27288 24943 52231 56 8620 5230 13850
8 26291 29309 55600 57 5754 4294 10048
9 25214 26395 51610 58 5573 4102 9675
10 26760 26380 53140 59 5502 5394 10897
11 23447 23370 46817 60 6541 4980 11522
12 25387 24953 50340 61 3833 3602 7435
13 23906 24093 47999 62 4545 3223 7768
14 19784 21543 41327 63 5113 3233 8345
15 25940 24858 50798 64 4242 3290 7532
16 26426 26741 53166 65 4004 2656 6660
17 23659 23887 47546 66 3960 3705 7665
18 22883 22734 45617 67 3620 3182 6802
19 23583 22107 45691 68 3134 2484 5618
20 24360 24498 48858 69 2607 2132 4739
21 22501 20900 43401 70 2647 1935 4582
22 24353 24152 48505 71 1822 1840 3662
23 22417 22713 45130 72 3486 2103 5589
24 25713 22491 48203 73 2722 1899 4621
25 22404 22358 44763 74 2402 1348 3750
26 24200 25327 49527 75 1969 2044 4013
27 21917 19436 41353 76 3586 2041 5627
28 20736 18585 39321 77 2291 1204 3496
29 17065 16768 33833 78 1780 1276 3056
30 21114 19130 40244 79 1791 1196 2987
31 17559 17568 35128 80 2124 1277 3402
32 19681 18088 37768 81 1502 591 2093
33 13277 13624 26902 82 1298 389 1687
34 15244 13568 28812 83 1260 941 2202
35 14517 14126 28644 84 1435 1049 2484
36 15467 16085 31552 85 1159 449 1608
37 14319 11668 25987 86 2014 873 2887
38 11784 11938 23722 87 634 603 1237
39 15966 14263 30229 88 1417 1011 2429
40 14794 14784 29578 89 647 493 1140
41 10421 9392 19812 90 1212 354 1565
42 13691 12193 25884 91 629 227 856
43 11095 10518 21613 92 619 266 884
44 10719 8894 19613 93 517 86 603
45 10255 10246 20501 94 585 188 773
46 10865 9877 20742 95+ 3123 1419 4542
47 9123 6809 15933
Children ever born to females aged 15-49 years, Namibia
Age of
Mother
Number
of
women
Children ever born Surviving Died
Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male
15-19 122491 19773 9451 10323 19141 9011 10130 632 440 192
20-24 119344 107895 55204 52691 105685 54270 51415 2210 934 1276
25-29 106322 180698 87684 93014 176029 85638 90391 4669 2046 2623
30-34 86875 198688 97224 101464 194498 95114 99385 4190 2110 2080
35-39 72053 213259 104559 108700 205227 100657 104570 8032 3902 4130
40-44 60720 209491 104114 105377 202354 101286 101068 7137 2798 4339
45-49 48349 181898 92840 89059 174464 89273 85191 7434 3567 3867
Total 616154 1111703 551076 560627 1077398 535249 542149 34305 15798 18507
Births in the last 12 months by females aged 15-49 years, Namibia
Age of
Mother
Number
of
women
Births Surviving Died
Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male
15-19 7829 7829 4040 3789 7390 3680 3709 439 360 79
20-24 21882 22065 11558 10507 21471 11145 10326 594 413 181
25-29 18522 19020 9706 9314 18304 9361 8944 716 345 370
30-34 12585 12780 5969 6811 12676 5898 6778 104 71 34
35-39 9332 9622 4516 5106 9356 4321 5035 267 195 71
40-44 3548 3548 1555 1993 3333 1519 1814 215 35 180
45-49 901 901 417 484 901 417 484 0 0 0
Total 74599 75765 37761 38004 73431 36342 37089 2335 1419 915
Death in the last 12 months by age group and sex, Namibia
Age group Female Male Total
under 1 1268 1083 2351
1-4 960 582 1542
5-9 154 129 284
10-14 260 192 452
15-19 251 201 452
20-24 384 825 1210
25-29 503 1109 1612
30-34 846 1139 1985
35-39 815 1602 2417
40-44 648 829 1477
45-49 562 711 1273
50-54 701 791 1492
55-59 192 464 656
60-64 580 577 1156
65-69 651 372 1023
70-74 526 588 1114
75-79 396 267 663
80+ 1913 2024 3938
Total 11609 13487 25096
134 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex B: Tables
Annex B: Tables
135Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
136 Namibia Inter-censal Demographic Survey 2016 Report
Annex B: Tables
Namibia Statistics Agency
P.O. Box 2133, FGI House, Post Street
Mall,
Windhoek, Namibia
Tel: +264 61 431 3200
Fax: +264 61 431 3253
Email: info@nsa.org.na
www.nsa.org.na
www.nsa.org.na