Namibia Household Income &
Expenditure Survey (NHIES) 2009/2010
Namibia Statistics Agency
Namibia Household Income &
Expenditure Survey (NHIES) 2009/2010
Previous publications Living Conditions in Namibia
Basic description with highlights
The 1993/1994 Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
The 2003/2004 Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
Producer Namibia Statistics Agency
P. O. Box 2133, Windhoek
www.nsa.org.na
Inquiries +264 612834111
When quoting the information from this publication, please state the source as follows:
Source: Namibia Statistics Agency, Namibia household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009/2010
Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA)
2012
NHIES 2009/2010Page i
Table of Contents
Preface.................................................................................................. iv
Executive Summary................................................................................ vi
1 Background and Overview............................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives................................................................................. 2
1.3 Survey design and implementation......................................... 2
1.4 Estimation................................................................................. 3
1.5 Consultation with stakeholders................................................ 4
1.6 Changes in the questionnaires................................................. 4
1.7 Questionnaires, contents and manuals.................................... 5
1.8 Pilot survey............................................................................... 6
1.9 Field organisation..................................................................... 6
1.10 Training..................................................................................... 7
1.11 Survey publicity......................................................................... 7
1.12 Data collection.......................................................................... 7
1.13 Survey monitoring.................................................................... 8
1.14 Data processing........................................................................ 8
1.14.1 Data capturing.............................................................. 8
1.14.2 Data cleaning................................................................ 9
1.14.3 Database....................................................................... 9
1.14.4 Tabulation..................................................................... 9
1.15 Definitions................................................................................ 10
1.16 Coverage and response rate..................................................... 15
1.16.1 Primary sampling units................................................. 15
1.16.2 Household response rate............................................. 16
1.17 Quality...................................................................................... 18
1.18 Guide to the report................................................................... 18
Map of regions in Namibia....................................................... 19
2 Demographic characteristics............................................................ 20
2.1 Households and population...................................................... 21
2.2 Population by age and sex........................................................ 23
2.3 Households............................................................................... 26
NHIES 2009/2010 Page ii
Table of Contents
3 Education........................................................................................ 30
3.1 Literacy...................................................................................... 31
3.2 School attendance.................................................................... 33
3.3 Educational attainment............................................................ 37
4 Labour Force (Annual)..................................................................... 39
4.1 Labour force participation........................................................ 42
4.2 Unemployed population........................................................... 44
4.3 Employed population............................................................... 48
4.4 Economically inactive population............................................. 51
4.5 Employment to population ratio.............................................. 52
5 Main source of income.................................................................... 54
6 Housing and utilities........................................................................ 62
6.1 Type of dwelling........................................................................ 63
6.2 Materials used for dwelling...................................................... 72
6.3 Type of tenure.......................................................................... 75
6.4 Source of energy....................................................................... 76
6.5 Main source of drinking water.................................................. 79
6.6 Toilet facilities........................................................................... 80
6.7 Selected housing indicators...................................................... 81
7 Access to services............................................................................ 83
7.1 Distance to drinking water........................................................ 84
7.2 Distance to health facilities....................................................... 87
7.3 Distance to public transport..................................................... 88
7.4 Distance to local shop or market.............................................. 89
7.5 Distance to primary school....................................................... 90
7.6 Distance to high school............................................................. 91
7.7 Distance to combined school................................................... 92
7.8 Distance to post office.............................................................. 93
7.9 Distance to police station......................................................... 94
7.10 Distance to magistrate court.................................................... 95
7.11 Distance to pension pay point.................................................. 96
NHIES 2009/2010Page iii
Table of Contents
8 Ownership of and access to assets.................................................. 97
8.1 Ownership of/access to selected assets................................... 98
8.2 Ownership of/access to animals and land............................. 109
9 Annual consumption and income.................................................. 120
9.1 Annual consumption.............................................................. 123
9.2 Annual income....................................................................... 132
9.3 The GINI-coefficient............................................................... 141
10 Distribution of annual consumption.............................................. 142
10.1 Consumption groups.............................................................. 143
10.2 Poverty and inequality........................................................... 151
10.2.1 Introduction.............................................................. 151
10.2.2 Poverty lines.............................................................. 151
10.2.3 Household expenditures........................................... 152
10.2.4 Poverty profiles......................................................... 153
10.3 Annual consumption in kind and cash.................................. 169
Appendices......................................................................................... 174
Appendix 1 Regional tables distributed by urban/rural areas...... 174
Appendix 2 Detailed tables........................................................... 180
Appendix 3 Evaluation of poverty................................................. 187
Appendix 4 Unemployment, strict definition................................ 192
Appendix 5 Sampling errors.......................................................... 195
Appendix 6 Specification of sub groups........................................ 208
NHIES 2009/2010 Page iv
Preface
Namibias 21 years of independence has brought many achievements to the people of Namibia. The Government in its endeavor to develop and uplift the standard of living of the citizens has adopted
planning as a tool to achieve aspired goals. Monitoring and evaluation of
these goals is an integral part of planning, thus the Government is investing
in development of statistics.
The Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009/2010 is one
such statistical product and the third of its kind. Similar earlier surveys were
conducted in 1993/1994 and 2003/2004, respectively. The demand for data
and desire to intensify monitoring and evaluation of national development
goals, including international commitments such as Millennium Development
Goals, resulted in the shortening of the interval for conducting such budget
surveys. In this regard the survey interval was reduced from ten to a period
of five year. The international recommendation is that these kinds of surveys
should be conducted at a shorter interval of at least three years. Namibia
like any other developing country faces many challenges to meet this
recommendation, hence five years is still thought to be reasonable enough
for the countrys purposes.
The Household Income and Expenditure Survey is a survey collecting data
on income, consumption and expenditure patterns of households, in
accordance with methodological principles of statistical enquiries, which are
linked to demographic and socio-economic characteristics of households. A
Household Income and Expenditure Survey is the sole source of information
on expenditure, consumption and income patterns of households, which is
used to calculate poverty and income distribution indicators. It also serves as
a statistical infrastructure for the compilation of the national basket of goods
used to measure changes in price levels. Furthermore, it is used for updating
of the national accounts.
The purposes of the Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
2009/2010 are among others:
" To contribute to research and development of a knowledge based
economy in order to reduce poverty and income inequalities;
" To monitor and evaluate development processes and output/outcomes
(development performance audit);
" To provide statistical infrastructure for the production of other
statistics;
#3
The number of Household
Income and Expenditure
Surveys produced since
independence
NHIES 2009/2010Page v
" To provide information for the determination of poverty lines and
production of poverty profiles.
It is evident that the above objectives will be met through the publication of
NHIES 2009/2010 Basic Report. This report includes a brief analysis on the
re-evaluated poverty lines based on NCPI prices using cost of basic needs
methodology. This methodology was adopted in the Namibia Household
Income and Expenditure Survey 2003/2004. The results of the survey show
improvements in many areas of development, including reduction in poverty,
although inequalities are still very high. A detailed comparative poverty report
will be produced in the near future. Efforts are also being made to remove
identifiers in a public dataset, which will enhance the use of the collected
data for researchers, planners and academicians.
It is our belief that the survey results offer policy makers a wide range of policy
options and improve the data availability in the country. The full value of the
collected data and understanding of the cost incurred will only be meaningful
if this data is transformed into information and ultimately into policies for the
benefit of the Namibian people.
It is pleasing to note that the Government of the Republic of Namibia has
funded this survey to the tune of close to N$60 million Namibian Dollars with
the support of other development partners such as UNDP and Grand Duchy
of Luxemburg through Lux Development Cooperation. I would like to thank
the staff, both permanent and contractual, for their valuable contribution
to the success of this project. In the same vein I would like to thank the
respondent households, the Government, the general public and the media.
Last but not least, the short term consultants who provided technical
assistance throughout the value-chain of this statistical production are also
appreciated.
DR JOHN STEYTLER
STATISTICIAN GENERAL WINDHOEK 2012
Preface
N$60 million
The amount of money the
Government of the Republic of
Namibia spent on the NHIES.
NHIES 2009/2010 Page vi
Background and overview (Chapter 1)The main objective of the NHIES 2009/2010 is to comprehensively describe the levels of living of Namibians using actual patterns
of consumption and income, as well as a range of other socio-economic
indicators based on collected data. This survey was designed to inform policy
making at the international, national and regional levels within the context
of the Fourth National Development Plan, in support of monitoring and
evaluation of Vision 2030 and the Millennium Development Goals.
The NHIES was designed to provide policy decision making with reliable
estimates at regional levels as well as to meet rural - urban disaggregation
requirements. A representative sample of about ten thousand households
was selected over a twelve months period consisting of 13 survey rounds.
Two questionnaires (Form 1 and Form 2) were administered to sampled
households. While the data collection methodology of the NHIES 2003/2004
and 2009/2010 has remained basically the same, however some additional
questions were added to the questionnaire for NHIES 2009/2010 in response
to users own identified needs at the time. Some methodological issues
are partly discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, but will however be more
exhaustively treated in the Methodological Report.
Demographic characteristics (Chapter 2)
There were an estimated 436 795 private households during the survey, with
an estimated household population of 2 066 398. Most of the population
and households lived in the rural areas 62 and 57 percent, respectively.
Khomas is the most populated region with 17 percent of the total population,
whereas Omaheke is the least populated with 3 percent of the population.
The estimated average household size in Namibia is 4.7 persons. On average
rural households are bigger than urban households, 5.2 compared to 4.1
persons per household respectively. The national average household size has
decreased from 5.7 persons in 1993/1994 and from 4.9 in 2003/2004.
Education (Chapter 3)
Literate persons in the population aged 15 years and over are 88 percent,
and those not literate are 12 percent. The difference in literacy rates between
males and females at national level are insignificant. Since 2003/2004 literacy
has increased from 83 to 88 percent.
Out of all persons aged 6 years and above 88 percent reported to have been
to school while 12 percent have never been to school. Among those aged
between 6 and 16 years, 9 percent reported that they have never been to
Executive Summary
4.7 Persons
The estimated average
household size in Namibia
88%
of people 15 years and older
are literate
Ten thousand
The number of households
that where interviewed in a 12
month period to produce the
NHIES.s
NHIES 2009/2010Page vii
school. In urban areas 7 percent of the children aged 6-16 reported that they
have never been to school, while the proportion is 10 percent among rural
children.
It is estimated that 13 percent of the population aged 15 years and above
have no formal education, 27 percent have primary education as their highest
educational level attained, 51 percent secondary education and 6 percent
have attained tertiary education. There are great differences between urban
and rural areas. The proportion of those who have no formal education is
19 percent in rural areas compared to 6 percent in urban areas. Levels of
educational attainment in Namibia show an improvement over the last 15
years, especially in rural areas. The percentage of the population 15 years
and above that have no formal education has decreased from 30 percent
in 1993/1994 and 17 percent in 2003/2004 to 13 percent in 2009/2010, a
decline by more than half from 1993/1994.
Labour Force (Annual) (Chapter 4)
Data on labour force was collected at each survey round in NHIES 2009/2010
following the current activity concepts and definitions. It should be noted
that the results reflect an average picture over 13 survey rounds, which is one
complete year. This means that seasonality is covered over the year, which
might give a lower unemployment rate than is normally presented by regular
labour force surveys.
Definitions of labour force concepts are given under 1.15 in the chapter 1
Background and overview and also in chapter 4.
The labour force participation rate varies over regions, urban/rural areas and
sex. In urban areas the rate for females is 76 percent and for males 81. In
rural areas the rate is 63 percent for females and 68 for males. At regional
level the rate ranges from 52 percent in Omusati to 82 percent in Erongo.
The unemployment rate is close to 34 percent in Namibia using the broad
definition. In urban areas 30 percent are unemployed and in rural areas
37 percent. Almost 39 percent of females are unemployed compared to
29 percent of males. The rate is highest in Ohangwena and Omusati (62
and 54 percent) and lowest in Erongo and Oshikoto (around 22 percent).
The correlation between unemployment and highest level of educational
attainment is considerable. Among persons with only primary level of
education the unemployment rate is 34 percent whereas it is 9 percent for
persons with tertiary education.
Most of the employed persons work as paid employees for a private employer
(48 percent) and 16 percent work for government or state enterprises.
Executive Summary
13%
of the population aged 15 years
and older that have no formal
education
34%
of people that want to work are
unemployed as per the broad
definition of unemployment
NHIES 2009/2010 Page viii
The Agriculture, fishery and hunting industry accounts for 29 percent of all
employed persons.
Among the economically inactive persons in Namibia (persons 15+ years
outside the labour force) 52 percent are students and 26 percent are retired
or too old to work.
Main source of income (Chapter 5)
Households were asked for their main source of income from a list of 17
possible source categories, including salaries and/or wages, subsistence
farming, commercial farming, pensions, cash remittances, maintenance
grants, drought relief, in kind receipts, etc. Almost half of all households in
Namibia reported salaries/wages as their main source of income. Subsistence
farming is the main source of income for 23 percent of the households and
pensions for 11 percent. There is a large difference between urban and rural
households. In rural areas 40 percent reported subsistence farming as their
main source of income, as compared to only 1 percent of urban households.
On the other hand, 74 percent of urban households reported salaries/wages as
their main source of income compared to 30 per cent of rural households.
At national level subsistence farming as the main source of income has
decreased to 23 percent from 38 percent in 1993/1994 and 29 percent in
2003/2004.
Housing and utilities (Chapter 6)
The NHIES collected information on type of dwelling categorised as follows:
traditional dwelling, detached house, semi-detached house, improvised
house and flat as well as on type of tenure or ownership. Overall, 31 percent
of households reported that they live in a traditional dwelling, compared to
44 percent in 2003/2004. Of all households 33 percent live in a detached
house, 5 percent in a semi-detached house and 4 percent in a flat. These
three categories together can be considered as modern housing. In rural
areas, 54 percent of households live in traditional dwellings compared to 2
percent in urban areas. At national level 24 percent of households live in
improvised housing, which is an increase from 17 percent in 2003/2004.
Improvised housing in urban areas has slightly increased from 27 percent in
2003/2004 to 30 percent in 2009/2010. The proportion has almost doubled
in rural areas between 2003/2004 and 2009/2010.
Households were classified according to the type of tenure or ownership of
the dwelling. The survey revealed that 73 percent of households reported
that they own their dwellings. The proportions of households, which rent and
Executive Summary
74%
of urban households derive
their main source of income
from salaries and wages
31%
of households live in traditional
dwellings
NHIES 2009/2010Page ix
occupy the dwelling for free, are 14 and 13 percent respectively. In rural areas
80 percent of households own their dwelling without a mortgage compared
to 41 percent in urban areas.
The survey also collected data on main source of drinking water. Piped water
is the main source of drinking water for 75 per cent of all households, 8
percent reported a borehole or protected well, 13 percent stagnant water
and 3 percent flowing water. A larger proportion of urban households, 99
percent, use piped water compared to rural households that accounted for
57 per cent.
The type of toilet at the disposal of household is one of the important
indicators of sanitation.
The survey reported that 40 percent of households use flush toilet, 10 percent
use pit latrine, less than 1 percent use bucket toilet and 49 percent use bush/
no toilet. A large proportion of urban households use flush toilet (78 percent),
compared to rural households (10 percent).
The availability of modern toilet facilities has improved only modestly over the
past years. The percentage of households using bush/no toilet has decreased
slightly both in urban and rural since 2003/2004.
Distance to services (Chapter 7)
A majority of households in Namibia or 72 percent reported that they are
less than 1 kilometre to their source of drinking water. For 25 percent of the
households the distance is 1-3 kilometres while the remaining 3 percent
cover the distance of more than 3 kilometres. In urban areas, 94 percent of
households have less than 1 kilometre to the source of drinking water and in
rural areas 56 percent.
30 percent of households in Namibia reported that they have less than 2
kilometres to the nearest hospital or clinic, 7 percent, however, have
more than 40 kilometres. For urban households, 93 percent are less than
6 kilometres from a health facility. The corresponding proportion of rural
households is 46 percent.
The distance to the nearest primary school is less than 2 kilometres for 49
percent of households in Namibia. For about 8 percent of households in
Namibia it is more than 20 kilometres. Among urban households, 71 percent
are within 1 kilometre to a primary school compared to 31 percent of rural
households. Out of all rural households 18 percent have more than 10
kilometres to the nearest primary school. In Omaheke, 42 percent have more
than 10 kilometres to the nearest primary school and in Kunene 23 percent
have more than 50 kilometres.
Executive Summary
75%
of households have access to
piped water as the main source
of drinking water
72%
of households live within 1km
from main source of drinking
water
NHIES 2009/2010 Page x
Ownership and access to assets (Chapter 8)
In order to gauge changes in welfare status of households in terms of access to
assets, the survey inquired on three broad categories of owning, not owning
but have access and neither owning nor having access to assets.
The survey shows, that over 71 percent of households own a radio, 12
percent reported access to a radio, and 17 percent neither owned nor had
access. Access to a radio is quite prevalent in urban areas where 77 percent
of households own a radio compared to 68 percent in rural areas. The
percentage of households owning a radio has increased from 65 to almost 72
percent since the NHIES 1993/1994.
Regarding the ownership of or access to television, 38 percent of households
reported that they own a TV, 10 percent had access and 52 percent had
no access. A higher percentage of urban households have access to TV, 68
percent compared to 15 percent of rural households.
Ownership of a telephone or cell phone has increased significantly since the
NHIES 1993/1994 and 2003/2004. Then, it was 17 and 34 percent respectively.
Now the percentage of households that own a cell phone is 79 percent, 9
percent have access to a cellphone and 12 per cent have no access. In urban
areas 93 percent of households own a cell phone compared to 68 percent in
rural areas.
Nearly half, 46 percent, of households reported in the survey that they own
poultry, 38 percent own goats and 35 percent own cattle.
Annual consumption and income (Chapter 9)
The estimated total household consumption during the survey period was
N$28 544 million. The average annual consumption per household is N$65
348 while the consumption per capita is N$13 813. Annual consumption is
significantly higher in urban areas. For example, while rural areas account for
57 percent of all households in the country, they only account for 35 percent
of total consumption. Average consumption per capita is N$7 841 in rural
areas compared to N$23 592 in urban areas, a factor of more than three
times as high.
Female headed households constitute 42 percent of all households, but they
only consume 30 percent of total consumption. Consequently, the average
consumption in male headed households is N$79 586 compared to N$46 474
in female headed households. Similarly, consumption per capita in male
headed households is N$17 237 as compared to N$9 462 in households
headed by females. In other words, consumption per capita is 55 percent
lower in female headed households compared to male headed households.
Executive Summary
71%
of households own a radio
38%
of households own a television
set
79%
of households own a cell phone
N$65 438
The average annual
consumption per household
NHIES 2009/2010Page xi
The NHIES results show that the total income in Namibian households over
the survey period was N$30 085 million. The average annual income per
household is N$68 878 and the per capita income is N$14 559.
Household income varies greatly across language groups. Income per capita
in households where Khoisan is the main language spoken, is N$6 631
compared to N$150 730 in households, where the main language is German.
In other words, individuals in a German-speaking household on average have
a level of income that is 23 times higher than individuals in a Khoisan-speaking
household. However, it is a slight improvement from 2003/2004 when it was
31 times higher. In 2003/2004, Khoisan speaking households had the lowest
income per capita in Namibia. In 2009/2010, Rukavango speaking households
have the lowest per capita income in Namibia (N$5 777), which is 26 times
lower compared to German speaking households.
The GINI coefficient for Namibia is 0.5971 according to results from NHIES
2009/2010 compared to 0.603 in 2003/2004 and 0.701 in 1993/1994. Thus,
this survey shows that the overall inequality in the distribution of income
has decreased, albeit gradually. Despite this decline however, the level of
inequality in Namibia remains among the highest in the world. The level of
inequality is lowest in the Scandinavian countries where the GINI is around
0.25.
Distribution of annual consumption (Chapter 10)
Most consumption in Namibia is on food and beverages, 24 percent, followed
by housing, 23 percent and Other Consumption, 18 percent, which includes
recreation and culture, accommodation services and miscellaneous goods
and services. About the same share of consumption is spent on transport
and communications, close to 18 percent.
In urban areas the largest share of consumption is allocated to housing (25%),
while in rural areas most of the consumption is on food (39%).
Female headed households have a higher share of consumption on food/
beverages than male headed households, which in their turn have a higher
share of consumption on transport and communication.
In the 2003/2004 survey Namibia has introduced a paradigm shift from the
conventional food consumption ratio as an indicator of poverty to the cost of
basic needs approach.
Thus in this survey 2009/2010 the poverty is measured by this approach.
Each household is classified as poor or severely poor based on their costs of
basic needs compared to the poverty lines.
Out of all households in Namibia close to 19 percent are classified as poor and
Executive Summary
N$6 631
The average income per capita
where Rukavago is the main
language spoken
N$150 730
The income per capita where
German is the main language
spoken. This is 23 higher than
individuals in Khoisan speaking
housholds
19%
of households in Namibia are
classified as poor, according to
the basic needs approach.
NHIES 2009/2010 Page xii
Executive Summary
10 percent as severely poor. In 2003/2004 the corresponding percentages
were 28 and 14. This means that the poverty in Namibia has decreased
significantly since 2003/2004. The poverty levels have fallen from 30 percent
to 22 percent for female headed households and 26 percent to 18 percent for
male headed households, respectively.
Poverty varies between rural and urban areas. About 27 percent of households
in rural areas are poor, compared to 9 percent in urban areas. The incidence
of severely poor households is also high in rural areas, where 14 percent of
the households were found to be severely poor compared to 4 percent in
urban areas.
Poverty also varies between regions. The highest incidence of poverty was
found in Kavango region where 43 percent of the households are poor and 24
percent are severely poor. Poverty incidence is lowest in Erongo where about
5 percent of the households are poor and 2 percent are severely poor.
27%
of households in rural
areas are poor. The highest
incidence of poverty is in the
Kavango region where 43% of
households are poor
NHIES 2009/2010Page xiii
Key indicators, 1993/1994-2009/2010
1993/1994 2003/2004 2009/2010
Average household size
Namibia 5.7 4.9 4.7
Urban 4.8 4.2 4.1
Rural 6.1 5.4 5.2
Proportion of population aged 15+ with no formal education
Namibia 30% 17% 13%
Urban 11% 7% 5%
Rural 39% 23% 18%
Proportion of households cooking without electricity or gas
Namibia 73% 65% 61%
Urban 28% 28% 23%
Rural 95% 91% 90%
Proportion of households with no toilet/use bush
Namibia 57% 53% 50%
Urban 8% 16% 14%
Rural 81% 79% 77%
Proportion of households that own a radio
Namibia 65% 71% 72%
Urban 80% 79% 77%
Rural 57% 66% 68%
Average annual per capita income (N$)
Namibia 3 031 8 839 14 559
Female headed 1 804 6 320 9 908
Male headed 3 783 10 570 18 223
Proportion of households that are poor or severely poor
Severely poor households - 13.8% 9.6%
Poor households (incl. severely poor) - 27.6% 19.5%
GINI-coefficient 0.701 0.6003 0.5971
Executive Summary
Key indicators
1993/1994 - 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 1
1.1 Introduction
This basic report of the Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2009/2010 presents research findings of the economic conditions of
the Namibian private households to the reader. The survey was conducted
at a time when major global economies had been shaken by crisis and were
still fighting to stabilize. To what extent the crisis has affected the Namibian
households in the context of global economy should be an interesting topic
to be researched.
This is the third basic report of similar surveys conducted by defunct Central
Bureau of Statistics (CBS) since independence. CBS has since been replaced
by the Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA) from the 1st of April 2012 as a result
of the restructuring in conformity with international standards and best
practice governing the collection of statistics. The NSA is an autonomous
body operating outside central government. Hence, for all purposes and
intends the publication of this report falls under the jurisdiction of NSA and
should be quoted as the source of the information herein.
The main objective of the NHIES 2009/2010 is to obtain statistical information
from private households on their income, consumption and expenditure. Just
like the previous surveys the current one also serves the purpose of providing
data and information for amongst others: the compilation of the national
accounts, poverty and welfare profiles, benchmark data for the formulation
of the Fourth National Development Plan (NDP4), the re-evaluation of the
basket of goods and construction of weights for consumer price indices.
The interval between surveys has been shortened to five years from ten in
the previous surveys (1993/1994 and 2003/2004). The decision to align the
undertaking of NHIES with the National Development Plans (NDPs) at space
of five years was necessitated by the need to feed the planning process with
timely data for informed policy and decision making.
Budget surveys like the NHIES are costly exercises that require comprehensive
resources. The NHIES 2009/2010 was financed within the Namibian
Government budget with the support from development partners such as
UNDP and Lux Development Cooperation. The field organisation and actual
data collection was carried out by local personnel.
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010Page 2
1.2 Objectives
The main objective of the NHIES 2009/2010 is to provide a comprehensive
description of the levels of living of Namibians using actual patterns of
consumption and income and other socio-economic indicators based on
collected data. The survey was designed to inform policy making processes
at national and regional levels vis-à-vis the evaluation of the Third National
Development Plan (NDP3) and the formulation of the Fourth National
Development Plan (NDP4) in support of monitoring and evaluation of Vision
2030 and the Millennium Development Goals, as well as for Namibias
international commitments and comparisons.
1.3 Survey design and implementation
The targeted population of NHIES 2009/2010 was the private households
of Namibia. The population living in institutions, such as hospitals, hostels,
police barracks and prisons were not covered in the survey. However, private
households residing within institutional settings were covered.
The sample design for the survey was a stratified two-stage probability sample,
where the first stage units were geographical areas designated as the Primary
Sampling Units (PSUs) and the second stage units were the households. The
PSUs were based on the 2001 Census EAs and the list of PSUs serves as the
national sample frame. The urban part of the sample frame was updated to
include the changes that take place due to rural to urban migration and the
new developments in housing. The sample frame is stratified first by region
followed by urban and rural areas within region. In urban areas further
stratification is carried out by level of living which is based on geographic
location and housing characteristics. The first stage units were selected from
the sampling frame of PSUs and the second stage units were selected from a
current list of households within each selected PSU, which was compiled just
before the interviews.
PSUs were selected using probability proportional to size sampling coupled
with the systematic sampling procedure where the size measure was the
number of households within the PSU in the 2001 Population and Housing
Census. The households were selected from the current list of households
using systematic sampling procedure.
The sample size was designed to achieve reliable estimates at the region level
and for urban and rural areas within each region. However the actual sample
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 3
sizes in urban or rural areas within some of the regions may not satisfy the
expected precision levels for certain characteristics. The final sample consists
of 10 660 households in 533 PSUs. The selected PSUs were randomly allocated
to the 13 survey rounds.
Region
Sample PSUs Sample households Total
number of
households
*
Sampling
fraction
%Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Caprivi 15 24 39 300 480 780 16 974 4.6
Erongo 35 17 52 700 340 1 040 33 534 3.1
Hardap 19 20 39 380 400 780 16 030 4.9
Karas 20 19 39 400 380 780 17 944 4.3
Kavango 14 25 39 280 500 780 32 608 2.4
Khomas 51 14 65 1 020 280 1 300 66 990 1.9
Kunene 11 15 26 220 300 520 13 420 3.9
Ohangwena 8 31 39 160 620 780 36 880 2.1
Omaheke 10 16 26 200 320 520 12 548 4.1
Omusati 7 32 39 140 640 780 39 657 2.0
Oshana 23 29 52 460 580 1 040 32 182 3.2
Oshikoto 10 29 39 200 580 780 28 595 2.7
Otjozondjupa 20 19 39 400 380 780 26 725 2.9
Namibia 243 290 533 4 860 5 800
10
660
374 087 2.8
* Total number of households is according to the updated sample frame
1.4 Estimation
Population figures were estimated by raising sample figures using sample
weights. Sample weights were calculated based on probabilities of selection
at each stage. First stage weight was calculated using the sample selection
information from the sampling frame and the second stage weight was based
on sample selection information on the listing form. In the second stage some
households out of the selected 20 households in a PSU did not participate
in the survey due to refusals, non-contact or non-completion of interview,
etc. Such non-responding households were few in number and there was no
evidence to suggest that the excluded households were significantly different
from the responding ones. Hence it was assumed that the non-responding
households were randomly distributed and the second stage weights were
adjusted accordingly. The final sample weight was the product of the first and
the second stage weights.
For detailed estimation procedures and sampling errors refer to appendix 5
and NHIES Methodological Report.
1. Background and Overview
Table 1.1
Distribution of sample PSUs
and households by region and
urban/rural area
NHIES 2009/2010Page 4
1.5 Consultation with stakeholders
As usual, before any survey is conducted, main stakeholders i.e. data users
and producers are consulted for their inputs to the survey instrument.
Consultations with stakeholders and data consumers took place in the form
of a workshop at which draft survey questionnaires as well as the previous
survey reports were explained, discussed and consensus reached on the
information to be collected. Not all information required by the stakeholders
could be incorporated in the questionnaires. A community conservancy
module was added as a result of this consultation which was administered in
PSUs where there are community conservancies.
1.6 Changes in the questionnaires
While all methodological approaches of the survey were kept the same as in
the previous surveys for comparability purposes, adjustments of questions
were nevertheless unavoidable due to new arising needs of the users.
The main collection instrument for the NHIES 2009/2010 or Form I, as it is
also commonly known, had close to ten additional pages compared to the
2003/2004 survey.
Some of the additional questions were added on requests from users of
statistics to allow for more profound or alternative analysis outside this basic
report. Some other questions were asked to improve the analysis on the
quality of the answers from the respondents.
Besides the normal questions to decide which persons should be considered
as members of the household, two questions were added in part B on
household composition to get information about other persons who did not
reside in the household during the reference period but might be considered
as usual household members. Another four questions were added to part B
to see the presence of biological parents in the household.
A small variation in the current survey is the measurement of weights and
heights, which was limited to persons aged zero to five years. While in the
2003/2004 survey all persons were measured. The age cut-off point had
benefits to the field work organisation as it reduced the time spent in the
households trying to convince reluctant adults to cooperate with the field
staff.
In part D for data on labour force the question on under-employment (i.e.
whether employed persons wished to work more hours than they actually
did) was removed, because it was thought that such a question was more
appropriate in labour force surveys than in budget surveys.
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 5
A question about number of rooms in the dwelling for sleeping purposes
was added to part E, housing characteristics and amenities. This question is
intended to provide an indication of overcrowding in the households.
In part F about ownership of selected items a few items were added. For
example game was added because of the game farming activities that have
become a considerable trend in commercial areas in the country.
Besides the usual question about main source of income all sources of income
in the household were collected as well.
The list of type of domestic workers in part H was supplemented by animal
herder, which reflects the rural situation where animal herders are employed
to take care of livestock as a specific job.
As a result of a request from users of statistics a column was added for total
cost of used and new vehicles in Part L.
For the items instruments and equipment in part Q a column was added for
total value of items for comparison to total cost for the past 12 months.
This was introduced as a cross-checking measure to enhance the quality of
reported data.
Most expenditure in form 1 are collected for a recall period of twelve months.
For some more frequent expenditure items a recall period of one month was
added to help the respondents to recall transactions that occurred in a shorter
period (reading material in part P and miscellaneous goods in part R)
In part S the value of own produce of milk, eggs and home brew was reported
for a period of one month. A household is more likely to remember how
many eggs were laid in the past month than in the past year. The values were
annualized when the results were compiled.
In part T for household debts the outstanding amount at the moment of
interview should be reported. Now, a column was added for the initial debt
amount to help the respondent to differentiate the two amounts clearly.
Part U on incomes of household members has been divided into two parts
where the first part is incomes in the past month and the last part is incomes
in the past twelve months.
1.7 Questionnaires, contents and manuals
The instruments for data collection were as in the previous survey the
questionnaires and manuals. Form I questionnaire collected demographic
and socio-economic information of household members, such as: sex, age,
education, employment status among others. It also collected information on
household possessions like animals, land, housing, household goods, utilities,
household income and expenditure, etc.
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010Page 6
Form II or the Daily Record Book is a diary for recording daily household
transactions. A book was administered to each sample household each week
for four consecutive weeks (survey round). Households were asked to record
transactions, item by item, for all expenditures and receipts, including incomes
and gifts received or given out. Own produce items were also recorded.
Prices of items from different outlets were also collected in both rural and
urban areas. The price collection was needed to supplement information
from areas where price collection for consumer price indices (CPI) does not
currently take place.
There were different manuals for different uses. The Interviewers manual
contains all possible instructions for data collection and explains important
concepts and definitions used in the survey. Other important manuals are for
Editing and Coding, Listing of households and for the Supervisors.
1.8 Pilot survey
A pilot survey was carried out in November 2008 prior to the main survey,
primarily to gain information that will help to improve the efficiency of the main
survey such as testing of questionnaire (the acceptability and understanding
of survey questions by the households), and also to ascertain the time taken
by field procedure. Evaluations and amendments to the questionnaires and
survey manuals were then made according to the information obtained from
the pilot survey.
1.9 Field organisation
The main survey consisted of field teams operating within a region under
the regional supervisor (statistician)/assistant regional supervisor. Each team
consisted of a team supervisor and 2 interviewers supported by a listing
clerk that was responsible for the listing of households, editing and coding
of the completed questionnaires in the regional office. Field personnel were
recruited from their own areas since they were familiar with the region and
to facilitate interviews in local languages.
On request of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism an additional module
was used to capture information on community conservancies and their
livelihood. This information was collected from regions with conservancies.
The conservancy information does not form part of the basic report. It was
given to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism.
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 7
1.10 Training
All staff that was involved with the survey went through training before they
were allocated to their respective regions. Staff from the former CBS were
the first to be trained (training of trainers) who, in turn, trained other field
staff. Assistant regional supervisors, team supervisors and listing clerks were
trained the second and were the first to be deployed in the field to start
with the identification of boundaries and the listing of households in the
selected PSUs. The last training that was conducted was for the interviewers.
Efforts were made to train more staff than those required to cater for staff
turnover.
1.11 Survey publicity
Two information officers were recruited to do publicity of the survey to make
the community aware of the survey undertaking. Both printed and electronic
media were used before and during the survey to solicit the communitys
cooperation. Councillors, chiefs, headmen and business associations played a
great role in informing their constituencies through meetings, radio phone-in
programs, etc.
Various publicity approaches such as posters, stickers, T-shirts, caps, radio
and personal contacts were used in order to gain cooperation of the public.
An introductory letter, which explained the objectives of the survey, was also
given to selected households before the interviews.
1.12 Data collection
The NHIES 2009/2010 was conducted under an inherited Statistics Act No
66 of 1976. There were two major fieldwork activities: the pilot survey,
undertaken in November 2008 and the main survey, undertaken from June
2009 to July 2010, comprising 13 survey rounds.
Regional statisticians based in all 13 regions were responsible for the overall
supervision of all survey activities in their respective regions. Assistant
regional, team supervisors, listing clerks and Interviewers were deployed at
the beginning of field work in all thirteen administrative regions of Namibia
and they were also provided with vehicles, materials and equipment. Survey
equipment included digital food portion scales (for measuring weights of
food items consumed), jugs, height metres, measuring boards, roller metres
and bathroom scales.
Experiences from the previous survey in 2003/2004 gave useful input
to this survey and improvements in the data collection were introduced
accordingly.
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010Page 8
1.13 Survey monitoring
Ensuring reliable, quality and timely data requires regular field visits by quality
control teams from the Head Office emphasizing and clarifying fieldwork
procedures including survey concepts and definitions. The visits helped
to discuss problems related to completion of the forms with the field staff
and the respondents and to instruct them on the correct procedures while
questionnaires were still in the regions. The same teams were also responsible
for training field staff on additional instructions, collection of prices etc. Spot
on (control) interviews were also conducted in the same households that had
been interviewed already by the interviewers. This was done to confirm some
of the information already recorded in the questionnaires.
1.14 Data processing
The questionnaires received from the regions were registered and
counterchecked at the survey head office. The data processing team consisted
of Systems administrator, IT technician, Programmers, Statisticians and Data
typists.
1.14.1 Data capturing
The data capturing process was undertaken in the following ways:
Form 1 was scanned, interpreted and verified using the Scan, Interpret
& Verify modules of the Eyes & Hands software respectively. Some basic
checks were carried out to ensure that each PSU was valid and every
household was unique. Invalid characters were removed.
The scanned and verified data was converted into text files using the
Transfer module of the Eyes & Hands.
Finally, the data was transferred to a SQL database for further processing,
using the TranScan application.
The Daily Record Books (DRB or form 2) were manually entered after the
scanned data had been transferred to the SQL database. The reason was to
ensure that all DRBs were linked to the correct Form 1, i.e. each households
Form 1 was linked to the corresponding Daily Record Book.
In total, 10 645 questionnaires (Form 1), comprising around 500 questions
each, were scanned and close to one million transactions from the Form 2
(DRBs) were manually captured.
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 9
1.14.2 Data cleaning
Data cleaning was carried out in two (2) phases:
Verification: To ensure that the data from questionnaires were correctly
interpreted by the scanner.
Consistency Checks: Various variables from different parts of the
questionnaires were compared and checked for consistency.
To facilitate the data cleaning process a large number of scripts were
developed for retrieval of scanning errors and inconsistencies in Form 1.
Error lists were produced for verification and corrections. At the beginning
of the data cleaning process, applications developed for the previous survey
2003/2004, were used for correction of errors. But due to changes in the
IT environment the applications stopped working. As there was no time for
troubleshooting and repair, corrections during the remaining cleaning process
were made directly in the SQL database using SQL scripts.
The main part of the data cleaning was carried out from January to September
2011. The final database for retrieval of results was established at the
beginning of October 2011.
1.14.3 Database design and contents
After the data were verified and cleaned in the production database (NHIES),
a database for tabulation and analysis was designed (NHIESOutput). It was
especially adapted to retrieve data from various statistical software packages.
A large number of SQL scripts were developed to transfer data from NHIES to
NHIESOutput. Value codes and labels were unified and adapted for tabulation,
household members and responding households were defined, imputations
were implemented where applicable, data covering other periods than one
year were annualized, derived variables were calculated, the Classification of
Individual Consumption by Purpose (COICOP) used for the daily household
transactions, was updated, consumption and non-consumption and income
were defined. Finally, the sample weights were calculated based on responding
households and added to the database.
The output database covers all data recorded, captured and cleaned.
1.14.4 Tabulation
For easy tabulation and presentation of data, a data file was created from the
output database in SQL for transfer to the statistical software package SPSS.
In the previous survey 2003/2004 the software package SuperStar was used
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010Page 10
for tabulation. But as SPSS is more commonly used by statisticians at the
then CBS, it was decided to use SPSS for the production of tables from NHIES
2009/2010.
From SPSS the tables were saved in Excel and customized. From Excel they
were compiled to the report in Word.
All tables in the main report are stored as SPSS tables, as Excel tables and as
a Word document together with other parts of the main report.
1.15 Definitions
Definitions of some basic concepts and/or indicators, used in the report, are
given below. Other definitions are provided in each chapter.
Urban area
Urban areas were defined as all proclaimed municipalities and towns in
Namibia.
Household
A household is a person or group of persons, related or unrelated, who live
together in the same homestead/compound, but not necessarily in the same
dwelling unit. They have a common catering arrangement and are answerable
to the same head.
Household member
Every week of the four weeks period of a survey round all persons in the
household were asked if they spent at least 4 nights of the week in the
household.
Any person who spent at least 4 nights in the household was taken as having
spent the whole week in the household. To qualify as a household member a
person must have stayed in the household for at least two weeks out of four
weeks.
Responding household
A few households refused to take part in the survey and some other
households were absent during the survey round (refusals and non-contacts
respectively). These households are part of the non-response together with
households from which the questionnaires were too incomplete. To qualify
as a responding household a household must have at least one household
member (see above), recorded transactions in the DRB for at least 2 of the
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 11
4 weeks period of a survey round and at least some expenditures recorded
in Form 1. Only responding households are included in the results from the
survey.
Head of household
The head of household is a person of either sex who is looked upon by other
members of the household as their leader or main decision maker.
Household composition
The composition is based on household members relation to head of
household. The households have been classified into five groups:
With head or head and spouse only (1)
With 1 child, no relatives (2)
With 2+ children, no relatives (3)
With relatives (4)
With non-relatives (5)
Interpretation of household composition:
1 Only a head or a head and spouse in household, no children, no relatives
or no non-relatives
2 Persons under 1 + 1 child in household
3 Persons under 1 + more than 1 child in household
4 Persons under 1 or 2 or 3 plus relatives in household
5 Persons under 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 plus non-relatives in household
By children means children in relation to head of household (son/daughter/
stepchild/adopted child).
Orphan hood
An orphan is defined as a child 0-17 years with only one parent or no parents
alive.
Households with orphans have at least 1 orphan living in the household.
Households without orphans have no orphans living in the household.
Main source of income
Main source of income is based on the answer given by the households to the
question in Form 1 What is the main source of income for this household?
The response is the households own perception at the time of interview of
which source of income contributes most to the household.
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010Page 12
Primary sampling unit
A primary sampling unit (PSU) is a geographical area, which was formed on
the basis of the population in enumeration areas (EAs) as reported in the
2001 Population and Housing Census of Namibia.
Survey round
A survey round was a period of four weeks, during which each interviewer
was expected to complete Form 1 and administer Daily Record Books for 20
households selected from each sample PSU.
COICOP
This is the acronym for Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose.
It is an international standard classification of individual consumption
expenditures, which is also used by Price Statistics for collection of price data
for construction of price indices.
Transaction
A transaction includes all payments made, gifts given out and all payments
and gifts received by the household. Receipts are treated as incomes and
payments made or gifts given out as expenditures. Transactions also included
consumption of/or gifts given out from own production or from nature.
A transaction can either be in cash or in kind. Cash transactions include
payments either cash or cheque or through a bank transfer. In kind
transaction is where no cash or cheque or bank transfer is involved. Barter
and consumption of own produce is also considered as in kind transactions.
Amount
All amounts in this report are in current prices at the time of data collection.
Consumption
Consumption in this report is composed of annualised daily transactions
from the daily record book (DRB) and annual or annualised expenditures
from the Form 1. The part from the DRB covers mainly frequent transactions.
All consumption of food and beverages are from the DRB. The part from Form
1 includes mainly infrequent expenditures, which have a better coverage
in Form 1 than in the DRB. Expenditures from Form1 are cash except for
imputed rent (estimated value of rent for free occupied or owned dwelling
units), which is included in consumption in kind.
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 13
Non-consumption
Non-consumption in this report is composed of annualised daily transactions
from the daily record book (DRB) and annual expenditures from the Form 1.
Expenditure such as fines, gifts given away, etc. have been included in this
category.
Labour force concepts and definitions
Economically active population
The economically active population is composed of employed and unemployed
persons in the working age (15 years and above), also referred to as the
labour force.
Employed persons
Persons who worked for at least one hour for pay, profit or family gain during
the past seven days prior to the reference night or had a job, business or
other economic or farming activities, to return to are defined as employed.
Persons of working age are classified as employed if, during a short reference
period such as a day or a week, (i) they did some work (even for just one hour)
for pay, profit or family gain, in cash or in kind; or (ii) they were attached to
a job or had an enterprise from which they were temporarily absent during
this period (for such reasons as illness, maternity, parental leave, holiday,
training, industrial dispute, etc.). Employed persons include those persons of
working age who worked for at least one hour during the reference period as
unpaid family workers in a family business.
Unemployed persons
According to international statistical standards, the unemployed should in
principle satisfy the three criteria of (i) being without work, (ii) being available
for work, and (iii) actively looking for work. This strict definition excludes
those who were not actively looking for work while the broad definition
takes into account also those who were available even if they did not look for
employment opportunity.
Unemployment can be defined in a broad or strict sense, depending on
the inclusion or exclusion of those without a job who are available for work
and are actually seeking it. Both definitions are consistent with the principles
of the labour force framework, but selecting one or the other tends to have a
large impact on the rate of unemployment.
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010Page 14
However, due to the labour market situation in Namibia both broad and
strict definitions are used simply because in some instances people, who
are available for work, do not seek employment for various reasons. Such
reasons could be lack of employment to seek.
Economically inactive population
These are persons that were not in any paid or self-employment during the
past seven days prior to the reference night such as, students, housewife/
homemakers, income recipient, retired or too old, disabled, too young, off
season with no job to return to, family responsibility and others.
Labour Force participation rate
The Labour Force Participation Rate is the proportion of the economically
active population in a given population group, i.e. the number of persons in
the labour force given as a percentage of the working age population.
Unemployment rate
Unemployment rate is the proportion of the unemployed persons in the
labour force for a given population group, i.e. the number of unemployed
persons divided by all people in the labour force in the same population
group.
Employment-to-population ratio (EPR)
EPR is defined as the number of employed persons in the working age
population given as a percentage of the total number of persons in the
working age population. For a given group of the working age population,
the EPR is the percentage of this group that is employed.
Proportion of own-account workers and contributing family members in
total employment (POACFAM)
This indicator refers to the percentage of the employed population, who are
own-account workers or contributing family workers, out of the total number
of employed population.
Own-account workers are those persons, working on their own account or
with one or more partners, hold a type of job defined as self-employment
job, and have not engaged on a continuous basis any employees to work
with them during the reference period. Contributing family workers are those
workers who hold a self-employment job in a market-oriented establishment
operated by a related person living in the same household, who cannot be
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 15
1. Background and Overview
regarded as a partner, because their degree of commitment to the operation
of the establishment, in terms of working time or other factors to be
determined by national circumstances, is not at a level comparable to that
of the head of the establishment. (Where it is customary for young persons,
in particular to work without pay in an economic enterprise operated by a
related person who does not live in the same household, the requirement of
living in the same household may be eliminated).
Share of female employment in non-agricultural employment (SE/NAE)
SE/NAE is the female percentage of the population employed in paid
employment in the non-agricultural sector.
Paid employment jobs are those jobs where the incumbents hold explicit
(written or oral) or implicit employment contracts which give them a basic
remuneration, which is not directly dependent upon the revenue of the unit
for which they work (this unit can be a corporation, a non-profit institution, a
government unit or a household). Some or all of the tools, capital equipment,
information systems and/or premises used by the incumbents may be owned
by others, and the incumbents may work under direct supervision of, or
according to strict guidelines set by the owner(s) or persons in the owners
employment. (Persons in paid employment jobs are typically remunerated
by wages and salaries, but may be paid by commission from sales, by piece-
rates, bonuses or in-kind payments such as food, housing or training.)
The non-agricultural sector refers to industry and services. Industry includes
mining and quarrying (including oil production), manufacturing, construction,
electricity, gas, and water (categories B-F in ISIC Rev. 4). Services include
wholesale and retail trade and restaurants and hotels; transport, storage, and
communications; financing, insurance, real estate and business services; and
community, social and personal services (categories G-U in ISIC Rev. 4).
1.16 Coverage and response rate
1.16.1 Primary sampling units
All the expected sample of 533 PSUs was covered. However a number
of originally selected PSUs had to be substituted by new ones due to the
following reasons.
1 Urban areas
Movement of people for resettlement in informal settlement areas from one
place to another caused a selected PSU to be empty of households.
NHIES 2009/2010Page 16
2 Rural areas
In addition to Caprivi region (where one constituency is generally flooded
every year) Ohangwena and Oshana regions were badly affected from an
unusual flood situation. Although this situation was generally addressed by
interchanging the PSUs between survey rounds still some PSUs were under
water close to the end of the survey period.
There were five empty PSUs in the urban areas of Hardap (1), Karas (3) and
Omaheke (1) regions. Since these PSUs were found in the low strata within
the urban areas of the relevant regions the substituting PSUs were selected
from the same strata.
The PSUs under water were also five in rural areas of Caprivi (1), Ohangwena
(2) and Oshana (2) regions. Wherever possible the substituting PSUs were
selected from the same constituency where the original PSU was selected.
If not, the selection was carried out from the rural stratum of the particular
region.
One sampled PSU in urban area of Khomas region (Windhoek city) had grown
so large that it had to be split into 7 PSUs. This was incorporated into the
geographical information system (GIS) and one PSU out of the seven was
selected for the survey.
In one PSU in Erongo region only fourteen households were listed and one
in Omusati region listed only eleven households. All these households were
interviewed and no additional selection was done to cover for the loss in
sample.
1.16.2 Household response rate
Total number of responding households and non-responding households and
the reason for non-response are shown below. Non-contacts and incomplete
forms, which were rejected due to a lot of missing data in the questionnaire, at
3.4 and 4.0 percent, respectively, formed the largest part of non-response.
At the regional level Erongo, Khomas, and Kunene reported the lowest
response rate and Caprivi and Kavango the highest.
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 17
1. Background and Overview
Response category Number/rate
Selected and responding households
Expected number of households in the sample 10 660
Shortfall of households 15
Actual number of households in the sample 10 645
Number of responding households 9 656
Response rates
Response rate 91%
Non-response rate 9%
Of which: refusals 1.5%
non-contacts 3.4%
incomplete data 4.0%
other reason for non-response 0.3%
Region
Refusals
Non-
contacts
Incomplete
data
Other
reason
Responding
households
All
households
Caprivi 0.1 0.3 1.5 0.1 97.9 780
Erongo 3.2 7.0 3.9 1.1 84.9 1 034
Hardap 1.4 3.2 4.1 0.5 90.8 779
Karas 1.7 3.8 5.5 0.1 88.8 780
Kavango 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 99.1 781
Khomas 4.5 5.0 7.6 0.3 82.6 1 300
Kunene 0.2 10.0 7.1 0.0 82.7 520
Ohangwena 0.9 1.7 1.5 0.0 95.9 780
Omaheke 0.8 3.5 5.8 0.2 89.8 520
Omusati 0.5 2.5 2.1 0.0 94.9 771
Oshana 1.1 3.4 3.4 0.6 91.6 1 040
Oshikoto 1.2 1.8 2.4 0.1 94.5 780
Otjozondjupa 1.0 2.8 5.9 0.6 89.6 780
Namibia 1.5 3.4 4.0 0.3 90.7 10 645
Table 1.2
Household response rates
Table 1.3
Household response
rates by region
NHIES 2009/2010Page 18
1.17 Quality
To be able to compare with the previous survey in 2003/2004 and to follow
up the development of the country, methodology and definitions were kept
the same. Comparisons between the surveys can be found in the different
chapters in this report.
Experiences from the previous survey gave valuable input to this one and the
data collection was improved to avoid earlier experienced errors. Also, some
additional questions in the questionnaire helped to confirm the accuracy of
reported data.
During the data cleaning process it turned out, that some households had
difficulty to separate their household consumption from their business
consumption when recording their daily transactions in DRB. This was in
particular applicable for the guest farms, the number of which has shown
a big increase during the past five years. All households with extreme high
consumption were examined manually and business transactions were
recorded and separated from private consumption.
1.18 Guide to the report
This report follows the same structure as the NHIES 2003/2004 report. It is
structured in chapters and sections after theme. Appendices are included
in the last chapter. Some basic demographic and economic indicators are
used throughout the sections to illustrate living conditions for groups of
households in Namibia. Some of these indicators are defined in this chapter,
see section 1.15. Indicators for a specific theme are described in the chapter
where they occur.
In general, data not stated (partial non-response) is omitted in most of the
tables because the number is too small and it does not contribute to the
analysis of the results. As a result the figures and percentages will not always
sum up to the totals presented in the tables. Normally data not stated is built
up by households having not given answer to a specific question in the survey.
An exception is data for head of household, e.g. sex, age and educational
attainment. A part of the non-response is due to the fact that information
on who is the head of household is missing and in some cases the head of
household has not reported any data.
Detailed tables are included in appendix 1 and 2 to this report. Some
variables are grouped. The sub groups that build up the groups are specified
in appendix 7.
The questionnaires are shown in appendix 6.
1. Background and Overview
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 19
Region Estimated number of
households
Caprivi 21 254
Erongo 39 221
Hardap 15 894
Karas 21 299
Kavango 43 889
Khomas 83 562
Kunene 17 096
Ohangwena 38 997
Omaheke 15 159
Omusati 45 161
Oshana 35 087
Oshikoto 32 038
Otjozondjupa 28 135
Namibia 436 795
Urban 188 981
Rural 247 813
1. Background and Overview
Map
of regions in Namibia
Estimated
number of households per
region
NHIES 2009/2010Page 20
2. Demographic Characteristics
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 21
This chapter provides a summary of some demographic characteristics of the population. The NHIES collected demographic data such as age, sex, marital status and citizenship. These variables are used to
describe the demographic profile of the Namibian households and population
as well as for inter alia, the disaggregation of income, consumption, access to
services and ownership of assets.
2.1 Households and population
Namibias population is currently estimated to be 2 066 398 people living
in 436 795 households, with an average of 4.7 persons per household as
shown in Table 2.1 below. The majority of the population (62 percent) lives
in rural areas, while 38 percent live in urban areas. The same trend was
observed in 2003/04 with 65 percent in rural and 35 in urban areas. The
most populated region is Khomas where 17 percent of the population live,
followed by Kavango, Ohangwena and Omusati with 14 percent, 12 percent
and 11 percent, respectively. Omaheke and Hardap have the lowest share of
the total population with 3 percent each.
The average household size in Namibia has registered a slight decline from
4.9 persons reported in 2003/04 to 4.7. On average, households in rural areas
are larger (5.2 persons) than households in urban areas (4.1 persons). Among
the regions, Erongo has the lowest average household size with an average of
3.5 persons per household while Kavango has the highest average household
size with an average of 6.5 persons per household.
2. Demographic Characteristics
NHIES 2009/2010Page 22
Region
Households
Number %
Population
Number %
Average household
size
Caprivi 21 254 4.9 100 309 4.9 4.7
Erongo 39 221 9.0 138 139 6.7 3.5
Hardap 15 894 3.6 67 449 3.3 4.2
Karas 21 299 4.9 77 863 3.8 3.7
Kavango 43 889 10.0 283 815 13.7 6.5
Khomas 83 562 19.1 339 934 16.5 4.1
Kunene 17 096 3.9 74 628 3.6 4.4
Ohangwena 38 997 8.9 238 325 11.5 6.1
Omaheke 15 159 3.5 62 892 3.0 4.1
Omusati 45 161 10.3 235 417 11.4 5.2
Oshana 35 087 8.0 170 974 8.3 4.9
Oshikoto 32 038 7.3 161 665 7.8 5.0
Otjozondjupa 28 135 6.4 114 988 5.6 4.1
Namibia 436 795 100 2 066 398 100 4.7
Urban 188 981 43.3 783 561 37.9 4.1
Rural 247 813 56.7 1 282 837 62.1 5.2
2. Demographic Characteristics
FIGURES)FOR)THE)CHAPTERS:)
CHAPTER2:)Demographic)Characteristics)
Figure 2.1
Changes in Average household size by urban/rural areas
)
Figure 2.3.2 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Households by main language spoken in the household, over time
)
)
0)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
A
v
e
ra
g
e
)h
o
u
se
h
o
ld
)s
iz
e
)
1993/94)
2003/04)
2009/10)
0.0) 10.0) 20.0) 30.0) 40.0) 50.0) 60.0)
English)
German)
Afrikaans)
Setswana)
Oshiwambo)
Nama/Damara)
Rukavango)
Otjiherero)
Caprivian)languages)
Khoisan)
20092010)
20032004)
19931994)
16.5%
the percentage of the
population living in the
Khomas region
Household size
The average household size
declined from 4.9 in 2003/04
to 4.7 in 2009/10
Table 2.1
Household and population by
region and urban/rural areas
Figure 2.1
Changes in average household
size by urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 23
2.2 Population by age and sex
Namibia is generally a youthful nation with about 67 percent of the population
under the age of 30 years and only 12 percent of the population being over
50 years of age. The proportion of the population aged 95 and above is less
than 1 per cent, while an estimated 13 per cent is under five years as shown in
Table 2.2.1 below. The sex ratio is about 91 males per 100 females, meaning
that there are more females than males. The sex ratio is however, lower in
older age groups, indicating that life expectancy is lower for males.
Age group Female Male Both sexes Sex ratio
Number % Number % Number %
00-04 139 287 12.9 135 161 13.8 274 520 13.3 97.0
05-09 125 157 11.6 124 931 12.7 250 159 12.1 99.8
10-14 122 151 11.3 121 727 12.4 243 878 11.8 99.7
15-19 128 831 11.9 120 609 12.3 249 440 12.1 93.6
20-24 108 224 10.0 97 720 9.9 206 016 10.0 90.3
25-29 89 582 8.3 77 201 7.9 166 783 8.1 86.2
30-34 74 899 6.9 67 550 6.9 142 449 6.9 90.2
35-39 59 482 5.5 55 844 5.7 115 326 5.6 93.9
40-44 51 240 4.7 39 868 4.1 91 108 4.4 77.8
45-49 42 182 3.9 34 276 3.5 76 457 3.7 81.3
50-54 32 321 3.0 28 161 2.9 60 482 2.9 87.1
55-59 25 720 2.4 21 223 2.2 46 943 2.3 82.5
60-64 21 586 2.0 17 514 1.8 39 100 1.9 81.1
65-69 16 662 1.5 13 154 1.3 29 816 1.4 78.9
70-74 13 370 1.2 9 286 0.9 22 656 1.1 69.5
75-79 10 923 1.0 7 735 0.8 18 658 0.9 70.8
80-84 8 576 0.8 4 239 0.4 12 815 0.6 49.4
85-89 6 326 0.6 2 261 0.2 8 588 0.4 35.7
90-94 2 902 0.3 1 209 0.1 4 110 0.2 41.7
95+ 2 122 0.2 709 0.1 2 831 0.1 33.4
Not Stated 1 805 0.2 2 458 0.3 4 263 0.2 136.2
Total 1 083 347 100 982 836 100 2 066 398 100 90.7
2. Demographic Characteristics
67%
The percentage of the
Namibian population under the
age of 30 years
Table 2.2.1
Population by sex and age
group
NHIES 2009/2010Page 24
The population in rural areas is younger than the population in urban areas as
shown in Table 2.2.2 and Table 2.2.3. In rural areas, almost 54 percent of the
population is under 20 years of age compared to 42 percent in urban areas.
The sex ratio for rural areas falls significantly from the age of 20 years and
above pointing to possible migration of young men to urban centers in search
of jobs and other opportunities.
Age group
Female Male Both sexes
Sex ratio
Number % Number % Number %
00-04 44 777 11.0 40 056 10.7 84 833 10.8 89.5
05-09 40 390 9.9 38 370 10.2 78 760 10.1 95.0
10-14 40 552 10.0 37 387 9.9 77 939 9.9 92.2
15-19 45 871 11.3 38 704 10.3 84 575 10.8 84.4
20-24 50 519 12.4 44 769 11.9 95 288 12.2 88.6
25-29 45 740 11.2 38 544 10.2 84 285 10.8 84.3
30-34 36 498 9.0 37 254 9.9 73 752 9.4 102.1
35-39 27 451 6.7 27 705 7.4 55 156 7.0 100.9
40-44 23 931 5.9 20 848 5.5 44 779 5.7 87.1
45-49 16 989 4.2 16 549 4.4 33 538 4.3 97.4
50-54 12 192 3.0 14 164 3.8 26 356 3.4 116.2
55-59 7 760 1.9 8 889 2.4 16 649 2.1 114.5
60-64 4 814 1.2 5 170 1.4 9 984 1.3 107.4
65-69 3 280 0.8 2 793 0.7 6 073 0.8 85.2
70-74 2 291 0.6 2 183 0.6 4 474 0.6 95.3
75-79 2 158 0.5 1 172 0.3 3 330 0.4 54.3
80-84 1 331 0.3 313 0.1 1 643 0.2 23.5
85-89 767 0.2 113 0.0 880 0.1 14.7
90-94 93 0.0 122 0.0 215 0.0 131.2
95+ 27 0.0 76 0.0 103 0.0 281.5
Not Stated 91 0.0 858 0.2 949 0.1 -
Total 407 520 100 376 041 100 783 561 100 92.3
2. Demographic Characteristics
Sex Ratio:
In urban areas there are
92 males per 100 females,
while in rural areas there are
only 90 males per 100 females
Table 2.2.2
Population in urban areas by
sex and age groups
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 25
Age group
Female Male Both sexes
Sex ratio
Number % Number % Number %
00-04 94 510 14.0 95 106 15.7 189 687 14.8 100.6
05-09 84 767 12.5 86 561 14.3 171 399 13.4 102.1
10-14 81 599 12.1 84 340 13.9 165 939 12.9 103.4
15-19 82 960 12.3 81 905 13.5 164 865 12.9 98.7
20-24 57 705 8.5 52 951 8.7 110 728 8.6 91.8
25-29 43 842 6.5 38 657 6.4 82 499 6.4 88.2
30-34 38 401 5.7 30 296 5.0 68 697 5.4 78.9
35-39 32 031 4.7 28 139 4.6 60 170 4.7 87.8
40-44 27 309 4.0 19 020 3.1 46 329 3.6 69.6
45-49 25 193 3.7 17 727 2.9 42 920 3.3 70.4
50-54 20 130 3.0 13 996 2.3 34 126 2.7 69.5
55-59 17 960 2.7 12 334 2.0 30 294 2.4 68.7
60-64 16 772 2.5 12 344 2.0 29 116 2.3 73.6
65-69 13 382 2.0 10 362 1.7 23 743 1.9 77.4
70-74 11 079 1.6 7 103 1.2 18 182 1.4 64.1
75-79 8 765 1.3 6 563 1.1 15 328 1.2 74.9
80-84 7 246 1.1 3 926 0.6 11 172 0.9 54.2
85-89 5 560 0.8 2 148 0.4 7 708 0.6 38.6
90-94 2 808 0.4 1 087 0.2 3 895 0.3 38.7
95+ 2 095 0.3 633 0.1 2 728 0.2 30.2
Not Stated 1 714 0.3 1 600 0.3 3 314 0.3 93.3
Total 675 827 100 606 795 100 1 282 837 100 89.8
An estimated 98 percent of the total populations are Namibian citizens with
the rest (about 2 percent) of the population made up of citizens of other
countries, including, but not limited to Angola, Zambia and Zimbabwe as
indicated in Table 2.2.4 below.
Citizenship
Female Male Both sexes
Number % Number % Number %
Namibia 1 067 857 98.6 960 044 97.7 2 028 116 98.1
Angola 6 078 0.6 10 115 1.0 16 194 0.8
Botswana 365 0.0 0 - 365 0.0
South Africa 1 640 0.2 1 849 0.2 3 489 0.2
Zambia 2 689 0.2 4 100 0.4 6 789 0.3
Zimbabwe 1 936 0.2 3 558 0.4 5 494 0.3
Other SADC 440 0.0 616 0.1 1 056 0.1
Other African countries 504 0.0 554 0.1 1 058 0.1
All other countries 1 534 0.1 1 735 0.2 3 269 0.2
Not Stated 303 0.0 264 0.0 567 0.0
Total 1 083 347 100 982 836 100 2 066 398 100
2. Demographic Characteristics
Table 2.2.3
Population in rural areas by sex
and age group
98%
The percentage of the
population that are Namibian
citizens
Table 2.2.4
Population by sex and
citizenship
NHIES 2009/2010Page 26
2.3 Households
The sex of the head of the household is an important demographic characteristic
in determining the welfare of the household. The results indicate that, at the
national level, the majority of the households (57.1 percent) are headed by
males as indicated in Table 2.3.1. Karas, Khomas, Otjozondjupa and Erongo
are the regions with higher percentages of male headed households with
70, 67, 66 and 65 percent respectively, while Ohangwena, Omusati, Oshana
and Oshikoto have proportionately more female headed households with the
figures being 58, 54, 53 and 51 percent, respectively.
Region
Female Male Both sexes
Number % Number % Number %
Caprivi 10 630 50.0 10 582 49.8 21 254 100
Erongo 13 655 34.8 25 472 64.9 39 221 100
Hardap 5 705 35.9 10 190 64.1 15 894 100
Karas 6 335 29.7 14 940 70.1 21 299 100
Kavango 17 837 40.6 25 992 59.2 43 889 100
Khomas 27 449 32.8 55 904 66.9 83 562 100
Kunene 6 353 37.2 10 523 61.6 17 096 100
Ohangwena 22 693 58.2 15 558 39.9 38 997 100
Omaheke 5 333 35.2 9 826 64.8 15 159 100
Omusati 24 552 54.4 19 919 44.1 45 161 100
Oshana 18 410 52.5 16 134 46.0 35 087 100
Oshikoto 16 314 50.9 15 678 48.9 32 038 100
Otjozondjupa 9 485 33.7 18 614 66.2 28 135 100
Namibia 184 752 42.3 249 331 57.1 436 795 100
Urban 74 316 39.3 113 953 60.3 188 981 100
Rural 110 435 44.6 135 378 54.6 247 813 100
Respondents were also asked the main language spoken in the household.
There are more than ten language groups in Namibia. The most common
language is Oshiwambo which is spoken by 48 percent of the population.
This is followed by Rukavango, Nama/Damara, Otjiherero and Afrikaans
which are spoken by 15, 12, 8 and 7 percent of the population, respectively,
as shown in Table 2.3.2. Households where Rukavango or Oshiwambo is the
main language spoken have larger household sizes of 6.1 and 4.9 persons
per household, respectively, which are above the national average of 4.7
persons per household. English, the official language of the country is the
main language for only 1 percent of the population.
2. Demographic Characteristics
Table 2.3.1
Household by sex of head of
household, region and urban/
rural areas
48%
of the population speaks
Oshiwambo.
Afrikaans spoken by 8%
of the population
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 27
2. Demographic Characteristics
Main language
Households Population Average
household
sizeNumber % Number %
Khoisan 5 954 1.4 27 764 1.3 4.7
Caprivi languages 21 537 4.9 99 831 4.8 4.6
Otjiherero 39 748 9.1 172 830 8.4 4.3
Rukavango 51 011 11.7 310 347 15.0 6.1
Nama/Damara 54 323 12.4 244 769 11.8 4.5
Oshiwambo 204 305 46.8 998 109 48.3 4.9
Setswana 1 299 0.3 4 812 0.2 3.7
Afrikaans 40 660 9.3 148 772 7.2 3.7
German 3 549 0.8 9 020 0.4 2.5
English 8 946 2.0 29 120 1.4 3.3
Other European 2 367 0.5 9 962 0.5 4.2
Other African 1 902 0.4 6 318 0.3 3.3
Other 209 0.0 549 0.0 2.6
Total ws436 795 100 2 066 398 100 4.7
2%
the percentage of the
households that communicate
in English. Only 1% of the total
population communicate in
English
6 Persons
The average household size in
the Kavango region
Table 2.3.2
Households and population by
main language spoken in the
household
Figure 2.3.2
Households by main language
spoken in the household, over
time
FIGURES)FOR)THE)CHAPTERS:)
CHAPTER2:)Demographic)Characteristics)
Figure 2.1
Changes in Average household size by urban/rural areas
)
Figure 2.3.2 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Households by main language spoken in the household, over time
)
)
0)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
A
v
e
ra
g
e
)h
o
u
se
h
o
ld
)s
iz
e
)
1993/94)
2003/04)
2009/10)
0.0) 10.0) 20.0) 30.0) 40.0) 50.0) 60.0)
English)
German)
Afrikaans)
Setswana)
Oshiwambo)
Nama/Damara)
Rukavango)
Otjiherero)
Caprivian)languages)
Khoisan)
20092010)
20032004)
19931994)
NHIES 2009/2010Page 28
As indicated in Table 2.3.3 below, most Namibians (55 percent of the
households) live with extended families. In about 19 percent of the households
the head lives alone or with the spouse. There are orphans in 23 percent of
the households.
Household composition Urban Rural Namibia
Orphan hood Number % Number % Number %
Household composition
with only head or head and
spouse
41 741 22.1 38 966 15.7 80 707 18.5
with 1 child, no relatives/non-
relative
17 290 9.1 14 687 5.9 31 977 7.3
with 2+ children, no relatives 30 282 16.0 35 068 14.2 65 351 15.0
with relatives 90 951 48.1 148 766 60.0 239 717 54.9
with non-relatives 8 718 4.6 10 326 4.2 19 044 4.4
Total 188 981 100 247 813 100 436 795 100
Orphan hood
Households without orphans 162 758 86.1 175 227 70.7 337 985 77.4
Households with orphans 26 223 13.9 72 586 29.3 98 809 22.6
Note: Refer to definitions and concepts under 1.15 in chapter 1
Table 2.3.4 below shows that 14 percent of the households have 1 to 25
percent of household members who are orphans. The regions of Ohangwena
and Omusati have the highest share of households with 26 to 50 percent
of household members being orphaned. In Ohangwena and Oshikoto, for
instance, 3 percent of households have more than 50 percent of household
members who are orphaned.
Percentage of orphans Total
number of
households
Region 0 1-25 26-50 >50 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 70.5 17.3 10.5 1.7 100 21 254
Erongo 91.1 5.6 2.3 1.0 100 39 221
Hardap 83.1 9.6 5.7 1.6 100 15 894
Karas 86.1 9.1 3.7 1.2 100 21 299
Kavango 70.0 19.3 8.9 1.8 100 43 889
Khomas 89.4 7.1 3.1 0.4 100 83 562
Kunene 85.0 8.2 5.4 1.4 100 17 096
Ohangwena 54.8 28.2 14.0 3.0 100 38 997
Omaheke 86.4 9.0 4.0 0.6 100 15 159
Omusati 64.9 21.2 12.2 1.7 100 45 161
Oshana 71.7 16.4 10.8 1.1 100 35 087
Oshikoto 69.4 18.6 9.3 2.7 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 87.4 7.0 4.6 1.0 100 28 135
Namibia 77.4 13.9 7.3 1.4 100 436 795
Urban 86.1 8.6 4.4 0.8 100 188 981
Rural 70.7 17.9 9.5 1.9 100 247 813
2. Demographic Characteristics
55%
The number of households that
live with relatives
23%
The number of households that
live with orphans
Table 2.3.3
Households by urban/rural
areas, household composition
and orphan hood
Table 2.3.4
Households by percentage
of orphans in the household,
region and urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 29
Orphans are more common in female headed households compared to
male headed households. (Table 2.3.5). Orphanhood is more prevalent in
rural areas than in urban areas with 14 percent of urban households having
orphans compared to 29 percent of rural households.
Urban/rural Percentage of orphans
Total number of
households
Sex of head 0 1-25 26-50 >50 Total
Percent of households
Urban
Female 79.1 11.4 7.7 1.8 100 74 316
Male 90.7 6.9 2.2 0.2 100 113 953
Total 86.1 8.6 4.4 0.8 100 188 981
Rural
Female 59.9 21.1 15.8 3.2 100 110 435
Male 79.7 15.3 4.3 0.6 100 135 378
Total 70.7 17.9 9.5 1.9 100 247 813
Namibia
Female 67.6 17.2 12.5 2.7 100 184 752
Male 84.8 11.5 3.4 0.4 100 249 331
Total 77.4 13.9 7.3 1.4 100 436 795
2. Demographic Characteristics
32.4%
The percentage of orphans
found in female headed
households
Table 2.3.5
Households by percentage of
orphans, urban/rural areas and
sex of head od household
NHIES 2009/2010Page 30
3. Education
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 31
3. Education
This chapter describes the levels of education of Namibian households. To determine the level of education, respondents were asked to indicate their ability to read and write; school attendance; and highest
level of educational attainment for all persons six years and above. Those who
have never been to school are included in the group No formal education,
while tertiary education includes university, post standard 10/grade 12
education and teacher training. Overall, access to education has increased
both in rural and urban areas with a larger share of younger age groups found
to be literate and having formal schooling compared to older age groups.
However, regional disparities still exist and the rural areas are lagging behind
in all educational indicators.
3.1 Literacy
The survey defined all people who could write and read in any language
with understanding to be literate. The results show that 88 percent of the
population 15 years and above are literate, and 12 percent are not literate
(Table 3.1.1). The corresponding figures for 2003/04 survey were 83 and 17
percent. Apart from Kunene, Omaheke and Otjozondjupa which have literacy
rates of 68, 69 and 78 percent, respectively, all regions have literacy rates
of over 80 percent. The rural/urban divide is however, clearly visible, where
96 percent of the urban population are literate compared to 82 percent of
the rural population. At the national level, there is nonetheless no significant
difference in literacy rates between males and females, with the respective
figures being 88 and 87 percent.
Region
Literacy
Population
Female Male Both sexes
Literate
Not
literate
Total Literate
Not
literate
Total Literate
Not
literate
Total
Caprivi 82.8 17.2 100 89.3 10.7 100 85.8 14.2 100 61 664
Erongo 97.5 2.5 100 96.0 4.0 100 96.7 3.3 100 98 191
Hardap 91.8 8.2 100 89.8 10.2 100 90.9 9.1 100 44 272
Karas 95.3 4.7 100 91.3 8.7 100 93.2 6.8 100 51 538
Kavango 76.1 23.9 100 86.7 13.3 100 80.9 19.1 100 162 643
Khomas 97.0 3.0 100 94.4 5.6 100 95.7 4.3 100 246 098
Kunene 64.5 35.5 100 71.6 28.4 100 67.9 32.1 100 46 057
Ohangwena 84.3 15.7 100 86.6 13.4 100 85.2 14.8 100 129 618
Omaheke 67.0 33.0 100 70.4 29.6 100 68.7 31.3 100 39 007
Omusati 87.5 12.5 100 89.9 10.1 100 88.5 11.5 100 140 499
Oshana 93.4 6.6 100 93.6 6.4 100 93.5 6.5 100 108 686
Oshikoto 89.0 11.0 100 84.2 15.8 100 87.0 13.0 100 95 983
Otjozondjupa 79.8 20.2 100 75.7 24.3 100 77.7 22.3 100 73 585
Namibia 87.1 12.9 100 88.4 11.6 100 87.7 12.3 100 1 297 840
Urban 95.6 4.4 100 95.3 4.7 100 95.5 4.5 100 542 029
Rural 81.3 18.7 100 83.1 16.9 100 82.1 17.9 100 755 811
Table 3.1.1
Population aged 15+
by sex, literacy, region
and urban/rural areas
87.7%
The total literacy rate
for persons 15 years
and above
NHIES 2009/2010Page 32
Table 3.1.2 below shows literacy levels for youths aged 15 to 24 years. Youth
literacy rate has slightly increased to 95 percent up from 93 in 2003/04. In
this age group literacy is slightly higher for females than for males with the
figures being 96 and 94 percent, respectively. The urban/rural divide is again
visible, with 98 percent of the urban population aged 15 to 24 years being
literate compared to 93 percent in the rural areas. In Kunene, Omaheke and
Otjozondjupa regions, 25, 22 and 15 percent respectively of the population
aged 15 to 24 are not literate.
Region
Literacy
Population
Female Male Both sexes
Literate
Not
literate
Total Literate
Not
literate
Total Literate
Not
literate
Total
Caprivi 95.5 4.5 100 93.2 6.8 100 94.4 5.6 100 23 501
Erongo 99.5 0.5 100 97.6 2.4 100 98.6 1.4 100 29 585
Hardap 98.8 1.2 100 97.5 2.5 100 98.2 1.8 100 12 761
Karas 99.0 1.0 100 99.2 0.8 100 99.1 0.9 100 13 733
Kavango 94.8 5.2 100 96.0 4.0 100 95.4 4.6 100 66 801
Khomas 99.0 1.0 100 96.5 3.5 100 97.8 2.2 100 81 177
Kunene 71.7 28.3 100 79.1 20.9 100 75.3 24.7 100 13 365
Ohangwena 96.5 3.5 100 94.0 6.0 100 95.4 4.6 100 55 154
Omaheke 82.0 18.0 100 75.7 24.3 100 78.5 21.5 100 10 464
Omusati 98.4 1.6 100 94.2 5.8 100 96.4 3.6 100 51 225
Oshana 98.9 1.1 100 98.4 1.6 100 98.7 1.3 100 40 226
Oshikoto 97.1 2.9 100 92.5 7.5 100 95.0 5.0 100 36 978
Otjozondjupa 88.8 11.2 100 82.0 18.0 100 85.3 14.7 100 20 486
Namibia 96.1 3.9 100 94.0 6.0 100 95.1 4.9 100 455 456
Urban 98.5 1.5 100 97.3 2.7 100 98.0 2.0 100 179 863
Rural 94.4 5.6 100 91.9 8.1 100 93.2 6.8 100 275 592
3. Education
Table 3.1.2
Population aged 15-24
by sex, literacy, region
and urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 33
3.2 School attendance
School attendance in Namibia is free and compulsory for all children of
school going age (6 to 17 years). School attendance for all persons aged 6 and
above however, is currently estimated at 88 percent (Table 3.2.1), with 12
percent of children in this age bracket having never been to school. Among
the population aged 6 to 16 years, 9 percent reported that they have never
been to school, while 13 percent of those aged 17 and older have never been
to school, with no major differences between males and females.
Sex School attendance, %
Age group
Has been to
school
Never been
to school
Total
% Number
Female
6-16 90.9 8.4 100 274 614
17+ 85.9 13.1 100 645 050
Total 6+ 87.4 11.7 100 919 664
Male
6-16 89.6 9.8 100 273 983
17+ 86.2 13.0 100 550 160
Total 6+ 87.3 11.9 100 824 143
Both sexes
6-16 90.2 9.1 100 548 668
17+ 86.1 13.1 100 1 195 282
Total
6+
87.4 11.8 100 1 743 950
3. Education
Table 3.2.1
Population 6+ by school
attendance, sex and
age groups
NHIES 2009/2010Page 34
Although there are no major differences in school attendance on the basis of
sex, Table 3.2.2 below however, shows that there are significant differences in
school attendance at regional level and between urban and rural areas. Apart
from Kunene, Omaheke and Otjozondjupa regions, all other regions reported
above national average school attendance of 90 percent for children aged
6 to 16. Regional variation is greater for persons aged 17 years and above.
While 7 percent of children in urban areas aged 6 to 16 reported that they
have never been to school, the corresponding percentage is 10 for children
in rural areas. Of those aged 17 years and above in rural areas, 19 percent
reported that they have never been to school compared to 5 percent in urban
areas.
Region
6-16 years 17+ years 6+ years
Has been to
school
Never
been to
school
Total
Has been
to school
Never
been
to
school
Total
Has been
to school
Never
been to
school
Total
% Number % Number % Number
Caprivi 92.4 7.5 100 28 098 86.0 14.0 100 56 054 88.1 11.8 100 84 153
Erongo 92.1 6.9 100 28 393 95.5 3.9 100 92 694 94.7 4.6 100 121 087
Hardap 90.7 8.6 100 15 732 90.6 8.8 100 41 793 90.6 8.8 100 57 525
Karas 91.2 8.7 100 17 954 92.9 7.1 100 48 995 92.4 7.5 100 66 949
Kavango 90.1 9.5 100 83 610 79.7 20.2 100 147 411 83.5 16.3 100 231 021
Khomas 92.3 6.7 100 65 381 94.6 4.7 100 234 438 94.1 5.1 100 299 819
Kunene 66.6 32.2 100 18 037 65.3 33.4 100 43 230 65.7 33.0 100 61 267
Ohangwena 91.1 7.9 100 81 768 80.8 18.1 100 113 297 85.2 13.8 100 195 066
Omaheke 78.1 20.9 100 13 429 67.7 30.8 100 36 950 70.5 28.2 100 50 379
Omusati 92.7 6.3 100 76 378 85.7 12.5 100 124 347 88.3 10.2 100 200 725
Oshana 94.0 5.5 100 46 861 91.3 6.9 100 100 024 92.2 6.4 100 146 886
Oshikoto 89.9 9.7 100 46 830 85.2 14.2 100 86 275 86.8 12.6 100 133 105
Otjozondjupa 86.3 13.5 100 26 196 76.4 22.9 100 69 773 79.1 20.3 100 95 970
Namibia 90.2 9.1 100 548 668 86.1 13.1 100 1 195 282 87.4 11.8 100 1 743 950
Urban 92.5 6.8 100 173 226 94.2 5.0 100 511 266 93.8 5.5 100 684 491
Rural 89.2 10.1 100 375 443 80.0 19.1 100 684 016 83.2 15.9 100 1 059 459
3. Education
Table 3.2.2
Population aged 6+ by age
groups, school attendance,
region and urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 35
There has been a slight increase in the proportion of youths that have
attended school (Table 3.2.3), which currently stands at 88 percent from 85 in
2003/04. However, in the youngest age group of 6 to 13 years, a considerable
proportion of about 12 percent have never been to school. For those 65 years
and older the proportion is 45 percent.
Age group
Has been to
School
Never been to
school
Total
% Number
06-13 88.4 11.6 100 397 201
14-16 97.3 2.7 100 151 468
17-18 97.1 2.9 100 94 851
19-24 94.8 5.2 100 258 047
25-34 92.4 7.6 100 309 232
35-44 89.1 10.9 100 206 434
45-54 81.9 18.1 100 136 939
55-64 71.3 28.7 100 86 043
65+ 55.2 44.8 100 103 737
Total 6+ 88.1 11.9 100 1 743 950
About 9 percent of non-orphans have never been to school compared to
6 percent of orphans (Table 3.2.4), a trend that was also reported in the
2003/04 NHIES. There are no major differences between females and males
in school attendance among orphans.
Orphan hood Has been
to school
Never been
to school
Total
Sex % Number
Orphans
Female 93.9 5.5 100 74 721
Male 93.3 6.3 100 71 864
Total 93.6 5,9 100 146 586
Non Orphans
Female 90.6 8.7 100 226 032
Male 89.2 10.1 100 224 542
Total 89.9 9.4 100 450 646
Not stated
Female 100 0.0 100 281
Male 69.9 19.8 100 593
Total 79.6 13.4 100 875
Total
Female 91.4 7.9 100 301 035
Male 90.2 9.2 100 297 000
Total 90.8 8.6 100 598 106
3. Education
Table 3.2.3
Population aged 6+ by school
attendance and age group
Table 3.2.4
Population 6-17 by school
attendance, orphan
hood and sex
94%
The percentage of orphans that
attend school. Only 90% on
non-orphans attend school
NHIES 2009/2010Page 36
3. Education
Table 3.2.5 shows that with the exception of Kunene regions, the proportion
of orphans who have never been to school is lower than non-orphans who
have never been to school.
Region
Orphans Non-orphans Orphans and non-orphans
Has
been to
school
Never
been to
school
Total Has
been to
school
Never
been to
school
Total Has
been to
school
Never
been to
school
Total
% Number % Number % Number
Caprivi 96.1 3.9 100 9 350 91.6 8.2 100 21 727 92.9 6.9 100 31 077
Erongo 94.4 5.3 100 4 653 92.2 6.8 100 25 694 92.5 6.6 100 30 369
Hardap 96.1 3.9 100 4 017 90.1 9.0 100 13 192 91.5 7.8 100 17 229
Karas 93.4 6.6 100 4 273 91.3 8.6 100 15 082 91.8 8.2 100 19 355
Kavango 94.6 5.1 100 21 710 89.6 10.0 100 68 674 90.8 8.8 100 90 534
Khomas 97.3 2.7 100 9 848 92.4 6.6 100 62 292 92.9 6.2 100 72 507
Kunene 64.9 35.1 100 3 672 68.8 29.8 100 15 699 68.1 30.8 100 19 419
Ohangwena 93.9 5.0 100 27 843 90.8 8.4 100 61 453 91.8 7.4 100 89 356
Omaheke 80.7 19.3 100 2 640 78.0 20.9 100 12 051 78.5 20.6 100 14 691
Omusati 93.7 4.7 100 23 972 92.6 6.6 100 58 604 92.8 6.0 100 82 691
Oshana 96.2 3.8 100 15 365 93.7 5.7 100 35 739 94.5 5.1 100 51 160
Oshikoto 93.8 6.2 100 14 901 89.2 10.2 100 36 882 90.5 9.1 100 51 783
Otjozondjupa 92.4 7.6 100 4 342 85.6 14.3 100 23 557 86.6 13.2 100 27 936
Namibia 93.6 5.9 100 146 586 89.9 9.4 100 450 646 90.8 8.6 100 598 106
Urban 95.1 4.9 100 35 291 92.6 6.6 100 154 782 93.0 6.4 100 190 552
Rural 93.1 6.2 100 111 294 88.5 10.9 100 295 864 89.7 9.6 100 407 554
Data on survivorship of parents shows the same trend as orphan hood.
Among children aged 6 to 17 and with no parents alive, 95 percent have been
to school compared to 90 percent for children with both parents alive (Table
3.2.6).
Survivorship of
parents
School attendance %
Has been to
school
Never been
to school
Total
% Number
Only mother alive 93.6 5.9 100 85 867
Only father alive 92.9 6.9 100 33 135
No parent alive 94.5 4.5 100 27 583
Both parents alive 89.9 9.4 100 450 646
Total 90.8 8.6 100 598 106
Table 3.2.6
Population aged 6-17 by school
attendance and survivorship of
parents
Table 3.2.5
Population aged 6-17 by school
attendance, orphan hood,
region and urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 37
3.3 Educational attainment
Table 3.3.1 shows that more than half (51 percent) of the population aged
15 years and above have attained secondary education while 27 and 6
percent have primary and tertiary education, respectively. About 13 percent
indicated that they have no formal education. Educational attainment differs
significantly between rural and urban areas. The proportion of those with no
formal education is 19 percent in rural areas and 6 percent in urban areas.
In Kunene, Omaheke and Otjozondjupa regions 35, 31 and 23 percent of the
population, respectively, have no formal education compared to Erongo with
only 4 percent of the population with no formal education.
Region
Level of education, %
No formal
education
Primary Secondary Tertiary
Not
stated
Total
% Number
Caprivi 13.0 26.7 54.6 4.6 1.1 100 61 664
Erongo 4.3 15.5 71.8 7.3 1.1 100 98 191
Hardap 9.2 32.9 52.1 4.6 1.3 100 44 272
Karas 7.1 31.0 55.2 5.4 1.4 100 51 538
Kavango 18.8 35.1 41.0 3.7 1.5 100 162 643
Khomas 5.3 16.5 60.4 16.2 1.6 100 246 098
Kunene 34.5 25.4 34.9 2.4 2.7 100 46 057
Ohangwena 17.3 36.2 40.0 3.2 3.3 100 129 618
Omaheke 31.3 25.8 38.7 2.7 1.5 100 39 007
Omusati 13.0 33.1 48.5 2.6 2.7 100 140 499
Oshana 8.2 23.3 60.5 5.5 2.4 100 108 686
Oshikoto 13.7 40.0 42.9 2.6 0.8 100 95 983
Otjozondjupa 22.9 22.5 47.7 4.6 2.4 100 73 585
Namibia 13.2 27.4 51.2 6.4 1.9 100 1 297 840
Urban 5.6 16.6 64.3 11.8 1.7 100 542 029
Rural 18.6 35.1 41.8 2.5 2.0 100 755 811
3. Education
Table 3.3.1
Population aged 15+ by
highest level of educational
attainment, region and
urban/rural areas
30%
The percentage of the
population in Kunene and
Omaheke that do not have
formal education
NHIES 2009/2010Page 38
Table 3.3.2 shows that there are no major differences between females and
males with respect to educational attainment. There is however, a slightly
higher proportion of females that have attained secondary education,
53 percent compared to 49 percent for males. Overall, 6 percent of the
population aged 15 years and above has attained tertiary education.
Educational attainment
Sex, %
Female Male
Both sexes
% Number
No formal education 13.3 13.1 13.2 171 343
Primary 25.7 29.3 27.4 355 300
Secondary 53.1 49.0 51.2 664 219
Tertiary 6.0 6.8 6.4 82 615
Not stated 1.9 1.9 1.9 24 363
Total 100 100 100 1 297 840
Generally, educational attainment has improved in the recent past. The
proportion of the population attaining secondary education levels increased
from 46 percent in 2003/04 to 51 percent in 2009/10. While 4 percent of
those aged 15 to 19 years reported that they have no formal education, the
corresponding figure among those aged over 65 years is 46 percent.
Age group Level of education, % Total
No formal
education
Primary Secondary Tertiary
Not
stated
% Number
15-19 3.6 37.0 56.8 0.6 2.0 100 249 440
20-24 6.4 18.1 67.2 6.3 2.0 100 206 016
25-34 8.5 19.5 62.6 7.9 1.5 100 309 232
35-44 11.6 26.1 50.5 10.3 1.5 100 206 434
45-54 18.9 33.3 35.3 11.0 1.5 100 136 939
55-64 29.2 38.2 25.0 6.0 1.6 100 86 043
65+ 45.8 32.4 15.6 2.2 4.0 100 99 474
Not stated 53.8 17.0 26.2 1.5 1.4 100 4 263
Total 15+ 13.2 27.4 51.2 6.4 1.9 100 1 297 840
3. Education
Table 3.3.2
Population aged 15+ by sex and
highest level of educational
attainment
Table 3.3.3
Population aged 15+ by
highest level of educational
attainment and age group
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 39
4. Labour Force
NAMIBIA STATISTICS AGENCY
NHIES 2009/2010Page 40
IntroductionThe chapter presents results from the survey on economic activities. However, it should be noted that even though labour force data was
collected at each survey round following the current activity concepts and
definitions, the results presented reflect an average picture over 13 survey
rounds, which is one complete year.
The survey asked of all persons aged 8 years and above about their economic
activity status during the seven days prior to the reference night. A person
was re garded as having worked, if he or she had worked for at least one hour
for pay, profit or family gain during that period or had a job or business or
other economic or farming activities to return to. Consequently, people who
worked for at least one hour but who had another activity as main activity,
for example as student or homemaker, were economically active according
to this defi nition.
The major purpose of the questions on economic activity is to divide the
population into those who are currently economically active, that is,
belonging to the labour force and those who are outside the labour force.
Persons in the labour force consist of the employed and the unemployed
and are classified by their demographic characteristics such as age, sex etc.
and employed persons are further classified by major groups of occupation,
industry and status in employment.
Persons regarded as being economically inactive, i.e. outside the labour
force, are grouped into seven categories. These are students, housewife/
homemakers, income recipient, retired or too old, disabled, too young,
off season with no job to return to, family responsibility and other. These
persons were not in any paid or self-employment during the past seven days
prior to the reference night and they did not have a work to return to.
This chapter on labour force focuses on the population aged 15 years and
above, which is in accordance with international practices.
4. Labour Force
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 41
Figure 4.1 shows that 71 percent of the population aged 15 years and above
belongs to the economically active group, which forms the labour force, while
29 percent is outside the labour force. The labour force is made up of the
employed and the unemployed with 66 and 34 percent. In the economically
inactive population group, students make up 52 percent, while homemakers
constitute only 6 percent.
Figure 4.1
Population by activity status
4. Labour Force
Total Population
2 066 398
100%
Economically Inactive
374 171
28.8%
Activity not
specified
5 219
0.4%
Economically Active
Labour Force
918 450
70.8%
Students
193 602
52.0%
Housewife/
Homemaker
23 872
6.4%
Unemployed
(Broad)
310 447
33.8%
Employed
608 003
66.2%
Income recipient,
Retired or too old,
disabled, Too young,
off season, Family
responsibility, other
154 659
41.6%
Children under 15 years
of age
768 557
37.2%
Adults 15 years of age and above
1 297 840
62.8%
The Labour Force Participation Rate is the proportion of the economically
active population in a given population group, i.e. the number of economically
active persons divided by the total population in the same population
group.
NHIES 2009/2010Page 42
4.1 Labour force participation
Table 4.1.1 shows that the labour force participation rate for the country is
slightly over 70 percent. The rate is higher for males than for females with
74 and 68 percent, respectively. There are considerable differences in urban
and rural areas. The rates for females and males in urban areas are 76 and
81 percent respectively. The corresponding rates for rural areas are 63 and 68
percent respectively. At regional level, the rates for both sexes range from
52 percent in Omusati to 81 percent in Erongo. The table also shows major
differences between females and males within each of the regions.
Region
Female Male Both Sexes
Total
Labour
Force
LFPR
%
Total
Labour
Force
LFPR
%
Total
Labour
Force
LFPR
%
Caprivi 32 956 23 597 71.6 28 708 21 483 74.8 61 664 45 081 73.1
Erongo 46 383 35 888 77.4 51 809 44 061 85.0 98 191 79 950 81.4
Hardap 23 105 15 012 65.0 21 167 16 961 80.1 44 272 31 973 72.2
Karas 24 712 16 989 68.7 26 826 22 886 85.3 51 538 39 875 77.4
Kavango 88 186 65 419 74.2 74 456 51 674 69.4 162 643 117 093 72.0
Khomas 122 181 94 230 77.1 123 917 103 037 83.2 246 098 197 267 80.2
Kunene 24 420 19 235 78.8 21 637 18 367 84.9 46 057 37 602 81.6
Ohangwena 76 854 42 491 55.3 52 764 29 736 56.4 129 618 72 227 55.7
Omaheke 19 197 13 542 70.5 19 810 16 222 81.9 39 007 29 765 76.3
Omusati 84 378 43 346 51.4 56 050 30 265 54.0 140 499 73 611 52.4
Oshana 62 390 38 256 61.3 46 296 30 015 64.8 108 686 68 271 62.8
Oshikoto 55 665 41 467 74.5 40 318 29 189 72.4 95 983 70 656 73.6
Otjozondjupa 36 326 24 932 68.6 37 259 30 149 80.9 73 585 55 081 74.9
Namibia 696 753 474 406 68.1 601 016 444 044 73.9
1 297
840
918 450 70.8
Urban 281 801 213 377 75.7 260 228 210 881 81.0 542 029 424 257 78.3
Rural 414 952 261 029 62.9 340 788 233 163 68.4 755 811 494 193 65.4
4. Labour Force
70%
The Labour Force Participation
Rate: 68% for females and 74%
for males
Table 4.1.1
Labour Force Participation Rate
(15+ years) by sex, region and
urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 43
Table 4.1.2 reveals that the labour force participation rate increases up to
the age group 30-34, where it reaches the peak value for both females and
males.
Age group
Female Male Both Sexes
Total
Labour
Force
LFPR
%
Total
Labour
Force
LFPR
%
Total
Labour
Force
LFPR
%
15-19 128 831 39 921 31.0 120 609 36 733 30.5 249 440 76 654 30.7
20-24 108 224 89 123 82.4 97 720 80 272 82.1 206 016 169 396 82.2
25-29 89 582 83 069 92.7 77 201 72 995 94.6 166 783 156 063 93.6
30-34 74 899 69 216 92.4 67 550 65 450 96.9 142 449 134 666 94.5
35-39 59 482 54 284 91.3 55 844 53 509 95.8 115 326 107 793 93.5
40-44 51 240 45 199 88.2 39 868 38 021 95.4 91 108 83 220 91.3
45-49 42 182 36 493 86.5 34 276 32 231 94.0 76 457 68 725 89.9
50-54 32 321 23 906 74.0 28 161 25 814 91.7 60 482 49 721 82.2
55-59 25 720 15 509 60.3 21 223 17 757 83.7 46 943 33 265 70.9
60-64 21 586 7 338 34.0 17 514 8 298 47.4 39 100 15 636 40.0
65+ 62 686 10 348 16.5 41 051 12 964 31.6 103 737 23 312 22.5
Total 696 753 474 406 68.1 601 016 444 044 73.9 1 297 840 918 450 70.8
4. Labour Force
Table 4.1.2
Labour Force Participation Rate
(15+ years) by age and sex
NHIES 2009/2010Page 44
4.2 Unemployed population
The unemployment rate is the proportion of the unemployed persons in the
labour force for a given population group, i.e. the number of unemployed
persons divided by all people in the labour force in the same population
group.
Unemployment can be defined in a broad or strict sense, depending on
the inclusion or exclusion of those without a job and are available for work
but are actually seeking it. Both definitions are consistent with the principles
of the labour force framework, but selecting one or the other tends to have
a large impact on the rate of unemployment. According to international
statistical standards, the unemployed should in principle satisfy the three
criteria of (i) being without work, (ii) being available for work, and (iii) actively
looking for work. This strict definition excludes those who are not actively
looking for work. The NHIES uses the broad definition of unemployment in
this report. The broad unemployment rate in Namibia is 34 percent.
Tables on unemployment according to the strict definition can be found in
appendix 4.
Table 4.2.1 shows females in rural areas have the highest unemployment rate
of 42 percent. Unemployment is highest in Ohangwena region for both males
and females compared to other regions.
Region
Female Male Both Sexes
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
Caprivi 23 597 7 033 29.8 21 483 4 352 20.3 45 081 11 385 25.3
Erongo 35 888 10 519 29.3 44 061 7 566 17.2 79 950 18 084 22.6
Hardap 15 012 7 509 50.0 16 961 4 347 25.6 31 973 11 857 37.1
Karas 16 989 7 252 42.7 22 886 5 872 25.7 39 875 13 124 32.9
Kavango 65 419 14 667 22.4 51 674 12 250 23.7 117 093 26 917 23.0
Khomas 94 230 32 841 34.9 103 037 25 111 24.4 197 267 57 952 29.4
Kunene 19 235 6 827 35.5 18 367 4 486 24.4 37 602 11 312 30.1
Ohangwena 42 491 26 585 62.6 29 736 17 881 60.1 72 227 44 466 61.6
Omaheke 13 542 6 037 44.6 16 222 3 369 20.8 29 765 9 407 31.6
Omusati 43 346 23 875 55.1 30 265 15 690 51.8 73 611 39 565 53.7
Oshana 38 256 18 151 47.4 30 015 12 036 40.1 68 271 30 187 44.2
Oshikoto 41 467 9 602 23.2 29 189 6 117 21.0 70 656 15 719 22.2
Otjozondjupa 24 932 11 573 46.4 30 149 8 898 29.5 55 081 20 472 37.2
Namibia 474 406 182 471 38.5 444 044 127 976 28.8 918 450 310 447 33.8
Urban 213 377 74 254 34.8 210 881 51 787 24.6 424 257 126 041 29.7
Rural 261 029 108 217 41.5 233 163 76 189 32.7 494 193 184 405 37.3
4. Labour Force
Table 4.2.1
Unemployment Rate
(Broad) 15+ years by
region and
urban/rural areas
34%
The broad unemployment
rate in Namibia
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 45
Young people, notably females, have the highest unemployment rates. Table
4.2.2 indicates considerable differences between the unemployment rates
by age for both sexes. The rate is higher for females in all ages except for age
group 60-64.
Age
group
Female Male Both Sexes
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
15-19 39 921 27 639 69.2 36 733 22 895 62.3 76 654 50 534 65.9
20-24 89 123 53 005 59.5 80 272 38 823 48.4 169 396 91 827 54.2
25-29 83 069 32 027 38.6 72 995 22 694 31.1 156 063 54 721 35.1
30-34 69 216 23 352 33.7 65 450 14 649 22.4 134 666 38 001 28.2
35-39 54 284 16 196 29.8 53 509 9 759 18.2 107 793 25 955 24.1
40-44 45 199 12 766 28.2 38 021 6 559 17.3 83 220 19 326 23.2
45-49 36 493 8 255 22.6 32 231 4 626 14.4 68 725 12 881 18.7
50-54 23 906 4 338 18.1 25 814 3 467 13.4 49 721 7 805 15.7
55-59 15 509 3 574 23.0 17 757 2 458 13.8 33 265 6 032 18.1
60-64 7 338 393 5.4 8 298 925 11.1 15 636 1 318 8.4
65+ 10 348 925 8.9 12 964 1 120 8.6 23 312 2 046 8.8
Total 474 406 182 471 38.5 444 044 127 976 28.8 918 450 310 447 33.8
4. Labour Force
Table 4.2.2
Unemployment Rate
(Broad) 15+ years by
age and sex
Figure 4.2
Unemployed
population by age
and sex
39%
The percentage of
females that are
unemployed
29%
The percentage of
the males that are
unemployed.
CHAPTER)3:)EDUCATION)
Figure 3
Population 15+ years with no formal edu ation by region over time
)
)
CHAPTER)4:)Labour)Force)
Figure 4.2
Unemployed population by age and sex
)
)
0%) 10%) 20%) 30%) 40%) 50%) 60%)
Erongo)
Khomas)
Karas)
Oshana)
OmusaN)
NAMIBIA)
Oshikoto)
Hardap)
Caprivi)
Kavango)
Ohangwena)
Otjozondjupa)
Kunene)
Omaheke)
2009/10)
2003/04)
1993/94)
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
1
5
1
9
)
2
0
2
4
)
2
5
2
9
)
3
0
3
4
)
3
5
3
9
)
4
0
4
4
)
4
5
4
9
)
5
0
5
4
)
5
5
5
9
)
6
0
6
4
)
6
5
+
)
Female)
Male)
Both)Sexes)
NHIES 2009/2010Page 46
Unemployment rate in the rural areas is high compared to the urban areas
(37 and 30 percent). Unemployment rate for females is notably higher than
for males among most age groups in both urban and rural areas. Table 4.2.3
also shows that the unemployment rate is highest in the age group 15-19 in
both rural and urban areas.
Urban/
Rural
Female Male Both Sexes
Age group
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
Urban
15-19 14 499 11 544 79.6 11 697 8 932 76.4 26 196 20 476 78.2
20-24 41 398 25 677 62.0 36 756 17 398 47.3 78 154 43 075 55.1
25-29 43 073 14 029 32.6 36 852 9 651 26.2 79 925 23 681 29.6
30-34 34 089 8 859 26.0 36 621 5 769 15.8 70 710 14 628 20.7
35-39 25 188 5 155 20.5 27 017 3 275 12.1 52 205 8 430 16.1
40-44 22 342 4 134 18.5 20 358 1 995 9.8 42 700 6 129 14.4
45-49 14 974 2 260 15.1 15 884 2 047 12.9 30 858 4 307 14.0
50-54 9 698 1 161 12.0 13 065 1 275 9.8 22 763 2 435 10.7
55-59 5 695 1 083 19.0 7 672 773 10.1 13 367 1 857 13.9
60-64 1 354 86 6.3 2 875 342 11.9 4 229 428 10.1
65+ 1 066 266 24.9 2 084 330 15.8 3 150 596 18.9
Total 213 377 74 254 34.8 210 881 51 787 24.6 424 257 126 041 29.7
Rural
15-19 25 423 16 095 63.3 25 036 13 963 55.8 50 458 30 058 59.6
20-24 47 726 27 328 57.3 43 516 21 425 49.2 91 242 48 752 53.4
25-29 39 995 17 998 45.0 36 143 13 043 36.1 76 138 31 041 40.8
30-34 35 127 14 493 41.3 28 829 8 880 30.8 63 956 23 373 36.5
35-39 29 095 11 040 37.9 26 492 6 484 24.5 55 587 17 524 31.5
40-44 22 857 8 633 37.8 17 663 4 564 25.8 40 520 13 197 32.6
45-49 21 519 5 995 27.9 16 347 2 579 15.8 37 867 8 574 22.6
50-54 14 208 3 178 22.4 12 750 2 192 17.2 26 958 5 370 19.9
55-59 9 814 2 491 25.4 10 085 1 685 16.7 19 898 4 175 21.0
60-64 5 984 308 5.1 5 423 583 10.8 11 407 891 7.8
65+ 9 282 660 7.1 10 880 790 7.3 20 162 1 450 7.2
Total 261 029 108 217 41.5 233 163 76 189 32.7 494 193 184 405 37.3
4. Labour Force
Table 4.2.3
Unemployment Rate
(Broad) 15+ years by
urban/rural areas, age
and sex
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 47
Table 4.2.4 shows the relationship between level of education and
unemployment. Unemployment is lower for persons who attained high levels
of education (9 percent). The unemployment rate among persons having
primary level of education attained is 34 percent. The unemployment rate is
notably high among females with only secondary education.
Educational
attainment
Female Male Both Sexes
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unemploy-
ment Rate
(Broad)
No formal
education
48 327 16 080 33.3 54 233 12 750 23.5 102 560 28 830 28.1
Primary 112 925 44 375 39.3 121 093 35 995 29.7 234 018 80 370 34.3
Secondary 272 187 114 367 42.0 225 028 73 511 32.7 497 215 187 878 37.8
Tertiary 33 673 3 600 10.7 35 296 2 458 7.0 68 969 6 058 8.8
Total 473 422 182 021 38.4 442 907 127 347 28.8 916 329 309 368 33.8
4. Labour Force
Table 4.2.4
Unemployment
Rate (Broad) 15+
years by educational
attainment and sex
38%
The unemployment
rate for persons with
secondary level education
while the unemployment
rate for persons with tertiary
education is only 9%
NHIES 2009/2010Page 48
4.3 Employed population
In this survey employed population are classified as those persons 15 years
and above who worked for at least one hour for pay, profit or family gain 7
days prior to the reference night or were available for work. It can be observed
from Figure 4.3.1 that more persons are employed in the age group 25-29
years, and less people are employed in the age group 60-64 years.
Table 4.3.1 reveals that about 48 percent of all employed persons are
employees in the private sector and almost 16 percent are employed by
the public sector. The table further reveals that 23 percent of all employed
females work in the subsistence/communal farming sector.
Self-employed or own account workers without hired or paid employees
make up 14 percent of all employed people. About 16 percent of all females
belong to this group.
Employment status
Female Male Total
Number % Number % Number %
As a paid employee for a private employer 117 528 40.3 176 483 55.8 294 011 48.4
As a paid employee for government or
state enterprise
48 297 16.5 45 925 14.5 94 222 15.5
As an employer 1 045 0.4 3 240 1.0 4 285 0.7
As a self-employed or own account worker 47 704 16.3 37 450 11.8 85 154 14.0
In subsistence farming activities 67 866 23.2 45 207 14.3 113 073 18.6
Other unpaid family worker 8 714 3.0 6 595 2.1 15 310 2.5
Not stated 781 0.3 1 168 0.4 1 949 0.3
Total 291 935 100 316 068 100 608 003 100
4. Labour Force
Figure 4.3.1
Employed Population by age and sex
)
Figure 4.5.1)
Proportion of own-account workers and co tributing family memb rs in total e l yment
(POACFAM) by region and urban/rural
)
.0)
2.0)
4.0)
6.0)
8.0)
10.0)
12.0)
14.0)
16.0)
18.0)
20.0)
1
5
1
9
)
2
0
2
4
)
2
5
2
9
)
3
0
3
4
)
3
5
3
9
)
4
0
4
4
)
4
5
4
9
)
5
0
5
4
)
5
5
5
9
)
6
0
6
4
)
6
5
+
)
Female) Male) Total)
0.0) 5.0) 10.0) 15.0) 20.0) 25.0) 30.0) 35.0)
Oshikoto)
Otjozondjupa)
Erongo)
Karas)
Hardap)
Kavango)
Khomas)
Urban)
Total)
Omaheke)
Rural)
Kunene)
Ohangwena)
Caprivi)
Oshana)
OmusaN)
Table 4.3.1
Employed Population aged 15+
by status in employment
Figure 4.3.1
Employed Population by age
and sex
48%
The percentage of employees
that work for private employers
while 19% are employed in
subsistence farming
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 49
Table 4.3.2 reveals that the largest occupation group is elementary
occupations, which include labourers and other unskilled occupations. This
group constitutes 25 percent of all employed persons. There are no significant
differences between females and males. The second largest occupation group
is skilled agricultural and fishery service workers, who make up 23 percent.
More than half of these are females. The third group is service, shop and
market related sales workers with 14 percent, of whom more than half are
females.
Occupation
Female Male Total
Number % Number % Number %
Armed forces 1 804 0.6 5 002 1.6 6 806 1.1
Legislators, senior officials and managers 7 831 2.7 13 588 4.3 21 419 3.5
Professionals 24 036 8.2 19 794 6.3 43 830 7.2
Technicians and associate professionals 13 763 4.7 13 815 4.4 27 579 4.5
Clerks 24 743 8.5 9 178 2.9 33 921 5.6
Service workers and shop and market
sales workers
49 375 16.9 34 855 11.0 84 230 13.9
Skilled agricultural and fishery workers 72 492 24.8 64 716 20.5 137 207 22.6
Craft and related trades workers 12 967 4.4 51 788 16.4 64 755 10.7
Plant and machine operators and
assemblers
1 127 0.4 23 501 7.4 24 628 4.1
Elementary occupations 78 550 26.9 73 915 23.4 152 465 25.1
Not stated 5 248 1.8 5 915 1.9 11 163 1.8
Total 291 935 100 316 068 100 608 003 100
4. Labour Force
Table 4.3.2
Employed Population aged 15+
by occupation
NHIES 2009/2010Page 50
The distribution of employed persons aged 15 years and above by industry is
presented in Table 4.3.3. The agricultural industry employs about 29 percent
of all employed persons. This is the largest industry for both sexes, followed
by real estate, renting and business activities with about 12 percent. The
industrial sector of manufacturing, mining and quarrying, electricity, gas,
water supply and construction is heavily male dominated.
Industry Female Male Total
Number % Number % Number %
Agriculture, forestry and hunting 83 073 28.5 93 029 29.4 176 102 29.0
Fishing 4 299 1.5 9 141 2.9 13 441 2.2
Mining and quarrying 2 282 0.8 7 917 2.5 10 199 1.7
Manufacturing 9 788 3.4 19 331 6.1 29 119 4.8
Electricity, gas and water supply 769 0.3 2 987 0.9 3 756 0.6
Construction 2 984 1.0 29 660 9.4 32 644 5.4
Wholesale and retail trade, repair of
motor vehicles and motorcycles, retail sale
of automotive fuel
26 802 9.2 23 014 7.3 49 816 8.2
Hotels and restaurants 9 727 3.3 6 530 2.1 16 257 2.7
Transports, storage and communications 3 197 1.1 15 912 5.0 19 109 3.1
Financial intermediation 4 802 1.6 3 245 1.0 8 046 1.3
Real estate, renting and business activities 40 963 14.0 30 326 9.6 71 289 11.7
Public administration and defence 18 563 6.4 28 390 9.0 46 954 7.7
Education 22 630 7.8 13 516 4.3 36 146 5.9
Health and social work 12 866 4.4 3 962 1.3 16 828 2.8
Other communal, social and personal
service activities
7 717 2.6 10 547 3.3 18 264 3.0
Private households with employed
persons
35 674 12.2 11 897 3.8 47 571 7.8
Extra-territorial organizations and bodies 1 063 0.4 1 119 0.4 2 182 0.4
Not stated 4 736 1.6 5 546 1.8 10 281 1.7
Total 291 935 100 316 068 100 608 003 100
4. Labour Force
Table 4.3.3
Employed Population aged
15+ by industry
29%
The percentage of people
employed in the Agriculture,
forestry and hunting sector
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 51
4.4 Economically inactive population
Persons who are outside the labour force are grouped into 10 categories
of which two are predominant (Table 4.4). These are scholar or student (52
percent) and retired or too old to work (26 percent). Males are dominant in
the group Scholar or student. In the homemaker category, about 9 out of 10
persons are females.
Economically Inactive
Female Male Total
Number % Number % Number %
Income recipient 597 0.3 333 0.2 930 0.2
Retired or too old to work 61 887 28.3 34 599 22.5 96 487 25.9
Scholar or student 97 457 44.6 96 145 62.6 193 602 52.0
Housewife/Homemaker 23 383 10.7 489 0.3 23 872 6.4
Unable to work e to illness, disabled 16 204 7.4 13 411 8.7 29 615 8.0
Cannot find suitable work/no jobs
available
8 114 3.7 5 098 3.3 13 212 3.6
Too young to work 1 032 0.5 745 0.5 1 776 0.5
Off season/temporary closure 404 0.2 173 0.1 577 0.2
Family responsibilities 7 010 3.2 1 206 0.8 8 216 2.2
Other reason 2 003 0.9 1 136 0.7 3 139 0.8
Not stated 337 0.2 370 0.2 707 0.2
Total 218 427 100 153 706 100 372 133 100
4. Labour Force
Table 4.4
Economically inactive
population (Outside Labour
Force) aged 15+ by activity
status and sex
4%
The percentage of the
population that are
economically inactive because
they cannot find suitable work
NHIES 2009/2010Page 52
4.5 Employment to population ratio
The employment-to-population ratio (EPR) is defined as the number of
employed persons in the working age population given as a percentage of
the total number of persons in the working age population.
Table 4.5 shows that employment-to-population ratio (EPR) for Namibia is
47 percent. The EPR is higher for males than females, 53 and 42 percent,
respectively. Erongo region has the highest employment-to-population ratio,
63 percent and Ohangwena has the lowest with 21 percent.
Region
Female Male Both Sexes
Total Employed
EPR
%
Total Employed
EPR
%
Total Employed
EPR
%
Caprivi 32 956 16 565 50.3 28 708 17 131 59.7 61 664 33 696 54.6
Erongo 46 383 25 370 54.7 51 809 36 496 70.4 98 191 61 865 63.0
Hardap 23 105 7 503 32.5 21 167 12 613 59.6 44 272 20 116 45.4
Karas 24 712 9 737 39.4 26 826 17 014 63.4 51 538 26 751 51.9
Kavango 88 186 50 753 57.6 74 456 39 423 52.9 162 643 90 176 55.4
Khomas 122 181 61 389 50.2 123 917 77 925 62.9 246 098 139 314 56.6
Kunene 24 420 12 408 50.8 21 637 13 881 64.2 46 057 26 289 57.1
Ohangwena 76 854 15 906 20.7 52 764 11 855 22.5 129 618 27 761 21.4
Omaheke 19 197 7 505 39.1 19 810 12 853 64.9 39 007 20 358 52.2
Omusati 84 378 19 471 23.1 56 050 14 575 26.0 140 499 34 046 24.2
Oshana 62 390 20 105 32.2 46 296 17 979 38.8 108 686 38 083 35.0
Oshikoto 55 665 31 865 57.2 40 318 23 072 57.2 95 983 54 937 57.2
Otjozondjupa 36 326 13 359 36.8 37 259 21 251 57.0 73 585 34 610 47.0
Namibia 696 753 291 935 41.9 601 016 316 068 52.6 1 297 840 608 003 46.8
Urban 281 801 139 123 49.4 260 228 159 094 61.1 542 029 298 216 55.0
Rural 414 952 152 813 36.8 340 788 156 975 46.1 755 811 309 787 41.0
4. Labour Force
Table 4.5
Employment-to-
population ratio (15+
years) by sex, region
and urban/rural areas
47%
The employment to
Population Ratio (EPR).
The EPR is highest in
Erongo at 63% and the
lowest in Ohangwena
at 21%
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 53
Figure 4.5.1
Proportion of own-account
workers and contributing family
members in total employment
(POACFAM) by region amd
urban/rural areas
Figure 4.5.2
Share of females in wage
employment in the non-
agricultural sector by urban/
rural areas
Proportion of own-account workers and contributing family members in total
employment refers to the percentage of the employed population who are
own-account workers or contributing family workers in percent of the total
number of employed population.
Figure 4.5.1 shows that the proportion of own-account workers and
contributing family members in total employment is highest in Omusati
region and lowest in Oshikoto region.
4. Labour Force
Figure 4.3.1
Employed Population by age and sex
)
Figure 4.5.1)
Proportion of own-account workers and contributing family members in total employment
(POACFAM) by region and urban/rural
)
.0)
2.0)
4.0)
6.0)
8.0)
10.0)
12.0)
14.0)
16.0)
18.0)
20.0)
1
5
1
9
)
2
0
2
4
)
2
5
2
9
)
3
0
3
4
)
3
5
3
9
)
4
0
4
4
)
4
5
4
9
)
5
0
5
4
)
5
5
5
9
)
6
0
6
4
)
6
5
+
)
Female) Male) Total)
0.0) 5.0) 10.0) 15.0) 20.0) 25.0) 30.0) 35.0)
Oshikoto)
Otjozondjupa)
Erongo)
Karas)
Hardap)
Kavango)
Khomas)
Urban)
Total)
Omaheke)
Rural)
Kunene)
Ohangwena)
Caprivi)
Oshana)
OmusaN)
Share of females in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector is the
women percentage of the population employed in paid employment in the
non-agricultural sector.
Figure 4.5.2 shows that the share of females in wage employment in the non-
agricultural sector is high in rural areas as compared to urban areas.Figure 4.5.2
Share of females in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector by urban/rural
)
CHAPTER)5:)Main)Source)of)income)
Figure 5.1a
Percentage of households with subsistence farming as main source of income by region
`
)
42.0)
44.0)
46.0)
48.0)
50.0)
52.0)
54.0)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
Female)
Male)
0) 10) 20) 30) 40) 50) 60) 70) 80) 90)
Khomas)
Erongo)
Karas)
Otjozondjupa)
Hardap)
Omaheke)
Kunene)
Oshana)
Caprivi)
Oshikoto)
Kavango)
Ohangwena)
OmusaN)
2009/2010)
2003/2004)
1993/1994)
NHIES 2009/2010Page 54
5. Main Source of Income
NAMIBIA STATISTICS AGENCY
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 55
5. Main Source of Income
One of the main purposes of this survey was to determine the distribution of economic resources amongst the Namibian population. Households were asked to select the households
sources of income, indicating the main source, from a list of possible sources
including , but not limited to, salaries and/or wages; subsistence farming;
commercial farming; business activities; pensions from employment and/
or annuity fund; cash remittances; rental income; interest from savings/
investments; state old age pension; war veterans/ex-combatants subvention;
disability grants for adults (over 16 years); state child maintenance grants;
state foster care grant; state special maintenance grants (disabled under 16
years); alimony and similar allowances; drought relief; and in kind receipts.
Salaries and/or wages is the most common source of income in Namibia cited
by 49 percent of all households. The second most common main source of
income is subsistence farming with 23 percent of households. This is followed
by pensions and business income at 11 and 9 percent, respectively.
There are however, rural-urban variations with respect to the main source
of income for households. In urban areas, 74 percent of the households
reported salaries and/or wages as the main source of income, followed by
business income with 14 per cent. Subsistence farming is more common in
rural areas having been reported by 40 per cent of the households. This was
followed by salaries and/or wages and pension which were reported by 30
and 16 percent, respectively. At the regional level, salaries and wages are the
main source of income in most regions, with the exception of predominantly
rural regions of Omusati, Ohangwena, Kavango and Oshikoto (Table 5.1),
where subsistence crop farming is the most common economic activity.
NHIES 2009/2010Page 56
Region
Main source of income, % Total
Sala-
ries &
wages
Subsis-
tence
farming
Com-
mercial
farming
Pen-
sion
Remit-
tances/
grants
Drought/
in kind
receipts
Busi-
ness
income
Others % Number
Caprivi 34.4 24.3 0.0 14.8 4.6 1.1 17.5 3.3 100 21 254
Erongo 75.9 1.4 0.1 5.6 3.8 1.2 11.3 0.7 100 39 221
Hardap 59.8 6.4 3.1 13.6 7.5 1.5 5.3 2.8 100 15 894
Karas 70.1 2.1 2.6 11.7 5.6 1.9 5.3 0.7 100 21 299
Kavango 30.1 45.7 0.1 11.5 2.7 1.1 7.5 1.3 100 43 889
Khomas 76.2 0.3 0.4 2.7 4.7 0.6 13.9 1.2 100 83 562
Kunene 49.4 15.8 2.4 13.1 5.5 5.6 6.5 1.8 100 17 096
Ohangwena 19.6 48.6 0.0 19.6 5.2 1.3 5.1 0.5 100 38 997
Omaheke 53.3 11.8 1.9 16.9 5.2 2.3 7.4 1.3 100 15 159
Omusati 19.5 59.6 0.0 13.2 2.2 1.0 4.4 0.0 100 45 161
Oshana 42.8 23.5 0.0 13.8 5.3 1.4 12.7 0.4 100 35 087
Oshikoto 27.9 41.3 0.2 16.2 5.3 4.2 4.0 1.0 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 69.1 4.7 1.2 9.8 6.0 2.7 5.6 0.9 100 28 135
Namibia 49.2 23.1 0.6 11.1 4.6 1.7 8.8 1.0 100 436 795
Urban 74.3 0.9 0.1 4.5 4.7 1.0 13.5 1.0 100 188 981
Rural 30.0 40.0 0.9 16.1 4.5 2.1 5.3 1.1 100 247 813
Sex of the head of the household is an important factor in the analysis of
household welfare. Table 5.2 below shows that while salaries and/or wages is
the most common source of income for male headed households at national
level and in both rural and urban areas, subsistence farming is most common
main source of income for female headed households, especially in rural
areas. Furthermore, more female headed households reported pensions and
remittances as the main source of income than male headed households.
There is no significant difference between female-headed and male-headed
households when it comes to business income as a source of household
income.
Urban/rural Main source of income, % Total
Sex of head
Sala-
ries &
wages
Subsis-
tence
farming
Com-
mercial
farming
Pen-
sion
Remittan-
ces/
grants
Drought/
in kind
receipts
Busi-
ness
income
Others % Number
Urban
Female 66.4 1.1 0.0 6.4 9.0 1.6 14.2 1.3 100 74 316
Male 79.4 0.8 0.2 3.4 1.9 0.6 13.0 0.8 100 113 953
Both sexes 74.2 0.9 0.1 4.6 4.7 1.0 13.5 1.0 100 188 981
Rural
Female 20.2 44.0 0.1 20.5 7.3 1.8 5.2 0.8 100 110 435
Male 37.7 36.7 1.6 12.6 2.2 2.4 5.5 1.3 100 135 378
Both sexes 29.9 40.0 0.9 16.2 4.5 2.1 5.3 1.1 100 247 813
Female 38.8 26.7 0.1 14.8 8.0 1.7 8.8 1.0 100 184 752
Male 56.8 20.3 1.0 8.4 2.1 1.6 8.9 1.1 100 249 331
Both sexes 49.2 23.1 0.6 11.1 4.6 1.7 8.8 1.0 100 436 795
5. Main Source of Income
Table 5.1
Households by main
source of income,
region and urban/
rural areas
49%
the percentage of
households with
salaries and wages as
their main source of
income. Only 0.6% of
the households have
commercial farming
as their main source
of income
Table 5.2
Households by main
source of income,
urban/rural areas
and sex of head of
households
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 57
The level of education is an important determinant of household welfare.
Table 5.3 below shows that the proportion of households with salaries and/
or wages as the main source of income increase as education levels of the
head of household increase. The proportion of households with subsistence
farming and pensions as the main source of income also decreases as
education levels of the head of household increase.
Level of
education
Main source of income, % Total
Sala-
ries &
wages
Subsis-
tence
farming
Com-
mercial
farming
Pen-
sion
Remit-
tances
/grants
Drought/
in kind
receipts
Busi-
ness
income
Others % Number
No formal
education
26.0 36.6 0.2 26.5 2.7 3.3 3.8 0.9 100 80 534
Primary 37.5 33.3 0.2 13.4 5.3 1.6 7.6 1.1 100 122 631
Secondary 60.5 14.4 0.8 4.7 5.4 1.1 11.9 1.1 100 179 948
Tertiary 77.5 4.2 1.3 2.4 3.0 0.9 9.6 1.0 100 44 400
Total 49.2 23.0 0.6 11.1 4.6 1.7 8.9 1.1 100 436 795
Salaries and/or wages is the predominant main source of income for most
households in Namibia irrespective of main language spoken (table 5.4).
However, a higher proportion of households where Rukavango is the main
languages spoken, reported subsistence farming as their main source of
income.
Language group
Main source of income, % Total
Sala-
ries &
wages
Subsis-
tence
farming
Com-
mercial
farming
Pen-
sion
Remit-
tances/
grants
Drought/
in kind
receipts
Busi-
ness in-
come
Others % Number
Khoisan 47.2 3.7 1.9 20.1 2.5 19.5 2.0 3.1 100 5 954
Caprivi 39.9 22.3 0.0 12.5 5.7 1.4 16.0 2.3 100 21 537
Otjiherero 53.8 15.2 1.0 11.9 6.5 3.6 6.7 1.4 100 39 748
Rukavango 38.1 39.2 0.1 10.6 3.1 0.9 6.7 1.3 100 51 011
Nama/Damara 71.0 3.2 0.4 10.2 5.6 2.7 5.5 1.4 100 54 323
Oshiwambo 41.7 32.8 0.0 11.6 4.1 1.0 8.4 0.4 100 204 305
Setswana 54.0 5.2 7.8 22.0 5.4 0.0 1.2 4.4 100 1 299
Afrikaans 67.8 1.2 3.6 9.5 3.9 0.5 11.6 1.9 100 40 660
German 32.6 1.3 3.6 21.2 0.0 1.0 39.9 0.5 100 3 549
English 77.0 0.0 0.3 1.8 4.1 0.0 15.1 1.7 100 8 946
Other European
languages
35.7 3.8 0.6 3.5 30.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 100 2 367
Other African
languages
57.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 8.2 7.3 25.3 0.0 100 1 902
Others 61.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.1 0.0 100 209
Total 49.2 23.1 0.6 11.1 4.6 1.6 8.8 1.0 100 436 795
5. Main Source of Income
Table 5.3
Households by main
source of income
and highest level of
educational attainment
Table 5.4
Households by main
source of income
and highest level of
educational attainment
NHIES 2009/2010Page 58
Table 5.5 shows that in the first percentile group (1-25) more households
(37 percent) reported subsistence farming as the main source of income
compared to 26 percent for salaries and wages. In the rest of the percentile
groups, more households reported salaries and wages as their main source of
income, compared to other sources, with the highest proportion (75 percent)
being reported in percentile group 91-95.
Relatively higher proportions of households in the first three deciles (1-3)
reported subsistence farming as main source of income. The trend however,
changes from the fourth decile to the tenth where higher proportions of
households reported salaries and/or wages as main source of income.
Percentile
group/-
deciles
Main source of income, % Total
Sala-
ries &
wages
Subsis-
tence
farming
Com-
mercial
farming
Pen-
sion
Remit-
tances
/grants
Drought/
in kind
receipts
Busi-
ness in-
come
Others % Number
Percentile
1-25 26.2 36.5 0.1 18.5 6.4 3.3 7.3 1.6 100 109 176
26-50 38.8 33.1 0.0 13.4 4.6 1.6 7.7 0.8 100 109 035
51-75 60.6 16.8 0.2 8.4 4.3 1.0 8.1 0.7 100 109 229
76-90 72.3 8.4 0.4 3.0 4.3 1.1 9.7 0.7 100 65 454
91-95 75.3 2.9 1.2 4.1 2.2 0.1 12.3 1.9 100 22 037
96-98 66.8 1.7 5.2 9.7 0.0 0.3 15.6 0.6 100 13 062
99-100 55.6 1.7 10.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 26.7 1.7 100 8 801
Total 49.2 23.1 0.6 11.1 4.6 1.7 8.8 1.0 100 436 795
Deciles
1 23.0 36.2 0.1 20.2 7.0 4.9 6.1 2.4 100 43 670
2 28.9 37.1 0.1 16.4 6.1 1.6 8.7 1.1 100 43 675
3 28.9 37.5 0.1 18.4 5.7 2.4 6.2 0.8 100 43 688
4 37.1 34.9 0.0 12.9 4.8 1.7 7.8 0.8 100 43 675
5 44.9 28.2 0.1 12.0 4.0 1.5 8.5 0.8 100 43 504
6 53.5 21.7 0.0 10.3 5.0 1.1 7.8 0.7 100 43 805
7 63.4 14.9 0.2 8.1 4.5 1.0 7.3 0.7 100 43 729
8 68.2 11.7 0.2 4.1 3.3 1.3 10.3 0.9 100 43 633
9 74.9 6.3 0.6 3.0 4.3 0.9 9.4 0.6 100 43 516
10 68.8 2.3 4.3 5.7 1.1 0.1 16.2 1.5 100 43 900
5. Main Source of Income
Table 5.5
Households by main
source of income and
percentile group after
adjusted per capita
income
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 59
Figure 5.1a shows changes, over time, in proportion of households whose
main source of income is subsistence farming by region. At the national level,
the proportion of households whose main source of income is subsistence
farming has steadily declined from about 38 percent in 1993/94 to 23 percent
in 2009/10. The same pattern can be observed in the regions of Ohangwena,
Oshikoto, Oshana and Kunene. The trend is however, different for Hardap and
Otjozondjupa regions where the proportion of households where the main
source of income is subsistence farming has increased in the recent past.
5. Main Source of Income
Table 5.1a
Percentage of households with
subsistence farming as main
source of income by region
Figure 4.5.2
Share of females in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector by urban/rural
)
CHAPTER)5:)Main)Source)of)income)
Figure 5.1a
Percentage of households with subsistence farming as main source of income by region
`
)
42.0)
44.0)
46.0)
48.0)
50.0)
52.0)
54.0)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
Female)
Male)
0) 10) 20) 30) 40) 50) 60) 70) 80) 90)
Khomas)
Erongo)
Karas)
Otjozondjupa)
Hardap)
Omaheke)
Kunene)
Oshana)
Caprivi)
Oshikoto)
Kavango)
Ohangwena)
OmusaN)
2009/2010)
2003/2004)
1993/1994)
NHIES 2009/2010Page 60
Figure 5.1b depicts changes, over time, in the percentage of households with
salaries and wages as the main source of income by region. It can be observed
that the relative importance of salaries and wages as the main source of
income has decreased in Khomas, Otjozondjupa and Hardap regions. The
inverse is true for Erongo, Omaheke, Kunene, Oshana, Caprivi, Oshikoto,
Ohangwena and Omusati regions where the percentage of households with
salaries and/or wages as the main source of income has increased during this
period.
5. Main Source of Income
Figure 5.1b
Percentage of households with salaries and wages as main source of income by region
)
Figure 5.2c
Percentage of households by sex of head of household and salaries/wages or subsistence
farming as main source of income
)
)
)
0) 10) 20) 30) 40) 50) 60) 70) 80) 90)
OmusaN)
Ohangwena)
Oshikoto)
Kavango)
Caprivi)
Oshana)
Kunene)
Omaheke)
Hardap)
Otjozondjupa)
Karas)
Erongo)
Khomas)
2009/2010) 2003/2004) 1993/1994)
0%)
10%)
20%)
30%)
40%)
50%)
60%)
Female)headed) Male)headed) Female)headed) Male)headed)
Salaries) Subsistance)farming)
1993/93)
2003/04)
2009/10)
Table 5.1b
Percentage of households with
salaries and wages as main
source of income by region
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 61
Figure 5.2c shows that, at the national level, increasingly many households
have reported salaries and/or wages as main source of income between
1993/94 and 2009/10 while the relative importance of subsistence farming,
as the main source of household income has declined over the same period..
This change is however, bigger among female headed households than male
headed households.
5. Main Source of Income
Table 5.2c
Percentage of households by
sex of head of household and
salaries/wages or subsistence
farming as main source of
income
Figure 5.1b
Percentage of households with salaries and wages as main source of income by region
)
Figure 5.2c
Percentage of households by sex of head of household and salaries/wages or subsistence
farming as main source of income
)
)
)
0) 10) 20) 30) 40) 50) 60) 70) 80) 90)
OmusaN)
Ohangwena)
Oshikoto)
Kavango)
Caprivi)
Oshana)
Kunene)
Omaheke)
Hardap)
Otjozondjupa)
Karas)
Erongo)
Khomas)
2009/2010) 2003/2004) 1993/1994)
0%)
10%)
20%)
30%)
40%)
50%)
60%)
Female)headed) Male)headed) Female)headed) Male)headed)
Salaries) Subsistance)farming)
1993/93)
2003/04)
2009/10)
NHIES 2009/2010Page 62
6. Housing and Utilities
NAMIBIA STATISTICS AGENCY
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 63
6. Housing and Utilities
Housing and utilities are important indicators of households socio-economic status. Given the key role that housing and utilities play in the living condition of the population, they have a direct impact on
environmental conditions. Chapter 6 describes characteristics of households
with regard to the type of dwelling occupied by the household including
building materials used for the roof, walls and the floor. The chapter also
reflects on ownership of the dwelling and the utilities used by the household
such as sources of energy and water and toilet facilities. Welfare of Namibian
households is highlighted by these indicators and their improvements over
time. Compared to the, NHIES 2003/2004 most indicators have shown
improvements except for improvised housing, the proportion of which has
increased both in rural and urban areas.
6.1 Type of dwelling
Table 6.1.1 shows that a higher proportion of households live in detached
houses with 33 percent followed by traditional dwelling with 31 percent. The
table also shows that about 24 percent live in improvised housing, which is an
increase of 7 percent compared to the previous survey. Around 54 percent of
rural households live in traditional dwellings compared to 2 percent in urban
areas.
24%
The percentage of households
that live in improvised houses.
NHIES 2009/2010Page 64
Type of dwelling varies across regions, where 88 percent of households in
Ohangwena live in traditional dwellings compared to 7 percent in Omaheke
and 11 percent in Otjozondjupa. More than half of all households in Omaheke
have reported improvised housing as their type of dwelling. In Ohangwena
less than 3 percent live in improvised houses and in Omusati 10 percent.
More than one third of all households in Khomas, Erongo, Hardap and Karas
live in improvised houses.
Region
Type of dwelling, % Total
Detached
house
Semi
detached
house
Flat
Mobile
home
Single
quarters
Tradi-
tional
dwelling
Impro-
vised
house
Others % Number
Caprivi 12.2 2.2 0.0 1.0 1.3 55.8 16.9 10.7 100 21 254
Erongo 50.8 5.1 5.2 0.1 1.0 1.5 35.9 0.5 100 39 221
Hardap 49.3 3.5 5.6 0.3 0.4 0.2 39.8 0.9 100 15 894
Karas 49.1 6.2 6.8 0.1 1.9 0.3 33.2 2.4 100 21 299
Kavango 2.8 7.9 0.5 0.7 0.3 60.6 26.6 0.5 100 43 889
Khomas 49.4 4.9 7.8 0.3 0.8 0.1 35.1 1.5 100 83 562
Kunene 31.2 2.5 2.3 0.2 2.9 45.4 14.8 0.7 100 17 096
Ohangwena 6.3 0.6 1.3 0.1 0.0 88.0 2.6 1.1 100 38 997
Omaheke 35.6 3.3 1.5 0.1 0.1 7.1 51.7 0.7 100 15 159
Omusati 40.3 3.2 2.1 0.1 0.9 43.0 9.9 0.6 100 45 161
Oshana 25.4 4.3 6.2 0.0 0.9 49.7 12.9 0.7 100 35 087
Oshikoto 26.2 4.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 45.3 21.5 0.3 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 36.5 16.9 2.1 2.2 8.1 11.2 16.0 7.0 100 28 135
Namibia 32.6 5.1 3.7 0.4 1.3 31.3 23.8 1.8 100 436 795
Urban 48.5 8.3 7.3 0.2 1.7 1.8 30.0 2.3 100 188 981
Rural 20.4 2.7 1.0 0.6 1.0 53.9 19.0 1.4 100 247 813
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.1.1
Households by type
of dwelling, region
and urban/rural
areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 65
It is evident from Figure 6.1.1 that modern and improvised houses are
more common in urban areas than in rural areas, while a higher number of
traditional houses are found in the rural areas.
Table 6.1.2 shows that there is a slight difference between female and male
headed households living in detached houses. About 44 percent of male
headed households reside in modern type of dwelling (i.e. detached, semi-
detached or flat), compared to 38 percent for female headed households. In
the rural areas 62 percent of female headed households reside in traditional
dwellings compared to 47 percent of male headed households
Urban/rural
Sex of head
Type of dwelling, % Total
Detached
house
Semi
detached
house
Flat
Mo-
bile
home
Single
quar-
ters
Tradi-
tional
dwelling
Impro-
vised
house
Others % Number
Urban
Female 48.1 9.1 7.9 0.0 1.5 1.9 27.9 3.4 100 74 316
Male 48.5 7.7 6.9 0.3 1.8 1.7 31.5 1.6 100 113 953
Both sexes 48.4 8.3 7.3 0.2 1.7 1.8 30.0 2.3 100 188 981
Rural
Female 16.6 2.1 1.0 0.5 0.7 61.9 15.7 1.2 100 110 435
Male 23.4 3.1 1.0 0.7 1.3 46.9 21.9 1.6 100 135 378
Both sexes 20.4 2.7 1.0 0.6 1.0 53.8 19.0 1.4 100 247 813
Namibia
Female 29.3 4.9 3.8 0.3 1.0 37.8 20.6 2.1 100 184 752
Male 34.9 5.2 3.7 0.5 1.5 26.3 26.3 1.6 100 249 331
Both sexes 32.6 5.1 3.7 0.4 1.3 31.3 23.7 1.8 100 436 795
6. Housing and Utilities
CHAPTER 6: Housing and utilities
Figure 6.1.1
Percentage of households by type of dwelling, Namibia and urban/rural areas
)
)
Figure 6.1.2a
Percentage of households living in detached or semi-detached houses or flats, by sex of head
of household and urban/rural areas
)
0%)
10%)
20%)
30%)
40%)
50%)
60%)
70%)
Modern) TradiNonal) Improvised)house)
Namibia)
Urban)
Rural)
0%) 10%) 20%) 30%) 40%) 50%) 60%) 70%) 80%) 90%)
Urban)
Rural)
Total)
Female)
Male) 2009/10)
2003/04)
1993/94) Table 6.1.2
Households by type of
dwelling, urban/rural
areas and sex of head
od household
Figure 6.1.1
Percentage of
households by type of
dwelling, Namibia and
urban/rural areas
44%
The percentage of
detached dwelling
units that headed by
males. Only 38% of
the detached dwellings
are headed by females
NHIES 2009/2010Page 66
Table 6.1.3 shows the type of dwelling by main language spoken in the
household. Rukavango, Caprivi and Oshiwambo speaking households reported
the highest proportion of traditional dwellings with 54, 50 and 42 percent
respectively. Improvised housing is more common among households where
Otjiherero, Rukavango, Khoisan and Nama/Damara are the main language
spoken. Modern housing such as detached, semi-detached houses and flats
are occupied by higher proportions of German, English and other European
language speaking households.
Language
group
Type of dwelling, % Total
De-
tached
house
Semi de-
tached
house
Flat
Mo-
bile
home
Single
quar-
ters
Tradi-
tional
dwelling
Impro-
vised
house
Others % Number
Khoisan 21.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 38.7 31.7 2.5 100 5 954
Caprivi 18.1 3.6 0.9 0.8 0.9 50.1 15.6 10.0 100 21 537
Otjiherero 41.0 6.7 1.6 1.0 2.4 19.2 24.4 3.9 100 39 748
Rukavango 6.3 6.2 1.2 0.9 0.8 53.7 29.5 1.5 100 51 011
Nama/
Damara
46.3 6.0 3.5 0.2 1.5 4.9 35.8 1.9 100 54 323
Oshiwambo 25.7 3.4 3.0 0.2 1.4 41.7 23.8 0.9 100 204 305
Setswana 54.8 4.8 14.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 23.0 0.0 100 1 299
Afrikaans 70.8 7.5 10.1 0.4 0.6 0.7 9.5 0.4 100 40 660
German 87.2 12.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 3 549
English 61.3 12.3 16.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.8 2.5 100 8 946
Other
European
52.8 10.7 27.3 0.0 0.0 3.9 5.3 0.0 100 2 367
Other
African
16.1 20.5 13.7 7.3 1.1 9.7 31.4 0.0 100 1 902
Others 68.1 13.2 18.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 209
Total 32.6 5.1 3.7 0.4 1.3 31.3 23.8 1.8 100 436 795
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.1.3
Households by type
of dwelling and main
language spoken
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 67
It is revealed from table 6.1.4 that 51 per cent of households with one or
more orphans live in traditional dwellings and 17 per cent in improvised
housing units. About 30 per cent of households with orphans live in modern
housing, compared to 45 percent of households without orphans. Households
composed of the head or head with a spouse, 49 percent live in modern
dwellings and 31 percent in improvised housing units. Among households
living with relatives, 39 per cent live in traditional dwellings.
Household
composition/
orphan hood
Type of dwelling, % Total
De-
tached
house
Semi- de-
tached
house
Flat
Mo-
bile
home
Single
quar-
ters
Tradi-
tional
dwelling
Impro-
vised
house
Others % Number
With only head or
head and spouse
31.7 7.0 10.2 1.1 3.6 12.8 31.0 2.8 100 80 707
With 1 child, no
relatives
33.5 4.9 4.8 0.6 1.4 21.0 31.1 2.7 100 31 977
With 2+ children,
no relatives
33.6 5.9 2.6 0.1 1.1 32.3 22.0 2.4 100 65 351
With relatives 31.8 4.1 1.6 0.2 0.6 39.4 21.1 1.1 100 239 717
With non-relatives 40.7 7.3 4.4 0.7 1.1 22.5 20.9 2.4 100 19 044
Total 32.6 5.1 3.7 0.4 1.3 31.3 23.8 1.8 100 436 795
Without orphans 34.4 5.5 4.6 0.5 1.6 25.7 25.7 2.0 100 337 985
With orphans 26.2 3.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 50.7 17.1 1.2 100 98 809
According to table 6.1.5 about 57 percent of households where the head
of household has no formal education live in a traditional dwelling, while
22 percent live in improvised housing. Around 62 percent of households
where the head of household has tertiary education live in detached
houses, followed by flats and semi-detached houses with 12 and 11 percent
respectively. Overall, the quality of the dwelling improves as the level of
educational attainment of the head of household increases.
Educational
attainment
of the head
Type of dwelling, % Total
De-
tached
house
Semi-de-
tached
house
Flat
Mo-
bile
home
Single
quar-
ters
Tradi-
tional
dwelling
Impro-
vised
house
Other % Number
No formal
education
14.9 3.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 56.8 21.9 1.9 100 81 382
Primary 23.8 2.9 0.8 0.6 1.1 40.7 28.6 1.3 100 121 783
Secondary 38.9 5.9 5.2 0.5 1.8 18.9 26.5 2.4 100 180 697
Tertiary 61.7 11.3 12.0 0.1 0.5 7.2 6.1 1.0 100 43 652
Not stated 42.0 7.0 5.1 0.0 2.1 38.4 5.0 0.5 100 9 281
Total 32.6 5.1 3.7 0.4 1.3 31.3 23.7 1.8 100 436 795
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.1.4
Households by type of
dwelling, household
composition and
orphan hood
51%
The percentage of
households with
orphans living in
traditional dwellings
Table 6.1.5
Households by type of
dwelling and highest level of
educational attainment of
head of household
NHIES 2009/2010Page 68
Type of dwelling is also compared to the main source of income in table 6.1.6.
Households that reported subsistence farming, pensions and drought relief/
in-kind receipts as their main source of income live in traditional dwellings,
with 70, 53 and 40 percent respectively. Households, which mainly depend
on salaries and /or wages as source of income, live in detached houses (43
percent), whereas 29 percent live in improvised houses. About 87 percent
of commercial farming households live in detached houses compared to
15 percent in subsistence farming households. Out of the households that
rely on business income 36 percent live in detached houses while 31 and 21
percent respectively live in improvised houses or traditional dwellings.
Main source of
income
Type of dwelling, % Total
De-
tached
house
Semi-
de-
tached
house
Flat
Mo-
bile
home
Single
quar-
ters
Tradi-
tional
dwelling
Impro-
vised
house
Other % Number
Salaries and/or
wages
42.6 7.5 6.2 0.6 2.3 9.7 28.6 2.4 100 214 506
Subsistence
farming
14.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 70.2 13.4 0.9 100 100 581
Commercial
farming
87.3 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 4.1 0.0 100 2 524
Pensions 26.2 3.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 53.4 14.6 0.7 100 48 437
Remittances/grants 26.6 3.5 7.0 0.0 0.4 30.3 29.7 2.5 100 21 150
Drought/in-kind
receipts
13.7 2.9 1.6 0.0 0.3 40.1 38.1 2.3 100 7 206
Business income 36.2 6.7 2.4 0.6 0.7 20.9 30.6 1.9 100 38 569
Other 15.1 7.0 2.2 0.0 0.6 48.4 25.3 1.4 100 3 719
Total 32.6 5.1 3.7 0.4 1.3 31.3 23.7 1.8 100 436 795
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.1.6
Households by type of
dwelling and main source
of income
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 69
Figure 6.1.2a
Percentage of households
living in detached or semi-
detached houses or flats,
by sex of head of household
and urban/rural areas
There is a consistent increase since 1993/94 of female headed households
living in detached, semi-detached houses or flats, while the proportion of
modern housing amongst male headed households has fluctuated as shown
in figure 6.1.2a. The figure also shows that the proportion of households living
in modern houses has increased at a national level, whereas it has decreased
in urban areas. The overall increase of modern housing seems to come from
the rural households.
6. Housing and Utilities
CHAPTER 6: Housing and utilities
Figure 6.1.1
Percentage of households by type of dwelling, Namibia and urban/rural areas
)
)
Figure 6.1.2a
Percentage of households living in detached or semi-detached houses or flats, by sex of head
of household and urban/rural areas
)
0%)
10%)
20%)
30%)
40%)
50%)
60%)
70%)
Modern) TradiNonal) Improvised)house)
Namibia)
Urban)
Rural)
0%) 10%) 20%) 30%) 40%) 50%) 60%) 70%) 80%) 90%)
Urban)
Rural)
Total)
Female)
Male) 2009/10)
2003/04)
1993/94)
NHIES 2009/2010Page 70
Figure 6.1.2b shows the increase in improvised housing over time. Between
1993/94 and 2003/04 there was a big increase in urban areas whereas in
rural areas the proportion of improvised housing was about the same. But
between 2003/04 and 2009/10 the proportion has almost doubled in rural
areas. Improvised housing has increased over time for both male and female
headed households.
6. Housing and Utilities
Figure 6.1.2b
Percentage f households living in improvised housing, by sex of head of household and
urban/rural areas
)
Figure 6.4
Percentage of households that do not use electricity or gas as source of energy for
cooking by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994-2009/2010
)
)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%) 30%) 35%)
Urban)
Rural)
Total)
Female)
Male) 2009/10)
2003/04)
1993/94)
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
100)
Urban) Rural) Total)
1993/94)
2003/2004)
2009/2010)
Figure 6.1.2b
Percentage of households
living in improvised housing, by
sex of head of household and
urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 71
There is a relationship between the type of housing and income levels of the
household (Table 6.1.7). The table indicates that the poorest 25 percent of
the households live in traditional dwellings or in improvised houses whereas
most of the richest 2 percent live in detached houses. The proportion of
households living in modern houses generally increases as the adjusted per
capita income in the household increases. On the other hand, the proportion
of households living in traditional dwellings or improvised houses generally
decreases as the adjusted per capita income increases. The same trend is also
evident when analyzing the deciles.
Percentiles/
deciles
Type of dwelling, % Total
De-
tached
house
Semi de-
tached
house
Flat
Mo-
bile
home
Single
quar-
ters
Tradi-
tional
dwelling
Impro-
vised
house
Others % Number
Percentiles
1-25 13.3 2.8 0.3 0.3 0.7 54.7 25.7 2.0 100 109 176
26-50 20.6 3.2 1.2 0.4 0.8 42.9 28.7 2.1 100 109 35
51-75 37.7 5.4 3.4 0.5 1.7 21.0 28.5 1.6 100 109 229
75-90 50.4 8.3 9.3 0.5 2.4 8.9 17.9 2.2 100 65 454
91-95 63.3 9.7 15.5 0.3 1.5 4.3 4.9 0.4 100 22 037
96-98 76.4 9.5 6.8 0.3 1.2 2.5 3.0 0.2 100 13 062
99-100 81.1 11.5 5.5 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 100 8 801
Total 32.6 5.1 3.7 0.4 1.3 31.3 23.8 1.8 100 436 795
Deciles
1 10.3 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.7 57.1 25.6 2.2 100 43 670
2 14.1 2.7 0.1 0.2 0.7 53.4 26.6 2.0 100 43 675
3 17.8 3.0 0.7 0.3 0.4 53.4 22.8 1.6 100 43 688
4 18.5 2.2 0.9 0.7 0.8 43.0 30.2 3.5 100 43 675
5 23.9 4.1 1.7 0.2 1.2 37.2 30.8 0.8 100 43 504
6 34.1 4.8 2.1 0.4 1.4 27.0 28.2 1.7 100 43 805
7 37.5 5.7 3.4 0.7 2.3 19.3 29.8 1.2 100 43 729
8 46.4 6.9 5.1 0.5 1.9 12.4 24.6 2.2 100 43 633
9 51.8 8.7 11.7 0.5 2.4 7.1 15.4 2.3 100 43 516
10 70.8 10.0 10.9 0.2 1.2 3.0 3.4 0.3 100 43 900
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.1.7
Households by type of
dwelling and percentile
group after adjusted per
capita income
NHIES 2009/2010Page 72
6.2 Materials used for dwelling
Materials used for dwelling indicates the living condition of the households. This
section provides information about the main materials used for construction
of the dwelling units occupied by the households. When compared to the
2003/04 survey, corrugated iron or zinc is still the most common material used
for roof in most dwellings in relation to other materials with a proportion of
65 percent followed by wood, grass and cow dung. Asbestos and cement or
brick as the main roof material account for only 5 and 1 percent respectively.
Dwellings with corrugated or zinc roof can be observed in all regions, but to a
lesser extent in Ohangwena with 19 percent and Erongo with 23 percent. In
Erongo, 46 percent of the households use asbestos for roofing. Wood, grass
and cow dung as the main material for roofing are commonly used in the
northern regions.
Region
Type of roof material, % Total
Cement
blocks/
brick tiles
Corrugated
iron/zinc
Wood,
grass, cow
dung
Asbestos Other % Number
Caprivi 0.3 45.3 52.0 0.2 2.2 100 21 254
Erongo 1.1 23.4 3.1 46.4 26.0 100 39 221
Hardap 0.6 97.5 0.9 0.7 0.0 100 15 894
Karas 1.1 85.3 1.1 10.4 1.8 100 21 299
Kavango 0.7 42.3 14.0 0.6 42.4 100 43 889
Khomas 2.3 95.2 0.5 0.6 1.1 100 83 562
Kunene 1.0 75.6 10.8 0.7 12.0 100 17 096
Ohangwena 0.3 19.3 79.9 0.0 0.5 100 38 997
Omaheke 0.5 95.3 1.9 0.4 1.6 100 15 159
Omusati 0.4 60.4 22.7 0.1 16.4 100 45 161
Oshana 1.3 74.4 7.5 0.1 16.7 100 35 087
Oshikoto 0.5 67.3 21.6 0.4 9.7 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 4.3 83.9 3.7 1.7 6.1 100 28 135
Total 1.2 65.0 16.8 5.1 11.7 100 436 795
Urban 1.6 80.1 1.1 11.1 5.9 100 188 981
Rural 1.0 53.5 28.8 0.5 16.1 100 24 813
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.2.1
Households by main material
used for roof, region and
urban/rural areas
65%
The percentage of households
with roofs made of corrugated
iron/zinc.
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 73
About 46 percent of dwellings have cement blocks/brick tiles, as the material
used for walls while the least used material is asbestos with 0.4 percent. Just
below 66 percent of urban dwellings have cement blocks/brick tiles compared
to about 32 percent in rural areas. The majority of rural dwellings have walls
made of wood, grass, cow dung, about 47 percent, which is a decrease from
63 percent reported in 2003/2004.
Region
Type of wall material, % Total
Cement
blocks/
brick tiles
Corrugated
iron/zinc
Wood,
grass, cow
dung
Asbestos Other % Number
Caprivi 14.9 0.4 82.8 0.4 1.6 100 21 254
Erongo 61.1 7.6 3.5 0.4 26.0 100 39 221
Hardap 59.6 38.3 0.6 0.8 0.3 100 15 894
Karas 62.2 30.6 2.5 1.4 3.3 100 21 299
Kavango 13.6 5.7 70.0 0.6 9.9 100 43 889
Khomas 63.1 34.7 0.1 0.2 1.7 100 83 562
Kunene 39.1 11.8 42.2 0.3 6.1 100 17 096
Ohangwena 21.7 5.4 72.5 0.1 0.2 100 38 997
Omaheke 39.4 43.0 12.2 0.0 5.2 100 15 159
Omusati 51.3 11.1 37.2 0.2 0.1 100 45 161
Oshana 58.1 21.2 19.3 0.1 1.3 100 35 087
Oshikoto 38.0 31.3 29.2 0.2 1.0 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 60.8 24.5 9.4 0.8 3.7 100 28 135
Total 46.4 20.0 28.2 0.4 4.8 100 436 795
Urban 65.5 23.9 3.7 0.3 6.2 100 188 981
Rural 31.8 17.0 46.9 0.4 3.6 100 247 813
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.2.2
Households by main material
used for wall, region and
urban/rural areas
46%
The percentage of rural
households with walls made of
wood, grass & cow dung
NHIES 2009/2010Page 74
The most common material used in Namibia for floors is concrete with 56
percent followed by sand with 24 percent. Concrete is more common in
Karas, Hardap, Khomas, Otjozondjupa and Erongo with 83,78,77,76, and 70
percent respectively (table 6.2.3). This is also evident in urban areas where
77 percent of households have concrete floors. In rural areas, 40 percent of
the households have concrete floors, while 32 percent have mud, clay or cow
dung.
Region
Type of floor materials, % Total
Sand Concrete
Mud, clay
and/or cow
dung
Wood Other % Number
Caprivi 4.0 20.3 74.5 0.3 0.9 100 21 254
Erongo 26.0 69.9 0.8 2.0 1.2 100 39 221
Hardap 21.1 78.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 100 15 894
Karas 13.5 83.4 0.2 2.8 0.1 100 21 299
Kavango 24.0 24.3 51.3 0.0 0.5 100 43 889
Khomas 22.7 76.5 0.0 0.4 0.3 100 83 562
Kunene 24.0 50.8 24.5 0.7 0.0 100 17 096
Ohangwena 24.8 23.2 51.8 0.2 0.0 100 38 997
Omaheke 29.8 65.9 2.5 1.8 0.0 100 15 159
Omusati 23.2 51.1 25.6 0.0 0.1 100 45 161
Oshana 30.6 60.4 8.8 0.0 0.1 100 35 087
Oshikoto 42.7 40.6 16.0 0.6 0.1 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 21.1 75.6 1.2 0.9 1.2 100 28 135
Namibia 24.3 55.6 19.1 0.6 0.4 100 436 795
Urban 19.5 76.6 2.4 1.0 0.4 100 188 981
Rural 27.9 39.6 31.9 0.3 0.3 100 247 813
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.2.3
Households by main material
used for floor, region and
urban/rural areas
55.6%
The percentage of households
with concrete floors
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 75
6.3 Type of tenure
Households were classified according to the type of tenure or ownership of
dwellings they occupy. It is observed that 63 percent of all households own their
dwellings with no mortgage (Table 6.3). About 14 percent of all households
rent their dwellings. In the rural areas, 80 percent of the households own their
dwellings with no mortgages, compared to 41 percent for urban households.
All regions have a high percentage of ownership without mortgages. The
highest percentage for ownership with mortgage was found in the Khomas,
Erongo and Otjozondjupa regions with 24, 19 and 14 percent respectively.
Free occupancy is more common in Otjozondjupa, Karas, Omaheke and in
Hardap regions with 35, 35, 27, and 23 percent respectively.
Region
Type of tenure, % Total
Owned
with no
mortgage
Owned
with
mortgage
Occupied
free
Rented % Number
Caprivi 79.7 6.6 8.7 5.0 100 21 254
Erongo 34.4 18.9 11.5 35.0 100 39 221
Hardap 54.6 6.9 22.9 15.6 100 15 894
Karas 40.9 8.0 35.1 16.1 100 21 299
Kavango 89.5 3.1 4.1 3.3 100 43 889
Khomas 39.8 24.4 10.3 25.3 100 83 562
Kunene 68.5 5.7 11.9 13.8 100 17 096
Ohangwena 86.2 3.2 7.4 3.2 100 38 997
Omaheke 62.1 3.1 27.1 7.7 100 15 159
Omusati 86.1 0.5 8.4 5.0 100 45 161
Oshana 75.1 7.7 4.9 12.2 100 35 087
Oshikoto 79.3 3.0 13.0 4.7 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 35.2 14.4 35.4 14.9 100 28 135
Namibia 63.1 10.1 12.9 13.8 100 436 795
Urban 40.6 22.0 8.8 28.5 100 188 981
Rural 80.3 1.0 16.1 2.6 100 247 813
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.3
Households by type of tenure,
region and urban/rural areas
63%
The percentage of households
that own a dwelling with no
mortgage.
NHIES 2009/2010Page 76
6.4 Source of energy
Access to energy is a good indicator of the socio-economic status of the
household. This section discusses the main source of energy used by
households for cooking, heating and lighting. The most common source of
energy for cooking nationally is wood or wood charcoal which is used by
56 percent of the households. Use of wood or wood charcoal for cooking is
more prevalent in rural than in urban areas (87 per cent compared with 16
per cent, respectively). Electricity is being used by 33 percent of households
nationally and it is more common in urban areas where it is used by 67 per
cent compared to only 7 per cent in rural areas. About 6 percent of households
use gas while 3 percent use paraffin as their source of energy for cooking. In
Omusati, Caprivi and Kavango regions, 89, 89 and 86 percent respectively,
use wood or wood charcoal. In the Erongo and Khomas regions, 77 and 70
percent of households use electricity for cooking. Gas is a relatively important
source of energy for cooking in the Karas and Oshana regions, while the use
of solar energy is hardly used across the country.
Region
Source of energy for cooking, % Total
Electric-
ity
Solar
energy
Gas Paraffin
Wood
or wood
charcoal
Coal
Animal
dung
% Number
Caprivi 10.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 88.6 0.1 0.0 100 21 254
Erongo 76.5 0.0 5.9 1.3 15.7 0.1 0.0 100 39 221
Hardap 44.9 0.0 4.5 0.4 50.0 0.3 0.0 100 15 894
Karas 32.4 0.0 24.1 0.7 42.6 0.1 0.0 100 21 299
Kavango 11.3 0.0 1.6 0.1 86.4 0.6 0.0 100 43 889
Khomas 70.3 0.0 7.5 12.6 8.6 0.2 0.0 100 83 562
Kunene 20.3 0.2 6.6 0.5 71.8 0.2 0.0 100 17 096
Ohangwena 6.6 0.0 1.8 1.2 90.0 0.2 0.4 100 38 997
Omaheke 13.5 0.0 7.5 0.1 78.7 0.0 0.0 100 15 159
Omusati 9.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 88.8 0.0 0.8 100 45 161
Oshana 21.1 0.0 12.3 4.6 53.5 0.0 8.3 100 35 087
Oshikoto 8.1 0.1 2.6 1.3 85.5 0.0 2.3 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 39.8 0.0 8.4 1.0 49.3 1.3 0.0 100 28 135
Namibia 32.8 0.0 6.0 3.2 56.4 0.2 1.0 100 436 795
Urban 66.9 0.0 9.8 6.7 15.9 0.1 0.0 100 188 981
Rural 6.8 0.0 3.0 0.6 87.4 0.3 1.7 100 247 813
The percentage of households that do not use electricity or gas for cooking
continues to decline from 1993/1994 to 2009/2010.
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.4.1
Households by source
of energy for cooking,
region and urban/rural
areas
56.4%
The percentage of Namibian
households that cook with
wood or wood charcoal
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 77
Electricity is the most common source of energy for lighting used by 42 per
cent of the households nationally. Electricity for lighting is widely used in urban
compared to rural areas (Table 6.4.2). The second common source of energy
for lighting is candles being used by 38 per cent of the households. Caprivi,
Kavango and Oshikoto regions have the highest proportion of households
using candles for lighting, with 74, 70 and 55 percent respectively. Paraffin is
also common especially in rural areas where it is being used by 20 per cent
of the households. The use of solar energy for lighting is becoming popular
especially in rural areas where it is being used by 4 percent of the households
compared to less than 1 percent in 2003/04. Most of the households in
Erongo and Khomas regions use electricity.
Region
Source of energy for lighting, % Total
Electric-
ity
Solar
energy
Gas
Paraf-
fin
Wood
or wood
charcoal
Candles Other % Number
Caprivi 20.7 0.7 0.2 3.4 0.2 74.3 0.2 100 21 254
Erongo 80.8 0.2 0.1 5.6 0.0 13.1 0.3 100 39 221
Hardap 68.9 0.3 0.2 5.2 3.2 21.2 0.7 100 15 894
Karas 55.6 0.9 0.1 9.8 1.0 29.7 2.8 100 21 299
Kavango 22.2 1.7 0.0 0.3 4.3 69.9 0.7 100 43 889
Khomas 73.9 0.8 0.2 6.1 0.1 18.6 0.1 100 83 562
Kunene 35.7 7.5 0.2 17.3 12.0 23.1 4.1 100 17 096
Ohangwena 9.3 9.0 0.0 17.2 8.4 52.9 3.2 100 38 997
Omaheke 31.5 0.7 0.1 31.1 0.0 33.1 3.2 100 15 159
Omusati 12.0 3.1 0.5 32.2 1.1 48.9 2.2 100 45 161
Oshana 29.4 2.5 1.9 22.5 0.8 40.5 2.2 100 35 087
Oshikoto 16.5 1.0 0.1 19.7 4.7 55.3 2.3 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 60.3 0.6 0.0 13.0 1.8 23.2 1.1 100 28 135
Namibia 41.9 2.2 0.3 13.3 2.5 38.2 1.5 100 436 795
Urban 77.9 0.5 0.1 4.4 0.1 16.7 0.2 100 188 981
Rural 14.3 3.5 0.4 20.3 4.4 54.6 2.5 100 247 813
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.4.2
Households by source of
energy for lighting, region and
urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010Page 78
About 45 percent of all households use wood or wood charcoal for heating
followed by electricity with 21 percent (Table 6.4.3). Close to 31 percent of
households do not have any source of energy for heating in their dwellings.
Wood/wood charcoal is commonly used for heating in rural areas with 72
percent, compared to 10 percent in urban areas. Omusati, Caprivi, Kavango,
Oshikoto and Ohangwena have the highest proportion of households that
use wood/ wood charcoal for heating, with 89, 88 and 87, 84 and 82 percent
respectively. Omaheke, Otjozondjupa and Erongo regions have the highest
proportion of households with no source of energy for heating, with 85, 76
and 75 percent respectively. Close to 59 percent of Khomas households use
electricity for heating.
Region
Source of energy for heating, % Total
Elec-
trici-
ty
Solar
en-
ergy
Gas
Par-
affin
Wood
or wood
charcoal
Coal
Ani-
mal
dung
Oth-
er
None % Number
Caprivi 5.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 87.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.4 100 21 254
Erongo 19.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.2 75.4 100 39 221
Hardap 27.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 38.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 32.9 100 15 894
Karas 28.3 1.3 1.1 0.4 38.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 29.1 100 21 299
Kavango 11.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 86.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 100 43 889
Khomas 58.8 0.3 1.7 2.2 8.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 27.8 100 83 562
Kunene 10.5 0.4 0.0 0.4 30.1 0.6 0.0 0.9 5.3 100 17 096
Ohangwena 4.5 0.0 0.9 0.9 81.8 0.2 0.4 0.1 11.3 100 38 997
Omaheke 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.1 0.0 0.0 84.8 100 15 159
Omusati 8.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 89.1 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.5 100 45 161
Oshana 1.1 0.0 1.7 0.8 33.5 0.0 4.5 0.4 4.8 100 35 087
Oshikoto 4.9 0.0 0.4 0.4 83.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 8.1 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 14.2 0.6 0.0 0.4 6.9 0.5 0.0 0.3 75.5 100 28 135
Namibia 20.8 0.2 0.7 0.7 45.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 30.5 100 436 795
Urban 42.2 0.2 1.3 1.4 9.9 0.2 0.0 0.3 4.4 100 188 981
Rural 4.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 72.3 0.6 1.1 0.2 20.2 100 247 813
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.4.3
Households by source of
energy for heating, region
and urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 79
6.5 Main source of drinking water
The source of drinking water is an indicator of whether the households have
access to suitable water for drinking. Table 6.5 reveals that 75 percent of
households reported piped water as their main source, followed by stagnant
water with 13 percent and borehole or protected wells with 8 percent. About
99 percent of urban households use piped water compared to 57 percent
of rural households. Caprivi, Ohangwena and Omusati reported the lowest
proportion of households that use piped water, with 42, 46 and 47 percent,
respectively. About 51 percent of Ohangwena households rely on stagnant
water as their main source, followed by Omusati region with 38 percent. Figure
6.5 shows that Khomas region has the highest percentage of households with
access to piped water with Caprivi region having the lowest.
Region
Source of drinking water, % Total
Piped
water
Boreholes/
protected
wells
Stagnant
water
Flowing
water
Other
source
% Number
Caprivi 41.8 38.8 12.0 6.2 1.4 100 21 254
Erongo 94.6 4.0 1.1 0.1 0.2 100 39 221
Hardap 88.3 7.1 3.4 0.3 1.0 100 15 894
Karas 87.0 7.7 2.3 2.1 1.0 100 21 299
Kavango 59.4 17.3 8.0 14.8 0.6 100 43 889
Khomas 98.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 100 83 562
Kunene 57.9 25.3 9.3 4.5 2.8 100 17 096
Ohangwena 45.5 3.4 50.5 0.0 0.5 100 38 997
Omaheke 82.0 15.7 1.5 0.0 0.7 100 15 159
Omusati 47.2 8.2 37.9 6.7 0.0 100 45 161
Oshana 89.6 2.0 6.9 0.8 0.8 100 35 087
Oshikoto 72.4 5.0 20.0 2.4 0.2 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 91.0 7.0 1.0 0.1 0.9 100 28 135
Namibia 75.3 8.4 12.6 3.0 0.7 100 436 795
Urban 98.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 100 188 981
Rural 57.2 14.7 22.0 5.2 0.8 100 247 813
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.5
Households by main source
of drinking water, region and
urban/rural areas
75%
The percentage of
households in Namibia
with access to piped water.
Only 49% of households in
Ohangwena have access to
piped water
NHIES 2009/2010Page 80
6.6 Toilet facilities
As shown in Table 6.6, 40 percent of households in Namibia use flush toilet,
10 percent use pit latrine and 49 use bush/no toilet facilities. It can also be
observed that a large proportion of urban households use flush toilets with
78 percent, compared to 10 for rural households. The majority of households
in Caprivi, Kavango and Ohangwena regions with 86, 83 and 82 percent
respectively, use bush/no toilet facilities.
Region
Toilet facility, % Total
Flush
toilet
Pit
latrine
Bucket
toilet
Others
Bush/no
toilet
% Number
Caprivi 12.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 86.1 100 21 254
Erongo 84.5 5.0 0.2 0.1 10.2 100 39 221
Hardap 49.2 6.1 6.9 5.1 32.6 100 15 894
Karas 52.3 10.7 2.8 2.5 31.7 100 21 299
Kavango 9.6 6.9 0.1 0.1 83.3 100 43 889
Khomas 85.5 1.2 0.0 0.4 12.9 100 83 562
Kunene 35.0 10.3 0.0 1.6 53.1 100 17 096
Ohangwena 6.4 11.2 0.0 0.1 82.2 100 38 997
Omaheke 31.1 0.9 0.6 0.0 67.4 100 15 159
Omusati 6.0 16.7 1.3 0.9 75.0 100 45 161
Oshana 21.3 33.0 0.3 1.2 44.2 100 35 087
Oshikoto 14.0 14.6 0.0 0.2 71.2 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 52.3 5.8 0.1 4.7 36.9 100 28 135
Namibia 39.6 9.5 0.6 1.0 49.3 100 436 795
Urban 78.3 6.8 0.5 0.9 13.5 100 188 981
Rural 10.0 11.5 0.7 1.1 76.7 100 247 813
The proportion of households that use bush/no toilet facilities has declined
across the country, particularly amongst rural households. In urban
households, the use of bush/no toilet has fluctuated.
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.6
Households by toilet facility,
region and urban/rural areas
49%
The percentage of households
that use the bush/no toilet as
their toilet facility Only 40% of
Namibian households use flush
toiletss
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 81
6.7 Selected housing indicators
Indicators such as improvised housing; cooking and lighting without electricity,
gas or solar; bucket or bush/no toilet and flowing or stagnant source of
drinking water are highlighted in the tables below. Table 6.7.1, shows that
24 percent of households live in improvised dwelling units, with a higher
proportion in urban than rural areas, 30 and 19 percent respectively.
The table also shows that 61 percent of households use sources other than
electricity, gas or solar for cooking and 56 percent for lighting. About 50
percent of households use bucket or bush/no toilet facilities.
The selected indicators show that more than 80 percent of households in
Caprivi, Kavango, Ohangwena, Omusati and Oshikoto cook without electricity,
gas or solar. More than 80 percent of households in Ohangwena, Omusati
and Oshikoto do not use electricity, gas or solar for lighting.
Region
Housing indicators, %
Total number
of
households
Impro-
vised
housing
Cooking
without
electricity,
gas or solar
Lighting
without
electricity,
gas or solar
Bucket
or bush/
no toilet
Flowing,
stagnant
source of
water
Caprivi 16.9 88.7 78.3 86.1 18.1 21 254
Erongo 35.9 17.2 19.0 10.4 1.2 39 221
Hardap 39.8 50.7 30.4 39.6 3.6 15 894
Karas 33.2 43.5 43.4 34.5 4.3 21 299
Kavango 26.5 87.1 76.0 83.4 22.8 43 889
Khomas 35.1 22.0 25.0 12.9 0.0 83 562
Kunene 14.8 72.8 56.5 53.1 13.9 17 096
Ohangwena 2.6 91.7 81.7 82.2 50.5 38 997
Omaheke 51.6 79.0 67.7 68.0 1.5 15 159
Omusati 9.9 90.1 84.4 76.3 44.6 45 161
Oshana 12.9 66.6 66.3 44.5 7.7 35 087
Oshikoto 21.5 89.2 82.3 71.2 22.4 32 038
Otjozondjupa 16.0 51.8 39.1 37.0 1.1 28 135
Namibia 23.7 61.1 55.6 49.9 15.7 436 795
Urban 30.0 23.1 21.3 13.9 0.5 188 981
Rural 19.0 90.1 81.7 77.4 27.3 247 813
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.7.1
Households by selected
housing indicators, region and
urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010Page 82
Percentile and deciles groups are usually used to indicate the skewness of
the distribution of the economic standards of the households. In table 6.7.2
households are classified by selected housing indicators in combination with
percentile groups and deciles, based on adjusted per capita income. There is a
negative correlation between income and the selected housing indicators. As
household income increases, the use of bucket or bush or no toilet decreases.
The same pattern can be observed for cooking or lighting without electricity,
gas or solar and the use of flowing or stagnant source of drinking water. The
correlation between improvised housing and income is not consistent.
Percentiles/
deciles
Housing indicators, %
Total num-
ber of hous-
eholds
Improvi-
sed hou-
sing
Cooking
without
electricity,
gas or solar
Lighting
without
electricity,
gas or solar
Bucket or
bush/no
toilet
Flowing,
stagnant
source of
water
Percentiles
1-25 25.7 92.2 83.7 79.9 25.1 109 176
26-50 28.7 79.3 71.3 66.9 23.4 109 035
51-75 28.5 54.4 48.8 40.1 11.4 109 229
75-90 17.9 26.9 26.3 18.5 4.3 65 454
91-95 4.9 11.2 10.6 7.6 1.1 22 037
96-98 3.0 3.4 6.7 2.6 0.4 13 062
99-100 0.5 1.6 4.5 0.0 0.0 8 801
Total 23.7 61.2 55.7 49.9 15.7 436 795
Deciles
1 25.6 95.6 87.4 84.2 22.6 43 670
2 26.6 90.3 81.8 77.2 26.4 43 675
3 22.8 88.6 78.6 77.0 27.4 43 688
4 30.2 81.5 72.3 67.7 24.5 43 675
5 30.8 72.8 67.3 61.0 20.4 43 504
6 28.2 62.0 56.0 46.2 15.0 43 805
7 29.8 53.3 46.4 38.9 11.5 43 729
8 24.6 38.1 35.5 26.7 4.7 43 633
9 15.4 22.8 23.4 16.1 3.7 43 516
10 3.4 6.9 8.2 4.6 0.7 43 900
6. Housing and Utilities
Table 6.7.2
Households by selected
housing indicators and
percentile group after adjusted
per capita income
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 83
7. Access to Services
NAMIBIA STATISTICS AGENCY
NHIES 2009/2010Page 84
Access to various amenities and facilities is a good indicator of the welfare of Namibian households. This chapter covers access to services by locating the households in terms of distance to key
private and public services, including drinking water, health and educational
facilities, shops and markets, post office, police stations, magistrate courts
and pension points. Each household were asked about the walking distance
in kilometres to these services or how long it would take to walk there (later
converted into kilometres). The results show that in general most households
in Namibia live within a few kilometres distance. The urbanised regions of
Erongo and Khomas stand out as regions where most households have a
relatively short distance to the various services. The regions which are more
rural such as Kunene, Omaheke and Ohangwena have large proportions of
households that have to travel long distances to these services.
7.1 Distance to drinking water
As shown in table 7.1.1, about 72 percent of households have a distance of
less than 1 kilometre to their main source of drinking water. However, 24
percent of households have to cover 1-2 kilometres to fetch drinking water.
Out of all households, almost 1percent has to travel more than 5 kilometres
to their source of drinking water. Among urban households 94 percent have a
distance of less than 1 kilometre to the source of drinking water, compared to
56 percent of rural households. In rural areas, about 38 percent of households
have to travel a distance of 1-2 kilometres to fetch drinking water compared
to 6 percent in urban areas.
Region
Distance in km to drinking water Total
number of
households
0 1 2 3 4-5 6-10 >10 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 77.5 15.6 4.2 0.1 1.9 0.6 0.1 100 21 254
Erongo 93.9 3.9 1.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 100 39 221
Hardap 92.7 5.6 0.9 0.2 0.7 - - 100 15 894
Karas 87.5 7.9 3.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.0 100 21 299
Kavango 49.5 26.5 14.4 1.6 5.3 2.0 0.4 100 43 889
Khomas 93.6 4.7 1.6 - 0.1 - - 100 83 562
Kunene 72.9 13.0 3.8 2.4 4.1 3.5 0.3 100 17 096
Ohangwena 48.2 31.0 15.2 1.7 3.4 0.4 - 100 38 997
Omaheke 73.0 20.1 6.8 - - 0.1 - 100 15 159
Omusati 44.3 34.0 15.3 2.8 2.8 0.6 0.2 100 45 161
Oshana 74.5 16.0 6.0 1.7 1.6 0.2 - 100 35 087
Oshikoto 53.9 27.9 12.6 3.2 1.3 0.9 0.1 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 84.3 11.5 3.1 0.7 0.2 - 0.3 100 28 135
Namibia 72.3 16.8 7.2 1.2 1.7 0.6 0.2 100 436 795
Urban 94.2 4.2 1.4 0.1 0.1 - - 100 188 981
Rural 55.6 26.5 11.6 2.0 2.9 1.0 0.3 100 247 813
7. Access to Services
Table 7.1.1
Households by distance to
drinking water, region and
urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 85
Figure 7.1.1
Households by distance to
drinking water and region
Figure 7.1.1 indicates that more than 90 percent of households in the regions
of Khomas, Erongo and Hardap have a distance of less than 1 kilometre to
a source of drinking water. In the regions of Kunene and Kavango, about 10
percent of the households have to travel 3 kilometres or more to the main
source of drinking water.
7. Access to Services
)
CHAPTER: Access to services)
Figure 7.1.1
Households by distance to drinking water and region
)
)
Figure 7.2
Households by distance to hospital/clinic and region
)
0%) 20%) 40%) 60%) 80%) 100%)
Caprivi)
Erongo)
Hardap)
Karas)
Kavango)
Khomas)
Kunene)
Ohangwena)
Omaheke)
OmusaN)
Oshana)
Oshikoto)
Otjozondjupa)
Namibia)
distance)to)drinking))
watergrouped)0km)
distance)to)drinking))
watergrouped)12km)
distance)to)drinking))
watergrouped)3>10KM)
0%) 20%) 40%) 60%) 80%) 100%)
Caprivi)
Erongo)
Hardap)
Karas)
Kavango)
Khomas)
Kunene)
Ohangwena)
Omaheke)
OmusaN)
Oshana)
Oshikoto)
Otjozondjupa)
Namibia)
distance)in)km)to)
hospital/clinic)01km)
distance)in)km)to)
hospital/clinic)25km)
distance)in)km)to)
hospital/clinic)6
>40km)
NHIES 2009/2010Page 86
A strong relationship between the income level of the household and the
distance to source of drinking water can be observed in table 7.1.2. The
higher the income of the household, the closer is the source drinking water.
About 56 percent of the households with the lowest income, represented
by the 1-25 percentile group travel less than 1 kilometre to the source of
drinking water while 43 percent of the households travel 1-5 kilometres. All
households with the highest incomes, represented by the 99-100 percentile
groups have less than 1 kilometre to the source of drinking water.
Percentiles/
deciles
Distance in km to drinking water
Total number
of households
0 1-5 6-10 >10 Total
Percent of households
Percentiles
1-25 56.0 42.6 1.3 0.2 100 109 176
26-50 61.8 37.8 0.2 0.2 100 109 035
51-75 78.1 20.9 0.7 0.3 100 109 229
76-90 90.6 9.2 0.1 0.0 100 65 454
91-95 96.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 100 22 037
96-98 98.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 100 13 062
99-100 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 8 801
Total 72.4 26.9 0.6 0.2 100 436 795
Deciles
1 53.3 44.7 1.5 0.4 100 43 670
2 58.5 40.1 1.3 0.0 100 43 675
3 56.1 43.4 0.4 0.1 100 43 688
4 62.7 37.0 0.2 0.1 100 43 675
5 63.7 35.6 0.4 0.3 100 43 504
6 73.1 25.8 1.1 0.1 100 43 805
7 79.2 19.5 0.8 0.6 100 43 729
8 87.7 12.2 0.0 0.1 100 43 633
9 91.4 8.4 0.2 0.0- 100 43 516
10 97.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 100 43 900
7. Access to Services
Table 7.1.2
Households by distance to
drinking water and percentile
groups after adjusted per
capita income
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 87
7.2 Distance to health facilities
Table 7.2 indicates that 30 percent of households in Namibia have 1 kilometres
or less to the nearest hospital or clinic and 36 percent live between 2 and 5
kilometres away. However, 7 percent have to travel more than 40 kilometres
to reach a hospital or clinic. Urban households (52 percent) travel shorter
distances, 1 kilometre or less compared to 14 percent of rural households.
Figure 7.2 signifies that Khomas, Erongo and Karas regions are the three regions
with the highest proportions of households having only 1 kilometre or less to
a hospital or clinic. On the other hand, high proportions of households, more
than 50 percent in Ohangwena, Oshikoto, Omaheke and Kunene regions live
more than 6 kilometres from the nearest hospital or clinic.
Region
Distance in km to hospital
Total number
of households
0-1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-40 >40 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 23.6 39.3 21.0 15.5 0.7 - 100 21 254
Erongo 60.3 29.1 2.2 3.0 2.7 2.6 100 39 221
Hardap 33.1 33.1 3.5 8.6 4.3 17.4 100 15894
Karas 38.0 20.9 0.8 2.0 5.5 32.8 100 21 299
Kavango 32.8 42.5 7.3 11.9 3.6 1.9 100 43 889
Khomas 40.7 43.1 10.1 3.2 0.7 2.2 100 83 562
Kunene 23.8 17.9 7.2 9.5 8.2 33.3 100 17 096
Ohangwena 12.0 35.4 28.1 20.9 3.5 0.2 100 38 997
Omaheke 19.9 24.9 2.8 22.3 9.8 20.2 100 15 159
Omusati 18.1 47.8 17.2 14.0 2.6 0.3 100 45 161
Oshana 22.1 44.3 21.6 10.1 1.9 - 100 35 087
Oshikoto 15.5 21.8 28.5 17.0 8.0 9.2 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 32.3 28.5 2.9 5.6 11.9 18.8 100 28 135
Namibia 30.3 35.9 12.7 10.1 3.9 7.0 100 436 795
Urban 51.5 41.6 5.8 1.0 0.1 - 100 188 981
Rural 14.0 31.6 18.0 17.1 6.9 12.4 100 247 813
7. Access to Services
Table 7.2
Households by distance to
hospital/clinic, region and
urban/rural areas
12.4%
The percentage of rural
households that travel more
than 40 km to reach a hospital.
NHIES 2009/2010Page 88
7.3 Distance to public transport
About 62 percent of all households in Namibia have 1 kilometres or less to
public transportation, whereas 19 percent of households have between 2
and 5 kilometres. Around 12 percent of households reported that they are
between 6-20 kilometres away. Almost all households in urban areas, 99.6
percent, live within 5 kilometres from public transportation compared to 66
percent of rural households. The highest proportions of households with less
than 6 kilometres to public transportation were reported in Khomas, Erongo
and Caprivi with 97, 94 and 92 percent respectively. Kunene, Hardap and
Otjozondjupa regions have large proportions of households with more than
20 kilometres to public transport with 38, 21 and 21 percent respectively.
Region
Distance in km to public transport
Total number
of households
0-1 2-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 >50 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 66.7 25.0 3.7 4.1 0.5 - 100 21 254
Erongo 86.2 7.6 1.9 0.8 2.2 1.3 100 39 221
Hardap 52.0 17.1 3.9 5.7 7.0 14.2 100 15 894
Karas 59.5 13.3 4.8 4.0 8.0 10.4 100 21 299
Kavango 72.3 11.0 5.2 4.3 4.9 2.3 100 43 889
Khomas 89.1 7.8 0.3 0.2 1.0 1.5 100 83 562
Kunene 33.2 19.1 4.9 4.6 4.8 33.5 100 17 096
Ohangwena 30.7 29.3 21.3 17.2 1.4 0.2 100 38 997
Omaheke 52.2 13.3 5.7 14.6 12.0 2.1 100 15 159
Omusati 44.0 35.3 14.9 5.1 0.8 - 100 45 161
Oshana 62.6 26.7 8.8 1.4 0.5 - 100 35 087
Oshikoto 43.2 30.9 14.1 5.0 6.8 - 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 47.0 21.5 3.2 7.7 11.0 9.6 100 28 135
Namibia 61.7 19.0 7.1 4.9 3.6 3.7 100 436 795
Urban 88.4 11.2 0.3 - - - 100 188 981
Rural 41.3 25.0 12.3 8.6 6.3 6.4 100 247 813
7. Access to Services
Table 7.3
Households by distance to
public transport, region and
urban/rural areas
33.5%
of households live more
than 50km away from public
transport In the Kunene region
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 89
7.4 Distance to local shop or market
The survey revealed that 82 percent of households in Namibia live within
5 kilometres from the nearest local shop or market according to table 7.4.
Urban households reported that 77 percent live within 1 kilometre from a
local shop or market compared to 40 percent in rural areas. Alternatively 15
percent of households in rural areas have to travel more than 20 kilometres
compared to none in urban areas. Erongo and Khomas reported the highest
proportions of households, which have less than 2 kilometres to a local shop
or market with 81 and 71 percent, respectively. On the other hand, Omaheke,
Karas, and Otjozondjupa reported the largest proportion of households with
more than 20 kilometres to the nearest local shop or market (31, 28 and 25
percent respectively).
Region
Distance in km to local shop or market
Total number of
households0-1 2-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 >50 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 62.2 28.9 4.5 3.9 0.5 - 100 21 254
Erongo 80.8 12.5 1.7 1.1 2.8 1.0 100 39 221
Hardap 50.8 18.3 3.9 7.6 7.8 11.7 100 15 894
Karas 47.3 20.4 1.7 2.2 7.0 21.4 100 21 299
Kavango 53.6 22.3 7.7 8.6 3.4 4.5 100 43 889
Khomas 71.0 21.5 3.9 0.3 1.8 1.6 100 83 562
Kunene 50.4 11.1 7.6 6.7 7.5 16.7 100 17 096
Ohangwena 46.2 42.3 5.2 4.4 2.0 - 100 38 997
Omaheke 39.9 6.6 5.2 17.6 19.9 10.9 100 15 159
Omusati 39.8 43.6 12.0 3.6 0.8 0.2 100 45 161
Oshana 43.6 33.3 10.5 8.2 4.4 - 100 35 087
Oshikoto 58.5 32.1 3.5 0.6 5.1 0.1 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 47.8 20.4 3.3 3.2 14.4 10.9 100 28 135
Namibia 55.9 25.8 5.6 4.1 4.5 4.1 100 436 795
Urban 77.2 20.6 2.0 0.1 - - 100 188 981
Rural 39.6 29.8 8.3 7.2 7.9 7.2 100 247 813
7. Access to Services
Table 7.4
Households by distance to
local shop/market, region
and urban/rural areas
15%
The percentage of rural
households that travel more
than 20km to a shop
NHIES 2009/2010Page 90
7.5 Distance to primary school
As observed in table 7.5, about 49 percent of households in Namibia
reported that they have less than 2 kilometres to the nearest primary school,
whereas 25 percent of households live within a distance of 2 to 3 kilometres.
About 8 percent of households in Namibia have more than 20 kilometres
to the nearest primary school. In urban areas 71 percent of households
live within 1 kilometre of a primary school compared to 31 percent of rural
households. There are about 18 percent of households in rural areas that
have to cover more than 10 kilometres to the nearest primary school. The
regions of Khomas, Erongo, and Kavango show the highest proportions of
households with less than 2 kilometres to a primary school with 69, 67 and
57 percent, respectively. In the regions of Kunene, Karas and Otjozondjupa
the proportions of households with more than 20 kilometres to the nearest
primary school is 33, 29 and 25 percent respectively.
Region
Distance in km to primary school Total
number of
households
0-1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 >50 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 38.6 38.0 14.3 5.8 2.6 0.7 - 100 21 254
Erongo 66.9 22.4 1.9 1.6 1.6 4.0 1.5 100 39 221
Hardap 45.1 17.5 4.7 4.0 7.4 8.2 13.0 100 15 894
Karas 43.5 19.5 3.4 2.1 2.3 10.6 18.6 100 21 299
Kavango 56.6 29.2 8.3 4.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 100 43 889
Khomas 68.5 14.8 7.4 4.7 0.9 2.1 1.7 100 83 562
Kunene 39.9 7.2 3.2 9.4 7.8 9.8 22.7 100 17 096
Ohangwena 26.0 38.8 20.1 13.5 1.7 - - 100 38 997
Omaheke 40.2 8.0 1.9 7.8 19.6 16.8 5.8 100 15 159
Omusati 34.7 37.9 14.7 9.6 2.9 0.2 - 100 45 161
Oshana 44.7 27.6 16.0 9.7 1.5 0.5 - 100 35 087
Oshikoto 39.2 28.9 13.0 13.5 1.8 3.4 0.2 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 43.7 16.4 7.6 2.4 4.9 15.9 9.1 100 28 135
Namibia 48.6 24.5 9.7 6.7 2.9 4.0 3.6 100 436 795
Urban 71.1 19.7 6.4 2.5 0.3 - - 100 188 981
Rural 31.4 28.2 12.2 9.9 4.8 7.0 6.3 100 247 813
7. Access to Services
Table 7.5
Households by distance
to primary school, region
urban/rural areas
8%
of households in Namibia are
more than 20km away from the
nearest school
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 91
7.6 Distance to high school
Table 7.6 depicts the distance to the nearest high (secondary) school and it
shows that 25 percent of households have 1 kilometre or less to the nearest
high (secondary) school and 17 percent between 2 and 3 kilometres. Close
to 26 percent of households in Namibia live more than 20 kilometres from
the nearest high school. In urban areas slightly more than 50 percent of
households live within 1 kilometre from a high school compared to about
6 percent of rural households. About 65 percent of rural households have
more than 10 kilometres to the nearest high school, and 23 percent have
more than 50 kilometres. The regions of Khomas, Erongo, and Otjozondjupa
have highest proportions of households with less than 2 kilometres to a high
school with 52, 44 and 29 percent, respectively. In Omaheke, Kunene and
Karas 61, 57 and 52 percent of households have more than 50 kilometres to
the nearest high school.
Region
Distance in km to high school Total
number of
households
0-1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 >50 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 11.6 20.9 13.9 18.1 18.5 16.3 0.6 100 21 254
Erongo 44.2 29.2 5.8 2.8 1.1 5.9 11.1 100 39 221
Hardap 21.8 26.3 6.9 3.7 4.5 7.7 29 100 15 894
Karas 22.4 15.3 2.3 1.1 0.8 6.5 51.6 100 21 299
Kavango 15.1 13.7 17.5 5.0 17.8 16.7 14.2 100 43 889
Khomas 52.3 20.7 12.3 8.5 1.0 2.0 3.1 100 83 562
Kunene 13.4 19.8 1.8 3.1 0.6 4.9 56.5 100 17 096
Ohangwena 6.7 9.0 8.1 22.1 33.8 15.9 4.3 100 38 997
Omaheke 6.9 11.7 14.5 0.9 0.5 4.6 60.8 100 15 159
Omusati 7.9 11.5 7.6 19.9 32.6 17.7 2.9 100 45 161
Oshana 24.1 15.0 16.4 17.8 18.7 7.9 0.1 100 35 087
Oshikoto 13.0 6.7 2.1 12.9 23.9 28.7 12.7 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 28.9 20.2 5.1 3.7 2.6 14.5 25.0 100 28 135
Namibia 24.9 16.9 9.6 10.2 13.0 11.3 14.2 100 436 795
Urban 50.2 29.7 10.9 5.4 0.9 0.8 2.1 100 188 981
Rural 5.6 7.0 8.6 13.9 22.3 19.2 23.3 100 247 813
7. Access to Services
Table 7.6
Households by distance
to high school, region and
urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010Page 92
7.7 Distance to combined school
Table 7.7 reveals that 36 percent of households have 1 kilometres or less
to a combined school, i.e. a school with both primary and secondary levels
of education, whereas 20 percent of households have between 2 and 3
kilometres. About 20 percent of households in Namibia reported that they
live more than 20 kilometres from a combined school. Urban households
reported that 59 percent of them live within 1 kilometre from a combined
school compared to 19 percent of rural households. Over 32 percent of rural
households have more than 10 kilometres to the nearest combined school
while 20 percent of them have more than 50 kilometres. Khomas region
reported the highest proportion of households with less than 2 kilometres to
a combined school with 88 percent. On the other hand, in Omaheke, Karas
and Kunene 97, 71 and 63 percent respectively have more than 20 kilometres
to the nearest combined school.
Region
Distance in km to combined school Total
number of
households
0-1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 >50 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 23.7 30.9 20.1 13.8 7.0 4.2 0.3 100 21 254
Erongo 36.2 32.6 8.8 2.6 1.3 2.7 15.8 100 39 221
Hardap 21.7 14.7 9.4 2.4 4.0 5.6 42.3 100 15 894
Karas 18.1 8.8 2.0 - - 3.3 67.8 100 21 299
Kavango 25.0 19.3 16.8 12.9 10.9 11.5 3.6 100 43 889
Khomas 87.6 3.2 1.7 2.8 0.2 0.4 4.2 100 83 562
Kunene 18.9 7.7 2.2 4.7 3.4 6.0 57.0 100 17 096
Ohangwena 18.7 38.4 21.8 17.7 3.1 0.3 - 100 38 997
Omaheke - - 0.2 2.3 0.6 3.6 93.3 100 15 159
Omusati 26.8 35.5 17.7 14.6 4.5 0.5 0.3 100 45 161
Oshana 33.7 30.5 18.9 14.0 2.3 0.5 0.1 100 35 087
Oshikoto 22.5 21.6 13.5 16.2 2.6 19.2 4.4 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 22.3 11.0 8.8 3.7 5.5 11.8 36.8 100 28 135
Namibia 36.3 20.1 11.2 8.7 3.4 4.7 15.6 100 436 795
Urban 58.8 18.0 8.0 3.5 0.6 1.7 9.4 100 188 981
Rural 19.2 21.6 13.6 12.7 5.5 6.9 20.4 100 247 813
7. Access to Services
Table 7.7
Households by distance to
combined school, region and
urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 93
7.8 Distance to post office
The NHIES reported that 20 percent of households have 1 kilometres or less
to the nearest post office, 30 percent of households have between 2 and 5
kilometres and 27 percent more than 20 kilometres as shown in table 7.8. In
urban areas 38 percent of households reported that the nearest post office
is within 1 kilometre compared to 6 percent of rural households. Over 67
percent of rural households have more than 10 kilometres to the nearest
post office of which 22 percent more than 50 kilometres. Erongo, Khomas
and Karas have the highest proportions of households with less than 2
kilometres to a post office (54, 35 and 24 percent, respectively). In Kunene,
Omaheke and Kavango, 58, 57 and 53 percent respectively have more than
20 kilometres to a post office.
Region
Distance in km to post office
Total
number of
households
0-1 2-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 >50 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 10.9 30.9 11.6 7.6 29.8 9.2 100 21 254
Erongo 53.6 33.1 2.9 0.9 4.0 5.5 100 39 221
Hardap 18.2 40.1 6.1 5.8 8.1 21.7 100 15 894
Karas 24.3 35.2 0.3 1.9 12.6 25.8 100 21 299
Kavango 3.7 19.6 13.4 10.5 27.9 24.8 100 43 889
Khomas 34.7 45.8 12.5 2.5 2.3 2.2 100 83 562
Kunene 15.8 21.9 3.9 0.2 3.7 54.4 100 17 096
Ohangwena 10.8 13.1 16.5 32.0 20.0 7.7 100 38 997
Omaheke 8.8 28.1 1.1 5.5 16.5 40.1 100 15 159
Omusati 5.5 16.4 22.3 35.9 17.0 3.0 100 45 161
Oshana 16.5 35.1 14.7 21.4 10.3 2.1 100 35 087
Oshikoto 11.8 18.0 24.0 14.8 23.8 7.5 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 13.5 39.9 3.5 2.7 19.6 20.8 100 28 135
Namibia 19.7 29.8 11.9 12 14.1 12.5 100 436 795
Urban 38.3 52.8 7.5 1.1 0.3 - 100 188 981
Rural 5.5 12.2 15.3 20.4 24.6 22.0 100 247 813
7. Access to Services
Table 7.8
Households by distance
to post office, region and
urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010Page 94
7.9 Distance to police station
Table 7.9 presents the distance to a police station and reveals that 22 percent
of households in Namibia live within 1 kilometre from the nearest police
station, 32 percent of households between 2 and 5 kilometres and 22 percent
more than 20 kilometres. In urban areas 39 percent of households live within
1 kilometre from a police station compared to 9 percent of rural households.
Nearly 58 percent of rural households have more than 10 kilometres to the
nearest police station and 15 percent more than 50 kilometres. Erongo and
Khomas have the highest proportions of households within 1 kilometre to
a police station (50 and 33 percent, respectively). In the regions of Kunene,
Omaheke and Kavango, the proportion of households with more than 20
kilometres to a police station is 47, 47 and 42 percent respectively.
Region
Distance in km to police station
Total number of
households
0-1 2-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 >50 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 7.3 30.9 18.4 18.8 16.3 8.2 100 21 254
Erongo 50.2 38.0 3.3 1.6 5.0 1.9 100 39 221
Hardap 15.3 43.4 6.0 6.0 8.5 20.9 100 15 894
Karas 22.2 35.2 0.6 1.9 11.6 28.6 100 21 299
Kavango 10.6 22.4 12.9 12.4 31.6 10.0 100 43 889
Khomas 33.3 46.2 12.9 3.2 2.6 1.9 100 83 562
Kunene 16.3 24.4 7.3 4.8 8.6 38.6 100 17 096
Ohangwena 11.5 21.9 17.4 26.8 14.8 7.6 100 38 997
Omaheke 22.4 21.2 2.0 7.5 16.6 30.4 100 15 159
Omusati 11.4 23.5 21.7 28.5 14.6 0.3 100 45 161
Oshana 21.4 38.5 19.0 14.1 6.5 0.4 100 35 087
Oshikoto 15.1 10.7 23.4 17.5 29.0 4.3 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 20.4 38.7 3.7 4.0 20.2 13.1 100 28 135
Namibia 21.7 31.7 12.8 11.7 13.5 8.6 100 436 795
Urban 38.9 51.5 8.1 1.3 0.3 - 100 188 981
Rural 8.6 16.7 16.5 19.6 23.5 15.1 100 247 813
7. Access to Services
Table 7.9
Households by distance to
police station, region and
urban/rural areas
8.6%
The percentage of rural
households that live within
1km from a police station
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 95
7.10 Distance to magistrate court
The survey reveals that 11 percent of households live within 1 kilometre to
the nearest magistrate court, 30 percent between 2 and 5 kilometres and 38
percent have more than 20 kilometres as shown in Table 7.10. In urban areas, 21
percent of households are within 1 kilometre of a magistrate court compared
to 3 percent of rural households. Nearly 80 percent of rural households have
more than 10 kilometres to the nearest magistrate court of which 39 percent
have more than 50 kilometres. Erongo, Khomas and Hardap have the highest
proportions of households living within 5 kilometres from a magistrate court
with 82, 59 and 55 percent, respectively. In Oshikoto, Omusati and Omaheke
regions the proportions of households with more than 20 kilometres to a
magistrate court is 73, 61 and 60 percent respectively. Kunene, Omaheke and
Karas regions reported the highest percentage of households with more than
50 kilometres to a magistrate court (55, 52 and 49 percent respectively).
Region
Distance in km to magistrate court
Total number of
households
0-1 2-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 >50 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 5.1 21.9 9.9 7.8 16.7 38.6 100 21 254
Erongo 16.9 65.5 6.1 0.8 3.8 7.0 100 39 221
Hardap 14.5 40.7 4.8 4.9 7.1 27.9 100 15 894
Karas 15.3 26.9 1.8 0.4 6.9 48.8 100 21 299
Kavango 7.1 22.1 12.8 11.1 23.3 23.6 100 43 889
Khomas 13.6 45.0 29.6 6.3 3.2 2.3 100 83 562
Kunene 17.7 19.6 3.9 0.3 3.9 54.5 100 17 096
Ohangwena 7.1 7.2 12.4 14.3 37.9 21.2 100 38 997
Omaheke 7.1 28.0 2.0 2.7 7.8 52.4 100 15 159
Omusati 3.7 7.8 8.9 18.9 37.3 23.3 100 45 161
Oshana 14.4 29.6 20.2 23.9 9.7 2.1 100 35 087
Oshikoto 4.2 11.0 2.2 9.1 27.3 46.1 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 13.1 39.2 3.8 2.3 18.9 22.8 100 28 135
Namibia 10.6 29.5 12.5 9.0 16.4 22.0 100 436 795
Urban 20.9 58.3 16.5 3.3 0.7 0.3 100 188 981
Rural 2.8 7.5 9.5 13.4 28.4 38.5 100 247 813
7. Access to Services
Table 7.10
Households by distance to
magistrate court, region and
urban/rural areas
38%
The percentage of households
that live more than 20km away
from a magistrate court
NHIES 2009/2010Page 96
7. Access to Services
7.11 Distance to pension pay point
The survey shows that 33 per cent of households live within 1 kilometre from
the nearest pension pay point, 43 percent between 2 and 5 kilometres and
9 percent more than 20 kilometres as reflected in table 7.11. In urban areas,
44 percent of households live within 1 kilometre from a pension pay point
compared to 23 percent of rural households. Erongo, Omaheke, Caprivi and
Khomas have the highest proportions of households within 1 kilometre to
a pension pay point with 50, 43, 41 and 40 percent, respectively. In Karas,
Otjozondjupa and Kunene regions, 39, 33 and 23 percent respectively have
more than 20 kilometres to the nearest pension pay point.
Region
Distance in km to pension pay point
Total number
of households
0-1 2-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 >50 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi 40.7 50.8 4.8 2.6 1.0 - 100 21 254
Erongo 49.9 39.6 4.0 1.6 3.2 1.6 100 39 221
Hardap 20.9 41.6 6.8 6.8 8.4 15.6 100 15 894
Karas 24.5 34.1 0.3 1.9 12.9 26.4 100 21 299
Kavango 35.3 44.1 12.9 5.2 1.8 0.7 100 43 889
Khomas 40.4 37.8 14.2 2.7 2.9 2.0 100 83 562
Kunene 39.9 17.2 10.9 8.9 4.4 18.7 100 17 096
Ohangwena 21.0 63.7 13.6 1.5 - 0.2 100 38 997
Omaheke 43.0 9.2 5.8 22.3 16.3 3.4 100 15 159
Omusati 25.2 53.6 15.7 5.2 0.4 - 100 45 161
Oshana 25.5 54.5 17.8 1.8 0.3 - 100 35 087
Oshikoto 27.7 33.4 23.4 4.5 10.7 0.3 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa 18.5 41.9 3.9 3.0 16.5 16.3 100 28 135
Namibia 32.5 42.6 11.7 4.1 4.7 4.4 100 436 795
Urban 44.4 46.0 7.8 1.2 0.6 - 100 188 981
Rural 23.4 40.0 14.8 6.3 7.8 7.7 100 247 813
Table 7.11
Households by distance to
pension pay point, region
and urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 97
8. Ownership of Assets
NHIES 2009/2010Page 98
8. Ownership of Assets
Ownership and access to assets is one of the important indicators of welfare and standard of living of the household. This chapter discusses households ownership of and access to assets. The
results indicate disparities between urban and rural areas, regions, sex of the
head of households, levels of household income, and educational attainment
of head of household.
8.1 Ownership of/access to selected assets
About 83 percent of the Namibian households have access to or own a radio.
Ownership and access to a radio is more common in urban areas (85 percent)
than in rural areas (82 percent). There are no major differences between the
regions.
Household ownership of and access to television is estimated at 48 percent.
The proportion of households owning and having access to a TV is higher in
urban areas (78 percent) than in rural areas (25 percent).
Ownership of and access to a telephone (landline) is also common (56
percent). About 88 percent of households either own or have access to a
cell phone. About one third of the households either owns or has access to a
plough but only 13 per cent owns or have access to a tractor.
Region
Ownership/
Access
Selected Assets, %
Radio TV
Tele-
phone
(land-
line)
Cell
phone
Refri-
gera-
tor
Free-
zer
Sew-
ing /
Knitt-
ing
mach-
ine
Motor
vehicle
Don-
key
cart/
Ox cart
Bicycle Plough
Trac-
tor
Caprivi Owns 66.6 29.1 30.5 59.2 22.8 15.2 4.0 9.7 12.1 17.0 42.2 0.3
21 254 Has access 21.5 23.9 10.3 21.9 3.9 2.7 8.4 19.4 13.5 13.2 36.1 15.4
No access 11.8 47.0 59.2 18.9 73.3 82.1 87.7 70.8 74.4 69.8 21.7 84.3
Erongo Owns 77.7 66.4 39.1 91.2 61.8 42.3 14.4 26.5 5.2 16.8 5.0 0.1
39 221 Has access 10.2 13.8 39.5 6.2 12.1 10.1 3.7 22.1 5.8 9.0 9.3 4.5
No access 12.1 19.8 21.4 2.6 26.2 47.6 81.9 51.5 89.0 74.2 85.8 95.4
Hardap Owns 74.4 50.3 29.5 75.8 52.0 30.9 23.5 23.8 17.3 18.7 1.6 1.7
15 894 Has access 5.8 6.3 22.6 8.9 7.8 3.6 2.0 7.7 2.7 5.1 0.9 2.9
No access 19.8 43.4 48.0 15.3 40.2 65.5 74.5 68.5 80.0 76.1 97.5 95.4
Table 8.1.1
Households by ownership of/
access to selected assets,
region and urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 99
8. Ownership of Assets
Region
Ownership/
Access
Selected Assets, %
Radio TV
Tele-
phone
(land-
line)
Cell
phone
Refri-
gera-
tor
Free-
zer
Sewing /
Knitting
machine
Motor
vehicle
Donkey
cart/Ox
cart
Bicycle Plough Tractor
Karas Owns 76.9 47.3 32.2 73.0 46.3 31.4 19.5 23.9 15.4 19.0 2.4 2.9
21 299 Has access 3.2 5.4 23.5 5.7 5.3 0.9 0.3 4.6 1.7 2.3 2.6 2.1
No access 19.9 47.3 44.3 21.3 48.4 67.6 80.1 71.5 82.9 78.6 95.0 95.0
Kavango Owns 60.5 21.5 16.2 65.3 16.4 11.4 2.4 7.5 8.4 7.1 34.2 1.3
43 889 Has access 23.4 22.9 19.7 14.8 4.0 2.9 4.3 26.5 17.3 17.9 24.4 3.9
No access 16.0 55.6 64.1 19.7 79.6 85.6 93.4 66.0 74.2 75.0 41.4 94.8
Khomas Owns 74.7 67.3 49.2 92.8 67.6 38.1 15.3 34.0 4.0 15.3 4.2 1.9
83 562 Has access 11.4 8.4 28.7 4.3 6.2 7.9 2.7 18.4 1.2 3.3 1.6 2.3
No access 13.9 24.3 22.1 2.8 26.2 54.0 82.1 47.6 94.8 81.4 94.2 95.8
Kunene Owns 59.1 28.2 17.1 65.7 26.1 13.9 22.2 16.8 19.7 10.7 9.5 3.1
17 096 Has access 8.0 4.4 19.0 10.8 2.8 2.9 7.9 10.4 8.4 2.7 8.3 1.9
No access 32.9 67.5 63.9 23.5 71.1 83.2 70.0 72.8 71.9 86.6 82.2 95.0
Ohangwena Owns 73.9 13.3 34.2 79.4 10.0 8.0 13.9 13.9 2.5 14.6 47.0 0.8
38 997 Has access 12.2 10.7 18.0 14.0 3.1 2.4 4.3 15.2 2.3 5.9 20.3 11.6
No access 13.9 76.0 47.8 6.6 86.9 89.7 81.9 70.9 95.2 79.5 32.7 87.5
Omaheke Owns 71.0 29.2 30.4 65.2 27.4 17.8 27.7 19.8 23.8 6.9 5.1 3.1
15 159 Has access 5.5 3.3 20.1 9.5 1.1 0.3 0.7 2.9 10.0 .9 2.9 1.8
No access 23.6 67.5 49.5 25.2 71.5 81.9 71.6 77.3 66.2 92.2 92.0 95.1
Omusati Owns 71.1 14.7 27.8 78.4 12.4 8.0 17.2 16.2 15.3 25.7 58.3 2.1
45 161 Has access 10.2 3.7 22.6 12.7 2.2 1.9 9.2 26.4 12.2 7.2 16.3 45.8
No access 18.8 81.6 49.6 8.9 85.4 90.1 73.6 57.4 72.5 67.1 25.4 52.1
Oshana Owns 79.0 34.0 29.8 85.4 25.0 21.3 15.1 21.9 7.1 17.4 18.7 2.5
35 087 Has access 6.8 10.9 32.9 7.1 7.1 5.9 11.7 37.5 4.4 5.2 10.1 38.0
No access 14.2 55.0 37.4 7.4 67.9 72.8 73.2 40.6 88.5 77.4 71.2 59.5
Oshikoto Owns 69.3 15.0 26.7 73.1 13.0 11.8 11.4 10.4 11.9 8.2 38.4 1.3
32 038 Has access 13.6 4.4 9.6 7.5 3.0 1.4 1.1 21.8 5.9 1.1 12.9 5.1
No access 17.1 80.6 63.7 19.5 84.0 86.8 87.5 67.7 82.2 90.8 48.7 93.6
Otjozondjupa Owns 70.3 43.8 31.2 75.6 43.8 17.7 16.9 18.4 6.0 14.3 2.6 1.2
28 135 Has access 7.9 7.3 21.4 6.5 4.8 6.2 3.2 8.2 4.1 1.0 4.3 4.4
No access 21.8 48.9 47.4 17.9 51.4 76.1 80.0 73.4 89.9 84.7 93.1 94.4
Namibia Owns 71.7 38.0 32.7 78.8 35.3 22.0 14.4 20.1 9.3 15.1 22.2 1.6
436 795 Has access 11.6 10.1 23.6 9.4 5.2 4.5 4.7 19.3 6.5 6.2 11.5 11.8
No access 16.7 51.9 43.7 11.7 59.5 73.4 80.9 60.5 84.2 78.7 66.4 86.6
Urban Owns 76.7 68.3 43.9 92.8 65.7 39.0 15.3 30.1 3.5 16.3 6.3 1.3
188 981 Has access 8.6 10.0 29.6 3.8 7.2 7.5 4.8 18.3 2.1 5.0 4.0 3.4
No access 14.7 21.7 26.5 3.4 27.1 53.5 80.0 51.6 94.4 78.6 89.7 95.2
Rural Owns 67.9 15.0 24.1 68.2 12.1 9.1 13.8 12.5 13.7 14.2 34.3 1.8
247 813 Has access 13.8 10.2 19.0 13.7 3.6 2.3 4.6 20.1 9.9 7.0 17.2 18.2
No access 18.3 74.9 56.9 18.1 84.2 88.6 81.6 67.3 76.4 78.8 48.6 79.9
Table 8.1.1
Continued
NHIES 2009/2010Page 100
8. Ownership of Assets
The proportion of male-headed households owning or having access to
assets is generally higher than that of female-headed households, except
for cell phones and sewing/knitting machines. The proportion of households
that owns a cell phone is almost the same for female and male-headed
households, close to about 80 percent. Table 8.1.2 indicates that 79 percent of
male-headed households in urban areas own a radio compared to 73 percent
of female-headed households. Similar differences exist in rural areas.
Urban/
Rural Sex
of Head of
Household
Ownership/
Access
Selected Assets, %
Radio TV
Tele-
phone
(land-
line)
Cell
phone
Refri-
gera-
tor
Freezer
Sewing /
Knitting
machine
Motor
vehicle
Donkey
cart/Ox
cart
Bicycle Plough Tractor
Urban
Female Owns 73.1 66.5 39.4 91.7 63.5 35.2 16.6 16.2 2.7 9.7 3.6 0.7
74 316 Has access 9.6 10.0 29.1 4.3 7.3 8.0 6.0 21.0 2.1 4.0 4.0 3.7
No access 17.2 23.5 31.5 4.0 29.2 56.8 77.4 62.9 95.2 86.3 92.4 95.6
Male Owns 79.0 69.3 46.9 93.6 67.1 41.5 14.5 39.2 4.1 20.6 8.1 1.7
113 953 Has access 8.0 10.0 30.0 3.4 7.1 7.2 4.0 16.6 2.1 5.7 3.9 3.2
No access 13.0 20.6 23.2 3.1 25.8 51.3 81.5 44.1 93.9 73.6 88.0 95.0
Both Sexes Owns 76.7 68.3 43.9 92.8 65.7 39.0 15.3 30.1 3.5 16.3 6.3 1.3
188 981 Has access 8.6 10.0 29.6 3.8 7.2 7.5 4.8 18.3 2.1 5.0 4.0 3.4
No access 14.7 21.7 26.5 3.4 27.1 53.5 80.0 51.6 94.4 78.6 89.7 95.2
Rural
Female Owns 65.3 12.1 22.4 70.4 10.0 7.0 13.4 7.7 9.5 9.9 33.4 0.9
110 435 Has access 15.9 10.7 18.4 15.3 3.6 2.4 5.2 21.0 10.8 7.3 21.1 21.7
No access 18.8 77.1 59.2 14.4 86.4 90.7 81.4 71.3 79.7 82.8 45.6 77.4
Male Owns 70.1 17.4 25.4 66.4 13.9 11.0 14.1 16.3 17.2 17.7 34.8 2.6
135 378 Has access 12.0 9.6 19.6 12.3 3.6 2.2 4.1 19.4 9.2 6.7 13.9 15.1
No access 17.8 73.0 55.0 21.2 82.4 86.8 81.7 64.3 73.6 75.5 51.3 82.3
Both Sexes Owns 67.9 15.0 24.1 68.2 12.1 9.1 13.8 12.5 13.7 14.2 34.3 1.8
247 813 Has access 13.8 10.2 19.0 13.7 3.6 2.3 4.6 20.1 9.9 7.0 17.2 18.2
No access 18.3 74.9 56.9 18.1 84.2 88.6 81.6 67.3 76.4 78.8 48.6 79.9
Namibia
Female Owns 68.5 34.0 29.3 78.9 31.5 18.3 14.7 11.1 6.8 9.8 21.4 .8
184 752 Has access 13.4 10.4 22.7 10.9 5.1 4.6 5.5 21.0 7.3 6.0 14.2 14.5
No access 18.2 55.6 48.1 10.2 63.4 77.0 79.8 67.9 85.9 84.2 64.4 84.7
Male Owns 74.2 41.1 35.2 78.8 38.2 24.9 14.3 26.8 11.2 19.1 22.6 2.2
249 331 Has access 10.2 9.8 24.4 8.2 5.2 4.5 4.0 18.2 5.9 6.3 9.3 9.7
No access 15.6 49.0 40.4 12.9 56.6 70.6 81.7 55.1 82.9 74.6 68.1 88.1
Both Sexes Owns 71.7 38.0 32.7 78.8 35.3 22.0 14.4 20.1 9.3 15.1 22.2 1.6
436 795 Has access 11.6 10.1 23.6 9.4 5.2 4.5 4.7 19.3 6.5 6.2 11.5 11.8
No access 16.7 51.9 43.7 11.7 59.5 73.4 80.9 60.5 84.2 78.7 66.4 86.6
Table 8.1.2
Households by ownership
of/access to assets, urban/
rural areas and sex of head of
household
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 101
There are disparities in ownership of/access to assets by main language
spoken in households (Table 8.1.3). Households where the main language
spoken is Afrikaans, German and English reported the highest proportions
of ownership for the majority of the assets. On the other hand, households
where the main language spoken is Khoisan have the lowest percentages of
ownership.
Main
language
spoken
Ownership/
Access
Selected Assets, %
Radio TV
Tele-
phone
(land-
line)
Cell
phone
Refri-
gera-
tor
Freezer
Sewing /
Knitting
machine
Motor
vehicle
Don-key
cart/ Ox
cart
Bicycle Plough Tractor
Khoisan Owns 46.3 9.1 12.8 30.5 5.1 5.5 3.7 8.3 5.4 7.7 2.3 1.6
5 954 Has access 20.9 14.3 3.4 10.9 2.1 0.4 3.6 17.4 6.0 3.7 6.1 5.6
No access 32.8 76.7 83.8 58.7 92.8 94.1 92.6 74.2 88.6 88.6 91.7 92.8
Caprivi Owns 66.3 35.5 31.2 64.4 28.7 16.9 3.0 11.4 11.3 15.4 39.5 0.3
21 537 Has access 20.1 22.6 12.9 20.4 4.4 2.9 7.7 18.6 12.1 13.3 32.7 14.0
No access 13.6 41.9 55.9 15.2 66.9 80.2 89.3 69.8 76.7 71.3 27.8 85.7
Otjiherero Owns 70.8 41.8 32,0 75.6 40.8 18,0 24.1 20.7 14.8 5.9 6.0 1.4
39 748 Has access 7.5 7.3 24.4 9.3 4.1 4.2 3.1 14.2 7.6 1.4 5.6 2.3
No access 21.7 50.8 43.6 15.1 55.1 77.8 72.8 65.1 77.6 92.7 88.5 96.2
Rukavango Owns 59.6 22.4 19.0 65,0 15.7 10.4 3.1 6.9 7.9 8.8 29.6 1.0
51 011 Has access 21.8 19.5 19.5 14.7 4.2 3.4 4.0 23.8 15.7 14.3 22.3 4.0
No access 18.6 58.2 61.5 20.2 80.1 86.2 92.9 69.3 76.3 76.9 48.1 95,0
Nama/
Damara
Owns 72.7 49.7 27.3 73.1 42.5 19,0 16.6 14.9 17.1 13.2 1.1 0.4
54 323 Has access 8.2 7.6 27.2 9.0 7.0 5.3 3.6 14.9 3.7 4.0 2.0 2.6
No access 19.1 42.7 45.4 17.9 50.5 75.8 79.8 70.3 79.2 82.8 96.9 97,0
Oshiwambo Owns 73.9 26.8 31.8 83.8 25.4 17.1 12.5 16,0 7.3 15.9 33.0 1.4
204 305 Has access 10.9 9.3 25.0 9.0 5.3 4.3 6.0 22.7 5.7 6.0 13.2 20.9
No access 15.2 63.9 43.2 7.1 69.2 78.6 81.5 61.3 86.9 78,0 53.7 77.7
Setswana Owns 67.6 58.0 48.2 68.2 62.8 36.2 14.2 37.3 33.0 7.6 3.2 2.0
1299 Has access 6.2 1.8 11,0 6.2 3.3 - - 5.9 5.1 - 5.1 -
No access 26.1 40.2 40.8 25.6 34.0 63.8 85.8 56.8 61.9 92.4 91.8 98.0
Afrikaans Owns 81.3 82.1 54.1 90.8 81.5 58.7 29.6 53.6 6.1 25.8 4.6 5.2
40 660 Has access 5.8 3.9 23.3 2.1 4.0 5.6 1.6 11.5 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.8
No access 13,0 14,0 22.6 7.0 14.6 35.7 68.8 34.9 92.4 72.4 93.9 93.1
German Owns 95.1 88.8 90.4 91.0 99.5 92.6 50.4 95.4 8.9 37,0 12.8 15.1
3 549 Has access 0.7 4.3 6.5 0.6 0.5 2.2 1.5 2.8 0.3 2.5 - -
No access 4.3 6.9 3.2 8.5 - 5.1 48.1 1.7 90.8 60.5 87.2 84.9
English Owns 79.8 82.1 57.6 95.3 84.0 56.2 22.6 58.7 3.1 29.1 1.1 2.1
1 808 Has access 7.4 6.0 33.0 1.5 11.0 13.7 1.6 17.5 - 2.7 0.9 2.1
No access 12.8 11.9 9.4 3.2 5.0 30.1 75.8 23.8 96.9 68.2 98.0 95.8
Other Owns 52,0 65.7 44.2 90.3 67.8 42.5 7.6 30.4 0.6 20.8 2.3 -
4 478 Has access 17.7 5.0 30.0 7.3 6.0 8.8 3.4 18.3 0.9 5.3 2.5 3.4
No access 30.3 29.2 25.8 2.4 26.2 48.7 89,0 51.3 98.5 73.8 95.2 96.6
Total Owns 71.7 38.0 32.7 78.8 35.3 22.0 14.4 20.1 9.3 15.1 22.2 1.6
436 795 Has access 11.6 10.1 23.6 9.4 5.2 4.5 4.7 19.3 6.5 6.2 11.5 11.8
No access 16.7 51.9 43.7 11.7 59.5 73.4 80.9 60.5 84.2 78.7 66.4 86.6
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.1.3
Households by ownership
of/access to selected assets
and main language spoken in
household
NHIES 2009/2010Page 102
Table 8.1.4 shows ownership of or access to selected assets by household
composition and orphan hood. Generally, ownership of a radio and a
cell phone is more common in all households irrespective of household
composition and orphan hood status compared to other assets.
Household
composition
Ownership/
Access
Selected Assets, %
Radio TV
Telephone
(landline)
Cell
phone
Refri-
gera-
tor
Free-
zer
Sewing /
Knitting
machine
Motor
vehicle
Donkey
cart/
Ox cart
Bicycle Plough Tractor
Households
with only
head or
head and
spouse
Owns 64.5 37.9 30.9 72.2 36.2 22.0 11.0 18.1 5.0 9.8 7.9 1.9
80 707 Has access 14.4 12.6 28.5 10.6 11.3 7.7 3.1 19.9 5.6 4.0 7.2 7.2
No access 21.1 49.5 40.6 17.2 52.5 70.3 86.0 62.0 89.4 86.2 84.9 91.0
Households
with 1 child,
no relatives/
non-relative
Owns 69.2 45.4 35.5 74.5 40.9 26.8 13.6 23.4 8.1 13.6 12.3 2.5
31 977 Has access 12.3 9.2 20.4 10.5 4.7 4.5 2.6 16.4 6.4 4.7 10.8 6.5
No access 18.6 45.3 44.1 15.0 54.4 68.7 83.8 60.2 85.6 81.8 76.9 91.0
Households
with 2+
children, no
relatives/
non-relatives
Owns 68.1 41.5 33.3 75.1 38.9 22.9 12.9 22.8 8.2 19.5 17.8 1.7
65 351 Has access 12.2 9.1 19.6 10.3 3.5 2.5 4.2 16.5 6.7 6.7 13.6 6.6
No access 19.7 49.4 47.1 14.6 57.5 74.6 82.9 60.7 85.1 73.8 68.6 91.7
Households
with
relatives
Owns 75.6 36.0 32.7 82.5 32.9 21.1 16.5 19.1 11.4 15.8 30.1 1.4
239 717 Has access 10.1 9.5 22.9 8.8 3.6 3.7 5.4 20.0 6.6 6.9 12.4 15.5
No access 14.2 54.6 44.4 8.7 63.5 75.2 78.1 60.9 82.0 77.3 57.5 83.2
Households
with non-
relatives
Owns 70.2 39.7 32.5 81.1 39.7 23.2 10.6 26.6 6.5 16.0 15.2 2.0
19 044 Has access 14.1 12.8 30.6 7.4 5.2 7.9 6.8 23.9 8.6 6.9 11.4 12.5
No access 15.7 47.4 36.9 11.4 55.0 68.9 82.5 49.5 84.9 77.1 73.4 85.4
Namibia Owns 71.7 38.0 32.7 78.8 35.3 22.0 14.4 20.1 9.3 15.1 22.2 1.6
436 795 Has access 11.6 10.1 23.6 9.4 5.2 4.5 4.7 19.3 6.5 6.2 11.5 11.8
No access 16.7 51.9 43.7 11.7 59.5 73.4 80.9 60.5 84.2 78.7 66.4 86.6
Households
without
orphans
Owns 71.7 41.2 33.6 78.8 38.8 24.0 14.1 21.4 8.7 14.9 17.9 1.7
337 985 Has access 11.2 10.4 24.4 9.1 5.9 5.0 4.4 18.9 6.8 5.9 10.6 9.8
No access 17.1 48.4 41.9 12.1 55.3 71.0 81.5 59.6 84.5 79.2 71.5 88.6
Households
with orphans
Owns 71.8 27.1 29.4 79.0 23.4 15.4 15.6 15.6 11.4 15.9 36.9 1.4
98 809 Has access 12.7 9.1 20.7 10.5 2.7 2.8 5.7 20.8 5.5 7.0 14.4 18.9
No access 15.5 63.8 49.8 10.5 73.9 81.8 78.7 63.6 83.1 77.0 48.6 79.7
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.1.4
Households by ownership of/
access to selected assets,
household composition and
orphan hood
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 103
Ownership of most assets is more common amongst households where the
head has attained a higher level of education, except for sewing/knitting
machine, donkey/ox cart and plough (Table 8.1.5).
Educational
attainment
of Head
Ownership/
Access
Selected Assets, %
Radio TV
Tele-
phone
(land-
line)
Cell
phone
Refri-
gera-
tor
Free-
zer
Sew-
ing /
Knitt-
ing
mach-
ine
Motor
vehicle
Don-
key
cart/
Ox cart
Bi-cycle Plough
Trac-
tor
No formal
Education
Owns 61.7 22.4 24.1 75.2 22.4 23.2 30.8 11.6 6.9 3.7 11.5 3.7
848 Has access 1.9 13.3 9.4 11.7 24.4 5.9 6.3 30.4 11.9 24.4 19.3 13.8
No access 36.4 64.2 66.5 13.1 53.2 70.9 62.9 58,0 81.2 71.8 69.2 82.5
Primary Owns 69.5 21.9 27.4 72.8 19.8 12.8 14.9 11.1 12.6 15.2 27.2 1.2
121 783 Has access 14.2 10.7 19.1 11.8 4.8 3.4 4.4 22.4 8.5 6.7 15.1 15,0
No access 16.3 67.4 53.5 15.4 75.3 83.9 80.7 66.6 78.9 78.1 57.8 83.8
Secondary Owns 73.5 49.7 36.8 88.3 45.9 27.2 13.6 22.5 6.9 14.8 17.3 1.6
180 697 Has access 10,0 11.2 28.6 6.5 7.2 6.4 5.1 19.2 4.9 6.5 8.5 10.1
No access 16.5 39.1 34.6 5.1 46.9 66.3 81.3 58.3 88.2 78.7 74.2 88.3
Tertiary Owns 83.1 85.4 52.4 98.2 83.5 59.5 22.6 60.5 5.6 24.4 13.0 4.1
43 652 Has access 5.8 3.0 32.8 1.0 2.9 5.5 4.0 12.1 2.3 3.5 4.1 7.0
No access 11.1 11.6 14.9 0.8 13.6 35.1 73.4 27.4 92.1 72.1 82.9 88.9
Total Owns 71.7 38.0 32.7 78.8 35.3 22.0 14.4 20.1 9.3 15.1 22.2 1.6
436 795 Has access 11.6 10.1 23.6 9.4 5.2 4.5 4.7 19.3 6.5 6.2 11.5 11.8
No access 16.7 51.9 43.7 11.7 59.5 73.4 80.9 60.5 84.2 78.7 66.4 86.6
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.1.5
Households by ownership of/
access to selected assets and
highest level of educational
attainment of head of
household
NHIES 2009/2010Page 104
Households which reported commercial farming as their main source of
income, have the highest proportions of ownership of assets (Table 8.1.6).
Households whose main source of income is state special maintenance
grants for disabled persons below 16 years have the lowest proportions of
ownership of all assets.
Main source of
income
Ownership/
Access
Selected Assets, %
Radio TV
Tele-
phone
(land-
line)
Cell
phone
Refri-
gera-
tor
Free-
zer
Sewing/
Knitting
machine
Motor
vehicle
Donkey
cart/
Ox cart
Bi-
cycle
Plough Tractor
Salaries and/or
wages
Owns 74.1 55.7 37.5 87.9 52.0 30.0 11.7 25.2 5.5 16.3 9.7 1.0
214 506 Has access 9.9 10.2 30.2 5.3 7.0 6.6 4.2 18.6 4.2 5.8 6.4 7.1
No access 16.1 34.1 32.3 6.7 41.0 63.4 84.1 56.2 90.3 77.8 83.8 91.9
Subsistence farming Owns 68.9 8.8 24.5 68.4 6.4 5.9 14.4 11.1 15.6 15.0 51.2 1.2
100 581 Has access 16.1 10.1 17.0 15.2 2.2 0.9 5.6 21.7 12.3 7.8 21.2 23.3
No access 15.0 81.2 58.5 16.4 91.4 93.1 80.1 67.2 72.1 77.3 27.6 75.5
Commercial
farming
Owns 84.2 86.2 82.3 88.2 87.8 88.1 71.3 93.2 23.7 44.7 34.2 48.2
2 524 Has access 0.8 0.0 4.9 3.3 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.1 2.3 2.3 4.9
No access 15.0 13.8 12.7 8.5 11.5 11.9 27.8 6.8 74.2 53.1 63.5 46.9
Business activities,
non-farming
Owns 74.5 46.3 40.7 88.7 43.8 33.3 18.2 30.4 6.2 19.1 15.0 4.0
35 270 Has access 8.8 10.8 20.2 5.7 5.9 4.2 5.2 19.4 5.1 6.3 9.9 7.3
No access 16.6 42.9 39.2 5.7 50.3 62.5 76.6 50.2 88.7 74.6 75.1 88.8
Pensions from
employment
Owns 90.4 72.7 55.1 82.5 73.9 63.3 43.6 62.9 17.2 21.6 13.7 6.6
5 048 Has access 2.5 3.9 17.7 3.3 2.6 2.5 6.3 5.9 3.5 1.8 3.3 7.9
No access 7.1 23.5 27.2 14.3 23.4 34.3 50.1 31.2 79.3 76.6 83.0 85.5
Cash remittances Owns 53.2 30.9 24.1 77.7 32.0 16.2 13.2 5.6 7.1 5.9 6.0 0.6
12 866 Has access 17.8 14.8 28.1 11.0 12.5 12.9 5.0 23.8 4.4 3.7 9.8 5.2
No access 29.0 54.3 47.8 11.3 55.5 70.9 81.8 70.6 88.4 90.4 84.2 94.2
Rental income Owns 83.8 83.8 56.6 92.3 80.4 36.2 20.8 25.9 10.5 12.8 13.5 6.8
2 120 Has access 2.8 0.0 16.2 4.3 1.5 6.7 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.6 2.3 2.8
No access 13.4 16.2 27.2 3.4 18.2 57.0 79.2 67.7 89.5 86.6 84.2 90.3
Interest from
savings/
investments
Owns 82.8 93.0 77.2 71.3 100 69.2 63.2 53.5 2.6 9.7 8.5 5.8
1 180 Has access 13.0 0.0 18.2 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No access 4.2 7.0 4.6 21.7 0.0 30.8 36.8 28.3 97.4 90.3 91.5 94.2
State old pension Owns 71.9 12.5 23.0 60.0 12.3 7.7 20.0 7.6 15.5 10.0 33.2 0.8
43 389 Has access 11.7 11.2 14.1 17.5 2.0 2.2 4.6 20.6 8.4 7.0 16.8 18.4
No access 16.3 76.3 62.8 22.5 85.7 90.2 75.4 71.8 76.1 83.1 50.0 80.9
War veterans/ex-
combatants grant
Owns 82.2 28.5 28.5 100 28.5 15.9 28.5 28.5 15.9 28.5 22.0 0.0
249 Has access 0.0 0.0 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No access 17.8 71.5 53.7 0.0 71.5 84.1 71.5 71.5 84.1 71.5 78.0 100
Disability grants for
adults (over 16 yrs)
Owns 63.6 11.2 19.7 51.4 11.1 5.8 7.3 5.2 11.4 10.6 11.9 1.1
3 044 Has access 11.3 14.1 13.6 24.4 6.5 3.8 1.1 13.4 5.6 0.0 20.6 6.7
No access 25.1 74.7 66.7 24.2 82.4 90.4 91.6 81.4 83.1 89.4 67.5 92.2
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.1.6
Households by ownership of/
access to selected assets and
main source of income
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 105
Main source of
income
Ownership/
Access
Selected Assets, %
Radio TV
Tele-
phone
(land-
line)
Cell
phone
Refri-
gera-
tor
Free-
zer
Sewing /
Knitting
machine
Motor
vehicle
Donkey
cart/
Ox cart
Bi-cycle Plough
Trac-
tor
State child
maintenance
grants
Owns 69.9 11.2 16.4 78.0 4.8 8.8 11.1 2.5 7.1 11.1 29.6 0.0
2 894 Has access 6.5 3.3 17.2 8.0 0.8 2.8 5.4 14.7 0.0 5.3 15.4 16.4
No access 23.6 85.4 66.4 14.0 94.4 88.4 83.5 82.8 92.9 83.7 55.0 83.6
State foster care
grant
Owns 62.6 13.4 24.0 79.2 10.6 0.0 5.7 0.0 5.7 0.0 24.7 0.0
805 Has access 18.5 15.2 2.8 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0
No access 18.8 71.4 73.2 0.0 89.4 100 94.3 79.6 94.3 100 62.3 100
State special
maintenance
grants (Disabled
16 yrs or less)
Owns 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
99 Has access 100 28.1 28.1 71.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.9 71.9 0.0
No access 0.0 71.9 71.9 0.0 100 100 100 100 100 28.1 28.1 100
Alimony
and similar
allowance
Owns 72.1 46.3 27.9 65.3 27.7 20.6 14.9 13.8 11.1 7.9 0.0 0.0
1 192 Has access 11.8 4.2 25.5 20.6 15.2 8.1 0.0 34.2 5.3 10.3 3.2 3.2
No access 16.1 49.5 46.6 14.2 57.1 71.3 85.1 52.0 83.6 81.8 96.8 96.8
Drought relief
assistance
Owns 49.7 6.2 10.8 43.9 0.0 0.0 3.4 4.2 5.0 3.6 6.1 0.0
2 041 Has access 15.5 1.7 5.5 8.9 0.0 0.0 3.8 23.8 7.0 1.3 11.6 4.8
No access 34.8 92.1 83.7 47.2 100 100 92.8 72.0 88.0 95.1 82.4 95.2
In kind receipts Owns 52.4 17.7 12.0 43.6 14.1 8.9 6.1 3.7 6.1 3.9 1.5 0.0
5 165 Has access 7.4 7.4 12.5 10.0 3.9 2.9 6.9 17.5 5.2 1.5 8.9 6.3
No access 40.3 74.8 75.5 46.4 82.0 88.2 87.0 78.8 88.7 94.7 89.6 93.7
Other Owns 55.3 23.1 22.5 52.2 25.3 17.9 8.2 16.2 5.7 11.1 10.8 1.6
3 322 Has access 18.0 6.4 17.4 18.5 0.0 0.0 6.0 11.7 6.1 5.9 19.0 3.4
No access 26.7 70.5 60.0 29.3 74.7 82.1 85.9 72.0 88.1 83.1 70.2 95.0
No income Owns 49.3 7.3 7.3 31.8 0.0 7.3 11.9 0.0 15.3 24.5 0.0 0.0
396 Has access 6.2 0.0 21.0 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0
No access 44.5 92.7 71.7 50.1 100 92.7 88.1 88.1 84.7 75.5 88.1 100
Total Owns 71.7 38.0 32.7 78.8 35.3 22.0 14.4 20.1 9.3 15.1 22.2 1.6
436 795 Has access 11.6 10.1 23.6 9.4 5.2 4.5 4.7 19.3 6.5 6.2 11.5 11.8
No access 16.7 51.9 43.7 11.7 59.5 73.4 80.9 60.5 84.2 78.7 66.4 86.6
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.1.6
Continued
NHIES 2009/2010Page 106
With the exception of donkey/ox cart and plough ownership of assets increase
as households income increase (Table 8.1.7).
Percen-
tiles/de-
ciles
Ownership/
Access
Selected Assets, %
Radio TV
Tele-
phone
(land-
line)
Cell
phone
Refri-
gera-
tor
Free-
zer
Sew-
ing /
Knitt-
ing
mach-
ine
Motor
vehicle
Don-
key
cart/
Ox cart
Bi-cycle Plough
Trac-
tor
Percen-tiles
1-25 Owns 62.2 11.3 18.8 62.2 7.5 4.1 8.7 2.5 10.5 11.1 28.5 0.7
109 176 Has access 16.6 11.9 13.9 15.2 2.9 1.9 3.8 19.7 8.7 7.2 18.8 10.5
No access 21.3 76.7 67.3 22.5 89.7 94.0 87.5 77.7 80.8 81.7 52.7 88.7
26-50 Owns 69.1 21.8 26.5 74.5 18.8 9.8 12.8 7.3 10.8 12.7 28.9 0.6
109 035 Has access 12.3 10.8 20.6 11.6 4.7 3.6 5.2 21.5 7.8 7.3 14.8 16.8
No access 18.5 67.4 53.0 13.9 76.5 86.6 82.0 71.2 81.4 80.0 56.3 82.6
51-75 Owns 74.4 43.7 33.3 84.0 41.4 23.3 14.7 17.9 9.3 13.6 19.0 1.0
109 229 Has access 10.3 11.0 27.7 8.0 7.4 6.1 5.4 21.1 6.2 5.9 8.9 13.1
No access 15.3 45.3 39.0 8.0 51.3 70.6 79.9 61.0 84.4 80.5 72.1 85.9
76-90 Owns 77.4 65.6 44.7 93.6 62.9 37.6 14.5 37.5 6.6 17.7 14.2 2.0
65 454 Has access 7.7 8.9 35.2 3.9 7.2 7.0 4.9 18.9 4.6 4.9 4.6 8.9
No access 14.9 25.4 20.1 2.6 29.9 55.4 80.7 43.6 88.8 77.4 81.2 89.1
91-95 Owns 84.8 86.8 55.8 97.0 82.3 60.9 23.8 61.6 4.6 25.1 8.9 2.7
22 037 Has access 7.1 4.5 30.3 1.5 4.8 7.4 3.6 14.2 2.3 4.2 1.8 5.9
No access 8.0 8.7 13.9 1.5 12.8 31.7 72.7 24.1 93.1 70.7 89.2 91.4
96-98 Owns 88.2 91.8 67.1 93.6 95.3 79.4 36.1 83.6 5.9 35.7 7.9 9.8
13 062 Has access 4.6 2.0 27.7 1.1 2.8 3.1 4.2 6.7 0.8 2.8 1.0 2.0
No access 7.3 6.1 5.2 5.3 1.9 17.5 59.7 9.6 93.2 61.5 91.1 88.2
99-100 Owns 89.9 92.8 76.6 97.3 98.5 82.7 47.1 96.6 11.3 38.7 13.4 15.1
8 801 Has access 5.6 2.2 20.4 0.6 1.1 5.6 1.5 1.8 0.2 1.5 0.8 2.1
No access 4.5 4.9 3.0 2.1 0.4 11.6 51.4 1.7 88.5 59.8 85.8 82.8
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.1.7
Households by ownership of/
access to selected assets and
percentile group afte adjusted
per capita income
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 107
Percen-
tiles/de-
ciles
Ownership/
Access
Selected Assets, %
Radio TV
Tele-
phone
(land-
line)
Cell
phone
Refri-
gera-
tor
Free-
zer
Sew-ing
/Knitt-
ing
mach-
ine
Motor
vehicle
Don-
key
cart/
Ox cart
Bi-cycle Plough
Trac-
tor
Deciles
Decile 1 Owns 57.8 8.2 14.4 53.4 4.7 2.4 6.7 1.5 10.9 8.6 26.4 .6
43 670 Has access 19.9 12.3 11.5 17.0 2.4 1.7 3.5 18.6 9.4 6.7 20.6 7.5
No access 22.3 79.5 74.0 29.6 92.9 95.9 89.8 79.9 79.6 84.7 52.9 91.8
Decile 2 Owns 63.1 12.6 21.8 67.8 8.5 5.0 9.4 2.8 10.2 13.6 28.8 1.0
43 675 Has access 14.8 12.9 15.7 14.3 3.0 2.1 4.0 21.3 8.8 7.5 17.4 11.0
No access 22.1 74.5 62.6 17.6 88.5 92.9 86.6 75.9 80.9 78.8 53.7 88.0
Decile 3 Owns 69.3 15.0 22.5 68.7 12.5 6.2 12.5 4.4 11.3 13.8 33.0 0.2
43 688 Has access 12.0 10.8 18.0 14.3 3.7 2.6 4.3 21.2 8.5 8.3 16.9 16.7
No access 18.7 74.2 59.4 17.0 83.8 91.3 83.2 74.5 80.2 77.8 50.1 83.1
Decile 4 Owns 68.0 20.6 26.6 73.6 16.3 9.0 12.1 6.0 10.7 11.7 27.8 0.7
43 675 Has access 14.0 11.0 21.5 12.2 4.1 4.0 5.6 21.1 8.3 7.4 15.9 16.8
No access 18.0 68.4 51.9 14.2 79.7 87.0 82.3 72.9 81.0 80.9 56.3 82.5
Decile 5 Owns 70.0 26.3 27.8 78.3 23.7 12.2 12.9 10.0 10.0 11.9 27.5 0.7
43 504 Has access 11.7 10.0 19.5 9.2 5.6 3.5 5.2 20.8 6.2 6.2 13.2 16.1
No access 18.3 63.7 52.8 12.5 70.7 84.3 81.9 69.2 83.8 81.8 59.3 83.1
Decile 6 Owns 74.6 37.1 32.7 81.0 34.9 17.6 15.8 14.5 9.9 13.8 19.5 0.7
43 805 Has access 9.9 11.6 23.9 9.6 6.7 5.9 5.1 20.5 6.7 6.0 9.3 13.8
No access 15.5 51.3 43.5 9.3 58.4 76.6 79.0 65.0 83.4 80.2 71.1 85.5
Decile 7 Owns 73.2 43.4 31.1 84.1 42.0 25.2 13.5 17.6 9.1 12.6 19.7 1.3
43 729 Has access 11.4 11.6 31.2 7.6 7.5 6.0 5.6 21.2 6.1 5.2 9.0 13.3
No access 15.4 45.0 37.7 8.3 50.5 68.8 80.9 61.2 84.8 82.3 71.3 85.4
Decile 8 Owns 76.3 59.1 42.0 90.6 53.6 30.6 14.1 28.9 8.3 16.4 15.7 1.0
43 633 Has access 8.6 9.2 29.8 5.0 7.9 7.8 5.8 20.7 5.0 5.5 7.4 10.3
No access 15.1 31.7 28.2 4.4 38.5 61.6 80.1 50.4 86.7 78.1 76.9 88.7
Decile 9 Owns 78.0 68.1 44.5 94.7 67.3 41.2 15.0 40.1 6.0 17.8 13.7 2.5
43 516 Has access 7.3 8.4 37.2 3.5 7.1 6.2 4.2 18.6 4.7 5.4 3.5 8.6
No access 14.6 23.5 18.3 1.8 25.6 52.6 80.8 41.3 89.3 76.8 82.8 88.8
Decile 10 Owns 86.8 89.5 63.3 96.0 89.4 70.8 32.1 75.2 6.3 31.0 9.5 7.3
43 900 Has access 6.1 3.3 27.5 1.2 3.5 5.7 3.4 9.5 1.4 3.3 1.4 4.0
No access 7.1 7.2 9.1 2.8 7.1 23.5 64.5 15.3 92.2 65.8 89.1 88.7
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.1.7
Continued
NHIES 2009/2010Page 108
)
CHAPTER)8:)Ownership of and access to assets)
Figure 8.1.1 Percentage of households that own a radio by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994-
2009/20010
)
Figure 8.1.2
Percentage of households that own a telephone by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994 - 2009/20010
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
1993/4) 2003/4) 2009/10)
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
100)
1993/1994) 2003/2004) 2009/2010)
Urban)
Rural)
Namibia)
)
CHAPTER)8:)Ownership of and access to as ets)
Figure 8.1.1 Percentage of hous holds that wn a radio by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994-
2009/20010
)
Figure 8.1.2
Percentage of hous holds that wn a telephone by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994 - 200 /20010
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
1993/4) 200 9 10)
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
100)
1993/1994) 2003/2004) 2009/2010)
Urban)
Rural)
Namibia)
)
CHAPTER)8:)Ownership of and acce s to assets)
Figure 8.1.1 Percenta e of househ lds that wn a r dio by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994-
2009/20010
)
Figure 8.1.2
Percentage of househ lds that wn a t lephone by urb n/rural areas, 1993/1994 - 2009/20010
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
1993/4) 2003/4) 2009/10)
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
100)
1993/1994) 2003/2004) 2009/201 )
Urban)
Rural)
Namibia)
Figure 8.1.1 shows the proportion of households that own a radio. It has
increased slightly from 1993/1994. Over the period 1993/1994 to 2009/2010
the proportion of households that own a telephone has increased (Figure
8.1.2), while the proportion of households owning motor vehicles has
remained the same between the two periods. (Figure 8.1.3)
8. Ownership of Assets
)
CHAPTER)8:)Ownership of and access to assets)
Figure 8.1.1 Percentage of households that own a radio by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994-
2009/20010
)
Figure 8.1.2
Percentage of households that own a telephone by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994 - 2009/20010
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
1993/4) 2003/4) 2009/10)
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
100)
1993/1994) 2003/2004) 2009/2010)
Urban)
Rural)
Namibia)
Figure 8.1.1
Percentage of households that
own a radio by urban/rural
areas, 1993/1994 - 2009/2010
Figure 8.1.2
Percentage of households
that own a telephone by
urban/rural areas,
1993/1994 - 2009/2010
)
CHAPTER)8:)Ownership of and access to assets)
Figure 8.1.1 Percentage of households that own a radio by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994-
2009/20010
)
Figure 8.1.2
Percentage of households that own a telephone by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994 - 2009/20010
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
1993/4) 2003/4) 2009/10)
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
100)
1993/1994) 2003/2004) 2009/2010)
Urban)
Rural)
Namibia)
)
CHAPTER)8:)Ownership of and access to assets)
Figure 8.1.1 Percentage of households that own a radio by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994-
2009/20010
)
Figure 8.1.2
Percentage of households that own a telephone by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994 - 2009/20010
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
1993/4) 2003/4) 2009/10)
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
100)
1993/1994) 2003/2004) 2009/2010)
Urban)
Rural)
Namibia)
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 109
8.2 Ownership of/access to animals and land
Ownership of / access to animals and land is important as these are factors
of production and thus are crucial for household livelihood. This section
describes households ownership of or access to animals and land. The most
common animal is poultry with about 48 percent of households owning or
having access to poultry. The second and third common animals are cattle
and goats with 43 and 41 percent of households owning or having access.
More than half of the Namibian households owns or have access to grazing
land while 50 percent owns or have access to field for crops. Proportions of
households owning or having access to both animals and land are higher in
rural areas compared to urban areas.
Region
Ownership/
Access
Animals/Land, %
Urban/Rural Cattle Sheep Pig Goat Donkey/mule Horse Poultry Ostrich
Grazing
land
Field for
crops
Caprivi Owns 58.0 0.3 0.1 8.8 0.2 0.1 51.4 - 0.2 0.5
21 254 Has access 16.9 - - 1.3 0.1 0.1 1.0 - 75.4 81.1
No access 24.9 99.7 99.9 89.9 99.7 99.6 47.3 99.5 24.4 18.3
Erongo Owns 22.5 7.6 2.8 27.3 11.2 2.6 20.2 0.0 4.1 8.6
39 221 Has access 11.3 5.3 6.0 10.8 8.5 3.5 9.4 0.8 43.2 25.1
No access 65.9 86.7 91.0 61.9 80.2 93.8 70.0 98.2 52.6 66.1
Hardap Owns 12.8 16.0 0.8 23.3 14.2 18.1 22.0 1.2 9.9 2.6
15 894 Has access 4.5 3.6 0.0 2.5 0.9 1.9 1.2 0.6 24.4 1.5
No access 82.6 80.4 99.1 73.9 84.6 79.9 76.6 97.9 65.5 95.7
Karas Owns 21.5 15.4 1.9 31.4 14.4 12.6 21.0 1.4 6.6 2.7
21 299 Has access 1.7 0.4 0.0 3.1 1.6 3.3 0.3 0.1 36.4 3.3
No access 76.9 84.2 97.9 65.5 84.0 84.0 78.6 97.9 57.1 93.8
Kavango Owns 43.5 0.3 8.0 33.6 4.8 1.0 61.1 0.1 2.3 73.6
43 889 Has access 13.3 0.5 2.7 3.4 1.3 0.6 1.5 0.1 56.1 4.5
No access 43.2 98.9 89.2 62.9 93.7 98.3 37.3 98.3 41.4 21.6
Khomas Owns 24.9 5.9 4.2 23.8 8.4 4.8 17.2 0.3 8.1 11.3
83 562 Has access 1.6 0.2 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.8 - 26.1 5.0
No access 73.5 93.7 94.9 74.9 90.9 95.0 81.9 99.3 65.6 83.2
Kunene Owns 41.8 23.8 3.1 49.4 39.1 15.9 34.7 0.4 7.7 27.1
17 096 Has access 7.2 1.4 0.0 2.7 3.9 1.9 1.8 0.4 56.4 3.0
No access 51.0 74.2 96.0 47.1 57.0 82.2 63.5 98.3 35.9 69.0
Ohangwena Owns 54.5 0.5 25.2 69.3 23.9 0.7 86.0 - 11.0 28.8
38 997 Has access 11.1 0.1 0.4 3.7 6.3 0.5 0.6 - 81.5 64.0
No access 33.7 99.3 74.4 26.9 69.7 98.8 13.2 98.6 7.5 7.2
Omaheke Owns 45.7 18.5 0.4 39.0 28.4 30.4 38.1 0.9 9.3 20.5
15 159 Has access 12.5 1.6 0.2 4.6 6.4 7.3 1.7 0.2 57.6 5.5
No access 41.8 79.9 99.4 56.5 65.0 62.3 60.2 97.5 33.0 74.0
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.2.1
Households by ownership of/
access to animals/land, region
and urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010Page 110
Region
Ownership/
Access
Animals/Land, %
Urban/Rural Cattle Sheep Pig Goat
Donkey/
mule
Horse Poultry Ostrich
Grazing
land
Field for
crops
Omusati Owns 50.4 9.0 43.4 69.5 45.4 0.5 87.1 0.2 41.6 86.1
45 161 Has access 4.0 0.7 0.4 2.6 7.8 0.3 1.6 0.0 42.6 4.5
No access 45.7 90.1 56.0 27.9 46.8 99.0 11.2 98.6 15.8 9.1
Oshana Owns 33.1 4.6 21.0 43.1 11.7 0.3 61.2 0.2 12.5 64.2
35 087 Has access 5.1 2.1 1.9 3.1 2.9 1.3 1.5 0.1 42.5 5.3
No access 61.8 93.2 77.0 53.8 85.3 98.4 37.3 99.3 44.9 30.2
Oshikoto Owns 30.8 1.5 20.1 43.5 26.3 1.2 68.3 0.0 0.8 63.8
32 038 Has access 8.5 0.3 0.3 2.9 3.9 0.1 2.3 0.0 59.6 8.6
No access 60.7 98.2 79.6 53.6 69.5 98.6 29.4 98.8 39.5 27.6
Otjozondjupa Owns 27.0 10.8 0.6 25.5 11.8 10.4 18.3 0.1 8.0 5.0
28 135 Has access 4.0 1.4 0.2 2.2 1.0 2.1 2.0 0.4 30.9 5.7
No access 69.0 87.8 99.2 72.3 87.2 87.5 79.4 99.1 61.0 88.4
Namibia Owns 35.4 6.9 12.1 38.1 17.3 5.1 46.0 0.3 10.3 34.0
436 795 Has access 7.1 1.2 1.3 3.3 3.5 1.3 2.0 0.2 46.5 15.7
No access 57.3 91.7 86.6 58.5 79.1 93.5 51.8 98.7 43.1 50.0
Urban Owns 24.5 5.9 3.6 23.7 7.9 3.4 18.8 0.2 6.1 12.0
188 981 Has access 3.8 1.2 1.9 3.1 2.2 0.7 2.8 0.1 30.3 10.6
No access 71.6 92.7 94.4 73.0 89.8 95.9 78.2 99.2 63.6 77.1
Rural Owns 43.7 7.7 18.5 49.1 24.4 6.4 66.8 0.3 13.6 50.8
247 813 Has access 9.7 1.2 0.8 3.4 4.4 1.7 1.5 0.2 58.9 19.7
No access 46.4 91.0 80.6 47.3 71.0 91.8 31.7 98.3 27.5 29.3
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.2.1
Continued
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 111
Table 8.2.2 shows that ownership of animals except pigs and poultry were
reported by a higher proportion of male headed households than female
headed households and the same holds for land.
Urban/Rural
Ownership/
Access
Animals/Land, %
Sex of Head Cattle Sheep Pig Goat
Donkey/
mule
Horse Poultry Ostrich
Grazing
land
Field for
crops
Urban
Female Owns 18.8 4.2 3.1 17.2 6.1 2.2 17.3 0.1 4.7 8.8
74 316 Has access 3.6 0.9 1.3 2.5 1.8 0.5 2.1 - 24.2 10.9
No access 77.6 94.8 95.4 80.2 92.0 97.3 80.4 99.7 71.1 79.6
Male Owns 28.3 7.0 4.0 28.0 9.1 4.2 19.8 0.2 7.0 14.1
113 953 Has access 3.9 1.4 2.3 3.5 2.5 0.8 3.2 0.1 34.2 10.4
No access 67.7 91.4 93.7 68.4 88.3 94.9 76.8 98.9 58.7 75.5
Both Sexes Owns 24.5 5.9 3.6 23.7 7.9 3.4 18.8 0.2 6.1 12.0
188 981 Has access 3.8 1.2 1.9 3.1 2.2 0.7 2.8 0.1 30.3 10.6
No access 71.6 92.7 94.4 73.0 89.8 95.9 78.2 99.2 63.6 77.1
Rural
Female Owns 37.5 3.9 21.1 49.6 21.2 2.1 72.9 0.0 11.9 55.8
110 435 Has access 9.1 0.8 0.6 2.8 4.8 0.4 1.2 0.1 58.7 22.7
No access 53.5 95.2 78.2 47.5 73.7 97.4 25.8 98.7 29.4 21.2
Male Owns 48.9 10.8 16.4 48.6 27.0 10.0 61.5 0.6 14.8 46.3
135 378 Has access 10.3 1.5 0.9 4.0 4.1 2.8 1.7 0.4 58.9 17.3
No access 40.7 87.6 82.6 47.3 68.8 87.0 36.7 98.0 26.2 36.2
Both Sexes Owns 43.7 7.7 18.5 49.1 24.4 6.4 66.8 0.3 13.6 50.8
247 813 Has access 9.7 1.2 0.8 3.4 4.4 1.7 1.5 0.2 58.9 19.7
No access 46.4 91.0 80.6 47.3 71.0 91.8 31.7 98.3 27.5 29.3
Namibia
Female Owns 30.0 4.0 13.8 36.6 15.2 2.1 50.5 0.1 9.0 36.9
184 752 Has access 6.9 0.8 0.9 2.7 3.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 44.8 17.9
No access 63.2 95.0 85.1 60.6 81.1 97.4 47.8 99.1 46.1 44.7
Male Owns 39.5 9.1 10.7 39.2 18.8 7.4 42.5 0.4 11.3 31.6
249 331 Has access 7.4 1.4 1.5 3.8 3.4 1.9 2.4 0.3 47.6 14.1
No access 53.0 89.3 87.7 56.9 77.7 90.6 55.0 98.4 41.1 54.1
Not stated Owns 35.7 5.3 13.4 47.7 20.7 0.0 67.8 0.0 15.9 57.5
2 712 Has access 7.3 1.7 1.0 2.0 5.2 1.0 2.0 0.0 62.5 14.2
No access 52.0 92.9 85.6 50.3 74.1 99.0 30.2 100 21.6 25.7
Both Sexes Owns 35.4 6.9 12.1 38.1 17.3 5.1 46.0 0.3 10.3 34.0
436 795 Has access 7.1 1.2 1.3 3.3 3.5 1.3 2.0 0.2 46.5 15.7
No access 57.3 91.7 86.6 58.5 79.1 93.5 51.8 98.7 43.1 50.0
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.2.2
Households by ownership of/
access to animals/land urban/
rural areas and sex of head of
household
NHIES 2009/2010Page 112
There are disparities in ownership of and access to animals and land across
main language spoken in the households (Table 8.2.3). Ownership of/ access
to cattle is common among Caprivi and Otjiherero speaking households
(75 and 59 percent). The majority of Oshiwambo and Rukavango speaking
households reported that they own or have access to land for grazing (68 and
54 percent) and field for crops (70 percent respectively). Ownership of/access
to goats is common among Otjiherero and Oshiwambo speaking households
(56 and 50 percent).
Main language
spoken
Ownership/
Access
Animals/Land, %
Cattle Sheep Pig Goat Donkey/mule Horse Poultry Ostrich
Grazing
land
Field for
crops
Khoisan Owns 15.1 6.2 0.0 11.2 7.3 10.4 21.8 0.3 2.3 11.7
5 954 Has access 11.8 1.6 0.0 4.0 3.4 2.0 0.7 0.4 38.1 18.6
No access 73.0 92.2 100 84.8 89.3 87.6 77.5 98.5 59.6 69.7
Caprivi Owns 58.7 0.5 0.0 9.0 0.3 0.1 47.4 0.0 1.6 3.5
21 537 Has access 16.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 73.7 73.5
No access 24.8 99.5 100 89.9 99.6 99.8 51.1 99.5 24.7 23.0
Otjiherero Owns 51.9 21.7 1.4 47.0 28.7 22.3 25.5 0.0 12.1 17.7
39 748 Has access 6.8 1.8 0.0 3.4 3.7 3.9 2.3 0.6 54.7 7.6
No access 41.3 76.1 98.2 49.3 67.6 73.7 72.1 98.6 33.2 73.6
Rukavango Owns 39.6 0.3 6.7 30.2 4.4 1.3 54.8 0.1 2.9 62.3
51 011 Has access 12.7 0.8 2.4 3.3 1.2 1.1 1.5 0.2 51.2 7.2
No access 47.7 98.7 90.9 66.4 94.2 97.4 43.6 98.3 45.7 30.1
Nama/Damara Owns 15.2 10.5 0.6 25.0 18.4 11.9 25.4 0.1 4.1 3.2
54 323 Has access 4.3 1.9 0.1 3.3 2.4 2.5 1.5 0.3 36.3 7.1
No access 80.4 87.4 99.1 71.6 79.1 85.6 73.1 99.3 59.5 89.1
Oshiwambo Owns 40.9 4.1 23.4 52.2 23.7 0.6 63.8 0.1 15.4 50.6
204 305 Has access 7.0 1.2 2.0 4.2 5.4 0.7 2.8 0.0 52.6 19.4
No access 51.9 94.5 74.5 43.4 70.7 98.6 33.3 98.8 32.0 29.9
Setswana Owns 38.6 16.2 0.0 43.8 29.2 27.9 40.7 4.8 16.2 14.9
1 299 Has access 1.6 1.6 0.0 3.3 6.5 5.1 0.0 0.0 40.5 3.5
No access 59.8 82.2 100 52.9 64.3 67.0 59.3 95.2 43.3 81.6
Afrikaans Owns 14.7 15.2 0.7 18.7 5.1 8.6 13.0 1.4 8.7 4.5
40 660 Has access 1.7 1.0 0.1 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.3 18.4 2.1
No access 83.5 83.8 99.1 80.4 93.9 90.2 86.1 98.0 72.9 93.1
German Owns 9.5 4.1 0.4 1.3 3.5 7.1 7.4 1.7 6.3 2.2
3 549 Has access 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.8 7.4 1.2
No access 87.1 95.9 99.6 98.7 95.7 91.9 92.6 97.4 86.3 96.6
English Owns 13.5 1.8 1.0 10.4 1.8 2.4 7.6 1.7 5.7 4.3
8 946 Has access 1.4 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 13.3 4.7
No access 85.1 97.7 99.0 88.2 98.2 97.6 92.0 98.3 81.0 91.0
Other Owns 8.2 1.9 2.2 6.5 0.8 0.8 9.7 0.3 2.7 7.8
4 478 Has access 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.0 2.9
No access 91.0 98.1 97.8 93.5 99.2 99.2 99.2 89.8 99.3 91.3
Namibia Owns 35.4 6.9 12.1 38.1 17.3 5.1 46.0 0.3 10.3 34.0
436 795 Has access 7.1 1.2 1.3 3.3 3.5 1.3 2.0 0.2 46.5 15.7
No access 57.3 91.7 86.6 58.5 79.1 93.5 51.8 98.7 43.1 50.0
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.2.3
Households by ownership of/
access to animals/land and
main language spoken in the
household
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 113
Table 8.2.4 shows that a higher percentage of households with relatives own
animals compared to other types of household composition. Furthermore,
ownership of animals is more common among households with orphans than
those without orphans.
Household
composition
Ownership/
Access
Animals/Land, %
Cattle Sheep Pig Goat
Donkey/
mule
Horse Poultry Ostrich
Grazing
land
Field for
crops
Only head
or head and
spouse
Owns 23.3 6.7 3.1 22.7 9.5 5.2 22.7 0.4 5.6 14.3
80 707 Has access 7.2 1.5 1.4 4.6 3.7 2.5 3.3 0.4 35.6 12.8
No access 69.4 91.6 95.4 72.8 86.8 92.2 73.8 98.2 58.7 72.7
With 1 child,
no relatives-/
non-relatives
Owns 26.5 6.1 6.7 27.8 10.0 5.8 35.3 0.7 8.7 23.6
31 977 Has access 7.1 0.7 0.9 2.2 2.2 1.1 0.7 0.1 37.0 12.2
No access 66.3 93.2 92.2 69.9 87.6 92.7 63.8 98.8 54.4 64.0
With 2+
children, no
relatives-/
non-relatives
Owns 28.7 7.3 7.6 29.7 13.0 5.1 39.8 0.3 7.5 32.3
65 351 Has access 8.1 0.8 0.6 1.6 2.7 0.8 1.0 0.1 43.6 13.3
No access 63.1 91.6 91.8 68.7 84.2 94.0 59.0 98.5 48.8 54.1
With relatives Owns 42.6 6.5 17.6 47.1 22.4 4.8 57.7 0.1 13.0 43.5
239 717 Has access 6.5 1.1 1.2 3.1 3.5 1.0 1.7 0.1 51.9 17.4
No access 50.9 92.1 81.1 49.7 74.0 94.2 40.5 98.9 35.0 38.7
With non-
relatives
Owns 35.3 12.3 4.9 37.7 13.6 7.1 37.2 0.4 9.7 21.0
19 044 Has access 12.5 2.5 4.1 8.3 6.3 1.7 7.1 0.1 50.7 20.5
No access 51.5 85.2 90.8 54.0 79.6 91.2 55.6 98.9 39.6 58.0
Namibia Owns 35.4 6.9 12.1 38.1 17.3 5.1 46.0 0.3 10.3 34.0
436 795 Has access 7.1 1.2 1.3 3.3 3.5 1.3 2.0 0.2 46.5 15.7
No access 57.3 91.7 86.6 58.5 79.1 93.5 51.8 98.7 43.1 50.0
Households
without
Orphans
Owns 32.8 7.4 9.6 34.0 15.7 5.8 40.1 0.3 9.4 29.3
337 985 Has access 7.0 1.3 1.4 3.6 3.4 1.5 2.3 0.2 43.6 14.1
No access 60.1 91.1 88.9 62.3 80.9 92.6 57.5 98.8 46.8 56.3
Household
with Orphans
Owns 44.3 5.1 20.4 52.2 22.9 2.7 66.4 0.1 13.5 50.2
98 809 Has access 7.7 0.9 0.6 2.3 3.7 0.5 1.2 0.1 56.3 21.4
No access 47.8 93.9 78.7 45.3 73.2 96.7 32.2 98.4 30.2 28.3
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.2.4
Household by ownership
of/access to animals/land,
household composition and
orphan hood
NHIES 2009/2010Page 114
There seems to be no relationship between ownership of/ access to animals
and land and the educational level of the head of household (Table 8.2.5). A
higher proportion of households, where the head has no formal education
or only primary level completed own more animals and have access to land
both for grazing and crops and cattle compared to households where the
head has attained a higher education level.
Educational
attainment of
Head
Ownership/
Access
Animals/Land, %
Cattle Sheep Pig Goat
Donkey/
mule
Horse Poultry Ostrich
Grazing
land
Field for
crops
No formal
education
Owns 39.3 6.6 14.0 41.9 22.2 5.7 61.3 0.0 11.7 45.4
848 Has access 10.6 1.0 0.5 3.1 3.9 1.6 1.2 0.1 53.3 19.7
No access 49.9 92.1 85.3 54.7 73.8 92.6 37.4 98.8 34.8 34.7
Primary Owns 37.9 5.9 17.1 45.4 23.1 4.9 55.4 0.1 11.7 44.8
121 783 Has access 9.6 1.4 1.8 4.1 4.2 1.4 2.5 0.2 52.7 16.4
No access 52.5 92.6 80.9 50.3 72.7 93.6 42.2 98.5 35.6 38.6
Secondary Owns 32.7 7.3 8.8 33.4 13.4 5.1 37.4 0.4 8.4 24.7
180 697 Has access 5.3 1.3 1.4 3.2 3.4 1.3 2.3 0.2 42.8 15.0
No access 61.9 91.3 89.7 63.3 83.1 93.6 60.1 98.9 48.7 59.9
Tertiary Owns 32.0 9.1 6.4 28.8 7.9 5.3 25.3 0.7 10.2 18.6
43 652 Has access 1.5 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.1 0.6 1.2 0.2 32.0 9.0
No access 66.4 90.5 92.9 70.1 90.6 94.1 73.4 98.2 57.8 71.8
Namibia Owns 35.4 6.9 12.0 38.0 17.3 5.2 45.8 0.2 10.1 33.7
436 795 Has access 7.1 1.2 1.2 3.3 3.5 1.3 2.0 0.2 46.5 15.7
No access 57.4 91.7 86.7 58.7 79.1 93.5 52.0 98.7 43.3 50.3
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.2.5
Household by ownership of/
access to animals/land and
highest level of educational
attainment of head of
household
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 115
A high proportion of households, where the main source of income is
commercial farming, own cattle and grazing land, 91 and 74 percent
respectively, compared to households, where the main source of income is
subsistence farming (Table 8.2.6).
Main source of
income
Ownership/
Access
Animals/Land, %
Cattle Sheep Pig Goat
Donkey/
mule
Horse Poultry Ostrich
Grazing
land
Field for
crops
Salaries and/or
wages
Owns 27.6 6.0 5.5 27.3 10.3 4.5 27.9 0.1 6.5 17.3
214 506 Has access 6.3 1.7 1.8 3.9 3.1 1.8 2.7 0.3 37.4 12.2
No access 66.1 92.2 92.6 68.7 86.4 93.7 69.3 99.1 56.0 70.2
Subsistence farming Owns 53.6 7.3 26.9 61.7 34.4 5.4 84.0 0.1 18.8 70.0
10 581 Has access 9.8 0.6 0.6 2.8 5.1 0.7 1.4 0.1 66.2 23.2
No access 36.4 92.0 72.3 35.5 60.3 93.8 14.6 98.2 14.8 6.5
Commercial farming Owns 90.9 74.7 6.6 69.2 34.4 67.1 64.2 13.7 74.2 36.7
2 524 Has access 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.9 22.7 0.6
No access 8.2 24.2 92.5 29.7 63.5 32.0 33.8 80.1 3.1 59.7
Business activities,
non-farming
Owns 30.5 7.6 9.8 29.9 8.7 3.1 35.2 0.9 8.7 24.1
35 270 Has access 5.5 0.7 1.2 2.8 2.8 1.5 1.6 0.1 41.0 16.3
No access 63.7 91.4 88.9 67.2 88.4 95.5 62.9 98.6 50.2 59.5
Pensions from
employment
Owns 32.2 15.4 6.9 33.7 11.7 7.7 33.1 0.0 12.7 19.8
5 048 Has access 2.3 0.0 0.6 2.2 2.9 1.3 0.4 0.0 36.7 12.8
No access 65.5 84.6 92.5 64.0 85.4 91.0 66.4 100 50.5 67.4
Cash remittances Owns 17.1 4.8 3.3 24.8 9.1 4.4 28.8 0.0 5.2 18.8
12 866 Has access 5.9 1.9 1.6 3.5 3.3 1.7 2.9 0.0 34.0 7.8
No access 77.0 93.3 94.8 71.4 87.6 93.9 68.4 99.5 60.9 73.4
Rental income Owns 17.4 2.5 2.6 19.6 1.9 3.5 17.1 1.0 6.6 11.7
2 120 Has access 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 2.8
No access 81.1 97.5 97.4 80.4 98.1 96.5 82.9 99.0 78.5 85.4
Interest from
savings/investments
Owns 6.8 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.4
1 180 Has access 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.9 0.0
No access 93.2 100 100 78.9 100 100 100 100 78.9 97.6
State old pension Owns 45.6 7.0 18.6 52.8 25.2 6.1 67.6 0.0 11.5 52.6
43 389 Has access 7.3 0.4 0.7 2.2 2.4 0.5 0.7 0.0 60.3 19.1
No access 46.9 92.1 80.7 45.0 72.3 93.4 31.7 98.6 28.1 28.1
War veterans/ex-
combatants grant
Owns 66.3 28.5 15.9 66.3 28.5 28.5 82.2 0.0 0.0 15.9
249 Has access 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.3 37.8
No access 33.7 71.5 84.1 33.7 71.5 71.5 17.8 71.5 33.7 46.3
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.2.6
Households by ownership of/
access to animals/land and
main source of income
NHIES 2009/2010Page 116
Main source
of income
Ownership/
Access
Animals/Land, %
Cattle Sheep Pig Goat
Donkey/
mule
Horse Poultry Ostrich
Grazing
land
Field for
crops
Disability
grants for
adults (over
16 yrs)
Owns 23.8 3.8 8.1 37.2 11.0 2.2 51.6 0.0 4.7 28.0
3 044 Has access 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 48.1 13.9
No access 69.2 96.2 91.9 62.8 81.8 97.8 47.4 100 47.1 58.1
State child
maintenance
grants
Owns 33.8 1.7 20.3 47.4 13.7 0.0 68.5 0.0 11.6 53.4
2 894 Has access 11.6 0.0 0.0 7.3 6.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 49.0 19.8
No access 54.6 98.3 79.7 45.3 80.0 100 30.4 97.3 39.4 26.8
State foster
care grant
Owns 56.2 0.0 16.4 34.2 12.0 2.8 66.3 0.0 9.2 35.1
805 Has access 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.5 28.5
No access 43.8 100 83.6 65.8 88.0 97.2 27.6 100 27.4 36.3
State special
maintenance
grants
(Disabled 16
yrs or less)
Owns 71.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
99 Has access 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.9 71.9
No access 28.1 100 100 100 100 100 71.9 100 28.1 28.1
Alimony
and similar
allowance
Owns 23.8 6.9 3.4 22.7 16.3 11.3 18.0 0.0 4.6 5.9
1 192 Has access 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.0 27.1 13.5
No access 76.2 91.2 96.6 75.5 81.8 86.9 80.2 100 68.2 80.5
Drought relief
assistance
Owns 6.2 0.6 2.6 12.4 2.2 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 25.3
2 041 Has access 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 22.8 16.1
No access 91.5 99.4 97.4 87.6 97.8 100 74.9 100 77.2 58.6
In kind
receipts
Owns 16.5 7.6 0.7 21.9 10.4 3.9 26.6 0.0 1.2 14.6
5 165 Has access 13.8 3.3 1.1 6.4 3.8 1.5 3.6 0.0 45.4 11.0
No access 69.6 89.1 98.2 70.4 85.8 94.6 69.8 99.2 53.4 71.0
Other Owns 27.0 3.9 1.4 21.0 10.0 6.9 39.4 0.0 2.5 25.0
3 322 Has access 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.7 30.4
No access 60.5 96.1 98.6 79.0 90.0 93.1 60.6 99.4 54.8 43.8
No income Owns 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 15.3 3.4 20.4 0.0 3.4 11.9
396 Has access 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0
No access 79.6 100 100 93.9 84.7 96.6 79.6 100 78.6 81.9
Namibia Owns 35.4 6.9 12.1 38.1 17.3 5.1 46.0 0.3 10.3 34.0
436 795 Has access 7.1 1.2 1.3 3.3 3.5 1.3 2.0 0.2 46.5 15.7
No access 57.3 91.7 86.6 58.5 79.1 93.5 51.8 98.7 43.1 50.0
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.2.6
Continued
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 117
Percentiles
Ownership/
Access
Animals/Land, %
Deciles Cattle Sheep Pig Goat
Donkey/
mule
Horse Poultry Ostrich
Grazing
land
Field for
crops
Percentiles
1-25 Owns 33.5 2.9 12.3 38.0 16.8 2.4 59.1 0.1 7.8 46.2
109 176 Has access 10.3 0.9 0.8 2.3 2.8 0.6 1.1 0.0 53.0 19.5
No access 56.2 96.0 86.8 59.6 80.4 96.9 39.6 98.7 39.1 34.0
26-50 Owns 38.0 5.4 15.9 43.3 22.1 4.3 56.7 0.1 12.0 44.0
109 035 Has access 7.3 1.1 1.2 3.4 4.4 1.1 1.7 0.0 52.2 17.4
No access 54.5 93.3 82.9 53.2 73.3 94.5 41.5 99.2 35.7 38.5
51-75 Owns 37.0 7.7 13.1 39.4 18.3 5.7 41.6 0.1 10.7 28.8
109 229 Has access 7.2 1.6 1.9 5.0 4.4 1.8 3.2 0.3 45.9 15.9
No access 55.8 90.5 84.8 55.4 77.2 92.4 55.1 98.6 43.3 54.9
76-90 Owns 37.1 9.6 8.5 35.4 15.2 7.6 32.0 0.1 9.3 20.1
65 454 Has access 5.0 1.7 1.4 3.4 3.4 2.3 2.5 0.3 42.4 12.7
No access 57.8 88.7 89.8 61.1 81.2 90.0 65.4 99.0 48.3 66.6
91-95 Owns 29.0 12.8 5.6 30.6 7.9 5.6 20.1 0.7 10.1 15.1
22 037 Has access 3.0 0.6 0.8 2.0 1.0 .5 2.6 0.1 30.6 9.3
No access 67.4 86.1 93.4 67.4 91.0 93.9 76.8 98.9 59.3 75.6
96-98 Owns 24.8 14.5 3.4 22.1 4.8 10.4 18.6 1.0 12.8 10.5
13 062 Has access 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.0 19.3 2.9
No access 74.6 85.2 96.2 77.2 94.5 89.0 80.6 98.4 67.9 86.1
99-100 Owns 28.3 19.4 2.6 22.5 8.2 13.1 16.8 6.1 21.2 9.6
8 801 Has access 1.4 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.8 13.3 3.1
No access 70.3 80.6 96.8 76.9 91.5 86.0 83.2 92.6 65.5 87.3
Total Owns 35.4 6.9 12.1 38.1 17.3 5.1 46.0 0.3 10.3 34.0
436 795 Has access 7.1 1.2 1.3 3.3 3.5 1.3 2.0 0.2 46.5 15.7
No access 57.3 91.7 86.6 58.5 79.1 93.5 51.8 98.7 43.1 50.0
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.2.7
Households by ownership of/
access to animals/land and
percentile group/deciles after
adjusted per capita income
NHIES 2009/2010Page 118
Percentiles
Ownership/
Access
Animals/Land, %
Deciles Cattle Sheep Pig Goat
Donkey/
mule
Horse Poultry Ostrich
Grazing
land
Field for
crops
Deciles
Decile 1 Owns 28.1 2.6 8.3 34.1 13.9 2.5 56.8 0.0 5.4 43.3
43 670 Has access 13.1 1.1 1.3 2.9 2.2 1.1 0.8 0.0 52.7 21.5
No access 58.9 96.0 90.4 63.0 83.9 96.4 41.8 98.7 41.7 34.8
Decile 2 Owns 37.4 3.0 14.7 39.6 18.3 2.5 60.2 0.1 8.8 47.9
43 675 Has access 7.6 0.6 0.2 1.5 2.9 0.3 0.9 0.1 53.3 19.0
No access 54.8 96.2 85.1 58.6 78.8 96.9 38.9 98.8 37.8 32.9
Decile 3 Owns 38.1 3.5 16.4 44.7 22.0 3.9 62.3 0.1 10.4 47.3
43 688 Has access 9.7 1.0 1.0 2.3 4.2 0.8 2.1 0.1 55.7 19.5
No access 51.9 95.5 82.6 53.0 73.6 95.4 35.5 99.0 33.9 33.0
Decile 4 Owns 37.6 5.7 16.3 42.4 20.3 4.3 56.1 0.0 11.9 44.4
43 675 Has access 7.6 1.7 1.6 3.3 4.3 1.4 2.2 0.1 50.4 15.8
No access 54.6 92.5 82.1 54.2 75.3 94.3 41.6 99.4 37.7 39.6
Decile 5 Owns 37.4 6.0 15.0 42.5 22.8 3.7 54.0 0.2 13.0 42.3
43 504 Has access 5.9 0.7 1.0 4.2 4.5 0.7 1.0 0.0 50.8 16.4
No access 56.7 93.2 83.9 53.2 72.7 95.6 45.0 98.6 35.9 41.1
Decile 6 Owns 35.2 6.5 14.2 39.1 18.9 6.0 44.1 0.2 10.4 29.8
43 805 Has access 7.2 0.7 1.5 5.0 4.2 1.1 2.7 0.1 45.6 16.1
No access 57.6 92.6 84.0 55.9 76.9 92.7 53.2 98.4 43.9 53.7
Decile 7 Owns 36.7 7.7 12.2 38.0 19.1 5.2 40.5 0.0 9.6 27.9
43 729 Has access 7.3 2.2 1.5 5.2 5.3 2.5 3.6 0.3 46.8 16.1
No access 55.9 89.9 86.2 56.6 75.6 92.3 55.9 98.8 43.7 55.4
Decile 8 Owns 38.9 10.3 12.1 41.4 17.1 7.0 37.4 0.1 11.4 25.3
43 633 Has access 6.5 1.9 2.6 4.2 4.2 2.0 3.5 0.4 44.5 15.2
No access 54.5 87.7 84.8 54.2 78.3 90.9 59.0 98.7 44.0 58.9
Decile 9 Owns 37.3 9.1 6.9 33.2 13.4 7.6 30.0 0.1 9.4 19.0
43 516 Has access 4.6 1.7 1.1 3.2 2.5 2.3 2.1 0.4 41.5 11.3
No access 58.2 89.2 91.9 63.6 84.1 90.0 67.9 99.1 49.1 69.1
Decile 10 Owns 27.6 14.6 4.3 26.5 7.1 8.5 19.0 1.9 13.1 12.6
43 900 Has access 2.0 0.4 0.6 1.3 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.2 23.7 6.1
No access 70.1 84.7 94.9 72.2 92.1 90.8 79.2 97.5 63.1 81.1
8. Ownership of Assets
Table 8.2.7
Continued
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 119
Figure 8.2.1
Percentage of households
that own cattle by urban/rural
areas, 1993/1994 - 2009/2010
Figure 8.2.2
Percentage of households that
own poultry by urban/rural
areas, 1993/1994 - 2009/2010
The proportion of households that own cattle has declined slightly from
37 percent in 1993/1994 to 35 percent in 2009/2010 (Figure 8.2.1). The
percentage of households that own poultry also show a decline from 61 to
46 percent over the same period (Figure 8.2.2).
8. Ownership of Assets
Figure 8.1.3
Percentage of households that own a motor vehicle by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994 -
2009/20010
Figure 8.2.1
Percentage of households that own cattle by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994-2009/2010
0)
5)
10)
15)
20)
25)
30)
35)
40)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
1993/4) 2003/4) 2009/10)
0)
5)
10)
15)
20)
25)
30)
35)
40)
45)
50)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
1993/4)
2003/4)
2009/10)
Figure 8.2.2
Percentage of households that own poultry by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994-2009/2010
Figure 8.2.3
Percentage of households that own field for crops by urban/rural areas, 1993/1994-2009/2010
)
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
70)
80)
90)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
1993/4)
2003/4)
2009/10)
0)
10)
20)
30)
40)
50)
60)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
1993/4)
2003/4)
2009/10)
NHIES 2009/2010Page 120
9. Annual Consumption and Income
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 121
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive picture of the living standard of households as expressed in patterns of consumption and income. The results show that over the last 5 years
the levels of consumption and income has increased. There are differences in
terms of rural/urban, sex of the head of households, language, educational
attainment and sources of income.
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Definitions of consumption and income
Household consumption
Consumption in this report is composed of annualised daily transactions
that households recorded in the Daily Record Book in addition to the
annual expenditures reported by households. Consumption thus includes
items consumed frequently by the household member such as food and
beverages. But consumption also includes expenditures that are incurred
less frequently, for instance clothing, furniture and electrical appliances, as
well as an imputed rent for free occupied or owner occupied dwellings.
Household income
Household income is computed as the sum of total consumption and
non-consumption expenditures such as for livestock, motor vehicle
license, house and land. Savings are not included in computed household
income.
NHIES 2009/2010Page 122
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Definitions of percentiles and deciles
In this report adjusted per capita income (APCI) is used to classify
households into percentile groups. The households were ranked from the
lowest APCI to the highest. Percentiles are frequently used to illustrate
the skewness of income distribution in a population. The households
were divided into 100 equally sized groups defined by APCI. The first (1st)
percentile includes the 1 percent of the households with the lowest APCI.
The 2nd percentile includes the 1 percent of households having the lowest
APCI after exclusion of the first percentile. The 3rd percentile includes the
1 percent of the households having the lowest APCI after exclusion of the
1st and 2nd percentiles, etc. The 100th percentile includes the 1 percent
of the households having the highest APCI. In this report the percentiles
are aggregated into groups as follows:
Groups of percentiles
A: APCI = 1-25
This group includes the 25 percent of the households having lowest
APCI
B: APCI = 26-50
This group includes the 25 percent of the households, which have a
higher APCI than A
C: APCI = 51-75
This group includes the 25 percent of the households, which have a
higher APCI than A and B
D: APCI = 76-90
This group includes the 15 percent of the households, which have a
higher APCI than A to C
E: APCI = 91-95
This group includes the 5 percent of the households, which have a
higher APCI than A to D
F: APCI = 96-98
This group includes the 3 percent of the households, which have a
higher APCI than A to E
G: APCI = 99-100
This group includes the 2 percent of the households having the highest
APCI. The number of households in equally sized groups is not quite
identical due to the applied sample weights and rounding.
The deciles include 10 percentiles in each group, which means 10 percent.
The first decile includes the 10 percent households with the lowest APCI
and the decile number 10 includes the 10 percent households with the
highest APCI. In the tables the deciles are numbered from 1 to 10.
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 123
9.1 Annual consumption
Annual consumption in this report is described using the total household
consumption, average household consumption and the consumption per
capita indicators in Namibia Dollars (N$).
The total annual household consumption is estimated at N$ 28 544 million
or almost N$ 29 billion. The average annual household consumption is N$ 65
348 while per capita consumption is estimated at N$ 13 813. There are great
disparities between rural and urban areas with the urban areas accounting
for close to two times that of the rural households consumption.
The highest per capita consumption is found in the Khomas region followed
by Erongo and the lowest is observed in Kavango, Oshikoto and Caprivi with
half of the national average of consumption per capita.
Regions
House-
holds
Popula-
tion Average
house-
hold size
Total con-
sumption
Average
household
consump-
tion
Con-
sump-
tion per
capita
% %
Million
N$
% N$ N$
Caprivi 4.9 4.9 4.7 673 2.4 31 660 6 709
Erongo 9.0 6.7 3.5 3 136 11.0 79 960 22 702
Hardap 3.6 3.3 4.2 998 3.5 62 767 14 791
Karas 4.9 3.8 3.7 1 388 4.9 65 176 17 828
Kavango 10.0 13.7 6.5 1 567 5.5 35 703 5 521
Khomas 19.1 16.5 4.1 10 597 37.1 126 811 31 173
Kunene 3.9 3.6 4.4 759 2.7 44 416 10 175
Ohangwena 8.9 11.5 6.1 1 739 6.1 44 584 7 295
Omaheke 3.5 3.0 4.1 786 2.8 51 823 12 491
Omusati 10.3 11.4 5.2 2 091 7.3 46 294 8 881
Oshana 8.0 8.3 4.9 2 212 7.7 63 045 12 938
Oshikoto 7.3 7.8 5.0 1 082 3.8 33 770 6 693
Otjozondjupa 6.4 5.6 4.1 1 517 5.3 53 922 13 194
Namibia 100 100 4.7 28 544 100 65 348 13 813
Urban 43.3 37.9 4.1 18 485 64.8 97 816 23 592
Rural 56.7 62.1 5.2 10 058 35.2 40 589 7 841
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.1.1
Annual consumption by region
and urban/rural areas
N$ 31 173
The annual per capita
consumption in the Khomas
region, the highest in Namibia.
In Kavango the per capita
assumption is only N$ 5 521
NHIES 2009/2010Page 124
Figure 9.1.1 shows the share of the households and their contribution to the
total consumption for each of the regions. The households in Khomas region
contribute to a much larger extent to the total consumption compared to all
other regions.
9. Annual Consumption and Income
CHAPTER 9: Annual consumption and income
Figure 9.1.1
Annual household consumption by region
)
)
Figure 9.1.5
Annual household consumption by highest level of educational attainment of head of
household
)
.0) 5.0) 10.0) 15.0) 20.0) 25.0) 30.0) 35.0) 40.0)
Caprivi)
Kunene)
Omaheke)
Hardap)
Oshikoto)
Karas)
Otjozondjupa)
Kavango)
Ohangwena)
OmusaN)
Oshana)
Erongo)
Khomas)
ConsumpNon)
Households))
0) 5) 10) 15) 20) 25) 30) 35) 40) 45)
No)?ormal)educaNon)
Primary)
Secondary)
YerNary)
Not)stated)
e
d
u
ca
N
o
n
a
l)a
^
a
in
m
e
n
t)
o
?)
h
e
a
d
)
consumpNon)
Households)
Figure 9.1.1
Annual household
consumption by region
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 125
Table 9.1.2 shows the distribution of annual consumption between male
and female headed households. Male headed households are just over half
(57 percent) of households but account for 70 percent of total household
consumption.
There is a high proportion of male headed households in urban areas with
a corresponding high proportion of total consumption. The same disparities
between female and male headed households are also observed in rural
areas.
Urban/Rural
House-
holds
Popula-
tion Average
household
size
Total con-
sumption
Average
household
consump-
tion
Consump-
tion per
capita
Sex of Head % %
Million
N$
% N$ N$
Urban
Female 39.3 40.0 4.2 5 006 27.1 67 362 15 986
Male 60.3 59.7 4.1 13 423 72.6 117 794 28 695
Both sexes 100 100 4.1 18 485 100 97 816 23 592
Rural
Female 44.6 46.3 5.4 3 580 35.6 32 417 6 024
Male 54.6 53.3 5.0 6 420 63.8 47 425 9 394
Both sexes 100 100 5.2 10 058 100 40 589 7 841
Namibia
Female 42.3 43.9 4.9 8 586 30.1 46 474 9 462
Male 57.1 55.7 4.6 19 843 69.5 79 586 17 237
Both sexes 100 100 4.7 28 544 100 65 348 13 813
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.1.2
Annual consumption by urban/
rural areas and sex of head of
household
70%
The percentage of total
consumption that goes to male
headed households
NHIES 2009/2010Page 126
There is very high variation in the household consumption depending on
the main language spoken in household (table 9.1.3). Households with
Oshiwambo as the main language represent 48 percent of the population
and accounts for 37 percent of total consumption. Rukavango speaking
households are the second highest in terms of population with 15 percent
but accounts only 6 percent of total consumption while households where
Afrikaans is the main language represent 7 percent of the population but
accounts for almost a quarter of total consumption. Per capita consumption
in households where Rukavango and Khoisan are the main language spoken
are the lowest with N$ 5 620 and N$ 6 392 respectively, which are roughly
half of the national average. Households where the main language spoken is
German, English and Afrikaans reported the highest consumption per capita,
N$ 144 911, N$ 69 622 and N$ 45 509, respectively. In German speaking
households the consumption per capita is about 26 times higher than that
of Rukavango speaking households and about 14 times higher than the
Oshiwambo speaking households.
Main language
spoken
House-
holds
Popula-
tion Average
house-
hold size
Total con-
sumption
Average
household
consump-
tion
Con-
sump-
tion per
capita
% %
Million
N$
% N$ N$
Khoisan 1.4 1.3 4.7 177 0.6 29 805 6 392
Caprivi
languages
4.9 4.8 4.6 840 2.9 39 010 8 416
Otjiherero 9.1 8.4 4.3 2 131 7.5 53 619 12 331
Rukavango 11.7 15.0 6.1 1 744 6.1 34 193 5 620
Nama/Damara 12.4 11.8 4.5 2 184 7.7 40 211 8 924
Oshiwambo 46.8 48.3 4.9 10 589 37.1 51 828 10 609
Setswana 0.3 0.2 3.7 103 0.4 79 547 21 476
Afrikaans 9.3 7.2 3.7 6 770 23.7 166 514 45 509
German 0.8 0.4 2.5 1 307 4.6 368 277 144 911
English 2.0 1.4 3.3 2 027 7.1 226 638 69 622
Other European 0.5 0.5 4.2 345 1.2 145 908 34 667
Other African 0.4 0.3 3.3 154 0.5 80 731 24 302
Others - - 2.6 36 0.1 170 957 65 233
Total 100 100 4.7 28 544 100 65 348 13 813
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.1.3
Annual consumption by main
language spoken in household
26 times
The number of times the per
capita consumption in German
speaking households is higher
than in Rukavango speaking
households
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 127
Household composition matters as far as consumption is concerned. In
Namibia, 55 percent of households live with their relatives, Table 9.1.4. This
type of households accounts for 51 percent of total household consumption.
Households with more than two children but no relatives represents 15
percent of the total households and accounts for 18 percent of total household
consumption, while those with neither children nor relatives represent 18
percent and accounts for 17 percent of total household consumption.
Households with orphans account for a lower share of the population and
have a bigger household size of 7.1 compared to households without orphans.
Average household consumption of these households is N$52 005 which is
below the national average.
Household
composition
House-
holds
Popula-
tion Average
house-
hold size
Total con-
sumption
Average
household
consump-
tion
Con-
sump-
tion per
capita
% %
Million
N$
% N$ N$
Household
composition
with head or head
and spouse
18.5 4.9 1.3 4 878 17.1 60 438 47 783
with 1 child, no
relatives
7.3 4.0 2.6 2 283 8.0 71 392 27 525
with 2+ children,
no relatives
15.0 15.0 4.7 5 233 18.3 80 072 16 877
with relatives 54.9 72.7 6.3 14 685 51.4 61 260 9 779
with non-relatives 4.4 3.4 3.7 1 465 5.1 76 940 21 065
Total 100 100 4.7 28 544 100 65 348 13 813
Orphan hood
Households
without orphans
77.4 66.1 4.0 23 405 82.0 69 249 17 127
Households with
orphans
22.6 33.9 7.1 5 139 18.0 52 005 7 343
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.1.4
Annual consumption by
household composition and
orphan hood
7 persons
The average size of households
with orphans. The average size
of households without orphans
is only 4
51.4%
The percentage of total
consumption that goes to
households with extended
families
NHIES 2009/2010Page 128
About 41 percent of households in Namibia are headed by persons with
secondary educational attainment and accounts for 43 percent of total
household consumption. Households headed by persons with tertiary
education represent only 10 percent of households but accounts for 31
percent of total household consumption. Households where the head has no
formal education represent 19 percent of total households and accounts for
only 8 percent of total household consumption.
There is a strong relationship between the educational attainment of the head
of household and the average household consumption and consumption
per capita (table 9.1.5). As the level of educational attainment rises from
no formal education to tertiary both average household consumption and
consumption per capita also increases. The average household consumption
for the households having a head with no formal education is N$ 27 459,
which is about 7 times lower than in households having a head with tertiary
education. Similarly, the consumption per capita for the households having
a head with no formal education is N$ 4 864, which is about 10 times lower
than in households having a head with tertiary education.
Average household size follows the reverse trend. The households having a
head with no formal education has the highest average household size of 5.6
and it decreases as the level of education increases.
Educational
attaiment
of head of
household
House-
holds
Popu-
lation
Aver-
age
house-
hold
size
Total con-
sumption
Average
household
consump-
tion
Con-
sump-
tion per
capita
% %
Million
N$
% N$ N$
No formal
education
18.6 22.2 5.6 2 235 7.8 27 459 4 864
Primary 27.9 30.5 5.2 4 676 16.4 38 399 7 426
Secondary 41.4 36.9 4.2 12 132 42.5 67 140 15 929
Tertiary 10.0 8.5 4.0 8 781 30.8 201 158 50 110
Not stated 2.1 2.0 4.4 720 2.5 77 561 17 813
Total 100 100 4.7 28 544 100 65 348 13 813
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.1.5
Annual consumption by highest
level of educational attainment
of head of household
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 129
able 9.1.6 reveals that almost half of households in Namibia depend on
salaries/ wages as their main source of income and account for 61 percent of
total household consumption. The second highest main source of income is
subsistence farming (23 percent) which only accounts for 13 percent of total
household consumption.
Households that reported commercial farming as the main source of income
has the highest average household consumption and consumption per capita
of N$ 324 023 and N$ 98 133 respectively. The households where subsistence
farming is the main source of income has a low per capita consumption of
N$ 6 254. The population share from the commercial farming households
is lower (0.4 percent) and they also have a low average household size of
3.3, while the subsistence farming households account for 29 percent and 6
persons respectively
9. Annual Consumption and Income
CHAPTER 9: Annual consumption and income
Figure 9.1.1
Annual household consumption by region
)
)
Figure 9.1.5
Annual household consumption by highest level of educational attainment of head of
household
)
.0) 5.0) 10.0) 15.0) 20.0) 25.0) 30.0) 35.0) 40.0)
Caprivi)
Kunene)
Omaheke)
Hardap)
Oshikoto)
Karas)
Otjozondjupa)
Kavango)
Ohangwena)
OmusaN)
Oshana)
Erongo)
Khomas)
ConsumpNon)
Households))
0) 5) 10) 15) 20) 25) 30) 35) 40) 45)
No)?ormal)educaNon)
Primary)
Secondary)
YerNary)
Not)stated)
e
d
u
ca
N
o
n
a
l)a
^
a
in
m
e
n
t)
o
?)
h
e
a
d
)
consumpNon)
Households)
Figure 9.1.5
Annual household consumption
by highest level of education
attainment of head of
household
NHIES 2009/2010Page 130
Households who reported salaries and wages as their main source of income
has the highest population share of 42.8 percent and contributes around 60
percent to the total consumption with a consumption per capita of N$ 19
563.
Households whose main source of income is business activities (non-farming),
pensions from employment, rental income and interest from savings/
investments have a higher consumption per capita. The households who
reported any of the remaining categories as their main source of income has
low consumption per capita and are far below the national average of N$ 13
813. Among this group the highest population share (12 percent) is observed
for households with state old age pension as the main source of income but
they have a low consumption per capita of N$ 5 299.
Main source of income
House-
holds
Popu-
lation
Aver-
age
house-
hold
size
Total con-
sumption
Average
household
consump-
tion
Con-
sump-
tion per
capita
% %
Million
N$
% N$ N$
Salaries and/or wages 49.1 42.8 4.1 17 302 60.6 80 661 19 563
Subsistence farming 23.0 29.4 6.0 3 804 13.3 37 822 6 254
Commercial farming 0.6 0.4 3.3 818 2.9 324 023 98 133
Business activities, non-
farming
8.1 7.5 4.4 3 244 11.4 91 963 21 020
Pensions from
employment
1.2 1.0 3.9 587 2.1 116 208 29 586
Cash remittances 2.9 2.2 3.5 456 1.6 35 418 10 119
Rental income 0.5 0.4 3.8 225 0.8 106 366 28 209
Interest from savings/
investments
0.3 0.1 2.5 221 0.8 187 586 73 989
State old age pension 9.9 12.1 5.8 1 327 4.7 30 592 5 299
War veterans/ex-
combatants grant
0.1 0.1 6.4 10 - 41 843 6 567
Disability grants for
adults (over 16 yrs)
0.7 0.7 4.7 64 0.2 21 030 4 485
State child maintenance
grants
0.7 0.8 5.8 92 0.3 31 934 5 547
State foster care grant 0.2 0.3 6.7 29 0.1 35 496 5 271
State special
maintenance grants
(Disabled 16 yrs or less)
- - 2.7 2 - 17 645 6 489
Alimony and similar
allowance
0.3 0.2 3.9 45 0.2 37 604 9 712
Drought relief assistance 0.5 0.5 4.6 28 0.1 13 870 2 991
In kind receipts 1.2 0.8 3.1 106 0.4 20 485 6 507
Other 0.9 0.7 3.9 178 0.6 47813 12109
Total 100 100 4.7 28 544 100 65 348 13 813
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.1.6
Annual consumption by main
source of income
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 131
Households are classified into percentile groups and deciles based on the
adjusted per capita income (APCI). The first percentile group 1-25 includes
the 25 percent of households with the lowest APCI. The last group 99 100
includes the 2 percent households with the highest APCI. The deciles divide
the households into ten equal sized groups.
Both the percentile groups and the deciles in table 9.1.7 reveal the disparities
that prevail in the Namibian households with regard to distribution of
household consumption, which is much skewed. The 25 percent of the
households in the first percentile group 1-25 comprise on average 6 to 7
persons and they contribute about 8 percent to the total consumption. The
2 percent of the households in the last percentile group 99-100 has only on
average 2 to 3 persons in the household and their contribution to the total
consumption is 16 percent, which is more than twice as much even though
the population share of the first group is about 36 percent. The average
household consumption of the first percentile group is N$ 19 668 compared
to N$ 520 044 of the last group, which is about 26 times larger. Disparity
becomes even more evident when consumption per capita is considered. In
the first group it is N$ 2 917 compared to N$ 209 269 in the last group, which
is about 70 times higher.
Deciles also reveal a similar picture where the 10th decile has a per capita
consumption of N$ 96 626 compared to the N$ 2 060 in the first decile, which
is about 47 times higher.
Percentile
group
House-
holds
Popula-
tion Average
household
size
Total
consumption
Average
household
consumption
Consump-
tion per
capita
Deciles % %
Million
N$
% N$ N$
Percentile
1-25 25.0 35.6 6.7 2 147 7.5 19 668 2 917
26-50 25.0 26.7 5.1 3 334 11.7 30 573 6 039
51-75 25.0 21.1 4.0 5 279 18.5 48 326 12 094
76-90 15.0 10.6 3.3 5 835 20.4 89 154 26 741
91-95 5.0 3.2 3.0 3 702 13.0 167 970 55 516
96-98 3.0 1.7 2.7 3 671 12.9 281 009 104 531
99-100 2.0 1.1 2.5 4 577 16.0 520 044 209 269
Total 100 100 4.7 28 544 100 65 348 13 813
Decile
1 10 15.9 7.5 678 2.4 15 516 2 060
2 10 13.5 6.4 937 3.3 21 446 3 366
3 10 12.3 5.8 1 117 3.9 25 570 4 409
4 10 11.0 5.2 1 292 4.5 29 582 5 697
5 10 9.7 4.6 1 457 5.1 33 501 7 258
6 10 8.8 4.2 1 753 6.1 40 008 9 584
7 10 8.3 3.9 2 152 7.5 49 204 12 608
8 10 8.0 3.8 3 034 10.6 69 543 18 428
9 10 6.6 3.1 4 175 14.6 95 953 30 591
10 10 6.0 2.8 11 949 41.9 272 183 96 626
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.1.7
Annual consumption by
percentile group/decile after
adjusted per capita income
72 times
The number of times that
the richest 2% households
consumes more than the 25%
poorest households in Namibia
NHIES 2009/2010Page 132
9.2 Annual income
Household income is computed as the sum of total consumption and non-
consumption expenditures. Annual income in this report is described using
the total household income, average household income and income per
capita in Namibia Dollars (N$).
Total annual household income is estimated at N$ 30 085 million or N$ 30
billion.. The average annual household income is about N$ 68 878 and per
capita income is about N$ 14 559. The adjusted per capita income is estimated
at N$16 895. The urban areas account for a large share (65 percent) of the
total household income though it represents only 43 percent of households.
Disparities are also visible between regions. Khomas region which represents
19 percent of the households accounts for 38 percent of the total household
income followed by Erongo region with 11 percent.
Highest per capita income is found in the Khomas region followed by Erongo
and the lowest is observed in Kavango and Oshikoto. Kavango, Oshikoto and
Caprivi regions region have less than half of the national average per capita
income. Although Ohangwena and Omusati regions have a higher income per
capita than the above regions, they are still below the national average.
Region
House-
holds
Popu-
lation
Aver-
age
house-
hold
size
Total income
Average
house-
hold
income
Income
per
capita
Adjusted
per capita
income
% %
Million
N$
% N$ N$ N$
Caprivi 4.9 4.9 4.7 723 2.4 33 969 7 198 8 387
Erongo 9.0 6.7 3.5 3 333 11.1 84 989 24 130 27 079
Hardap 3.6 3.3 4.2 1 093 3.6 68 788 16 210 18 573
Karas 4.9 3.8 3.7 1 467 4.9 68 885 18 843 21 516
Kavango 10.0 13.7 6.5 1 613 5.4 36 740 5 682 6 766
Khomas 19.1 16.5 4.1 11 048 36.7 132 209 32 499 36 238
Kunene 3.9 3.6 4.4 817 2.7 47 772 10 944 12 807
Ohangwena 8.9 11.5 6.1 1 818 6.0 46 622 7 629 9 162
Omaheke 3.5 3.0 4.1 853 2.8 56 289 13 568 15 940
Omusati 10.3 11.4 5.2 2 216 7.4 49 076 9 414 11 034
Oshana 8.0 8.3 4.9 2 296 7.6 65 445 13 430 15 482
Oshikoto 7.3 7.8 5.0 1 117 3.7 34 880 6 912 8 163
Otjozondjupa 6.4 5.6 4.1 1 691 5.6 60 108 14 707 17 006
Namibia 100 100 4.7 30 085 100 68 878 14 559 16 895
Urban 43.3 37.9 4.1 19 456 64.7 102 952 24 830 28 020
Rural 56.7 62.1 5.2 10 629 35.3 42 893 8 286 9 785
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.2.1
Annual consumption income by
region and urban/rural areas
65%
The percentage of total
households income found in
urban areas. The highest per
capita income is in the Khomas
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 133
Figure 9.2.1
Annual household income by
region
The figure 9.2.1 clearly shows the share of households and the contribution
to the total income for each of the regions. The households in Khomas region
contribute with a much larger component to the total income compared to
all other regions and the income share is also much larger than the share of
households. Erongo is the only other region where the income share exceeds
the household share but to a lesser extent compared to Khomas region. Most
of the other regions have a larger share of households than contribution to
the total income, except for Karas and Hardap regions where the share of
both income and household is equal.
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Definition of adjusted per capita income
Per capita income is calculated as computed income divided by number of
persons in the household, giving each person a weight of 1 regardless of
age differences. In this case it is assumed that the consumption of every
member is the same. On the other hand adjusted per capita income (APCI)
is based on the assumption that consumption of children is less than that
of adults. Therefore, a child is given a smaller weight than an adult. Such
a scale, which defines the different weights for different ages, is known as
an adult equivalent scale. The adult equivalent scale used in this report is
given below.
If age <= 5 years then the weight = 0.5
If age is 6 - 15 years then the weight = 0.75
If age > 15 years then the weight = 1
Figure 9.2.1
Annual household income by region
)
)
Figure 9.2.2a
Annual adjusted per capita income (in N$) by urban/rural areas, over time
)
.0) 5.0) 10.0) 15.0) 20.0) 25.0) 30.0) 35.0) 40.0)
Caprivi)
Kunene)
Omaheke)
Hardap)
Oshikoto)
Karas)
Kavango)
Otjozondjupa)
Ohangwena)
OmusaN)
Oshana)
Erongo)
Khomas)
Total)Income) Households))
0)
5000)
10000)
15000)
20000)
25000)
30000)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
A
d
ju
st
e
d
)p
e
r)
ca
p
it
a
)i
n
co
m
e
)
1993/04)
2003/04)
2009/10)
NHIES 2009/2010Page 134
Table 9.2.2 highlights the differences between male headed and female
headed households. Total income of the male headed households in Namibia
is about 70 percent, which is roughly more than twice that of female headed
households. These differences are even higher in urban areas with 27 percent
for female headed households against 73 percent for the male headed
households. Average household income and the income per capita of the
female headed households are also lower than the male headed households,
N$ 48 663 and N$ 9 908 compared to N$ 84 141 and N$ 18 223 respectively.
Urban/rural
House-
holds
Popu-
lation
Aver-
age
house-
hold
size
Total income
Average
house-
hold
income
Income
per
capita
Adjusted
per capi-
ta income
Sex of head of
household
% %
Million
N$
% N$ N$ N$
Urban
Female 39.3 40.0 4.2 5 270 27.0 70 917 16 830 19 257
Male 60.3 59.7 4.1 14 129 73.0 123 985 30 203 33 781
Both sexes 100 100 4.1 19 456 100 102 952 24 830 28 020
Rural
Female 44.6 46.3 5.4 3 720 35.0 33 688 6 261 7 465
Male 54.6 53.3 5.0 6 850 64.0 50 602 10 024 11 737
Both sexes 100 100 5.2 10 629 100 42 893 8 286 9 785
Namibia
Female 42.3 43.9 4.9 8 991 30.0 48 663 9 908 11 645
Male 57.1 55.7 4.6 20 979 70.0 84 141 18 223 20 939
Both sexes 100 100 4.7 30 085 100 68 878 14 559 16 895
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.2.2
Annual consumption income
by urban/rural areas and sex of
head of household
70%
The percentage of total income
for male headed households.
the remaining 30% goes to
female headed house holds
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 135
There are income disparities between main language groups. Households
that speak Oshiwambo as their main language represents about 47 percent
of total households and accounts for 37 percent of total households income.
This is followed by Afrikaans which presents 9 percent of total households
but accounts for 24 percent of total household income. Rukavango and
Nama/Damara speaking households who represent 12 per of households
each accounts for only 6 and 8 percent of total household income.. Per
capita income in households, where the main language spoken is Rukavango
and Khoisan, is the lowest with N$ 5 777 and N$ 6 631 respectively, which
is roughly half the national average. Households where the main language
spoken is German, English or Afrikaans reported the highest income per
capita of N$ 150 730, N$ 74 952 and N$ 48 879, respectively. Households
where German is the main language spoken has an income per capita about
26 times higher than that of Rukavango speaking households and about 14
times higher than the Oshiwambo speaking households.
The population share of the households, where German is the main language
is 0.4 percent. For households where the main language is Rukavango
or Khoisan, the share is 15 and 1 percent respectively. Households with
Oshiwambo as the main language have the highest population share of 48
percent and an income per capita of N$ 11 098, which is below the national
average.
Main language
spoken
House-
holds
Popu-
lation
Aver-
age
house-
hold
size
Total income
Average
house-
hold
income
Income
per
capita
Adjust-
ed per
capita
income
% %
Million
N$
% N$ N$ N$
Khoisan 1.4 1.3 4.7 184 0.6 30 923 6 631 7 851
Caprivi languages 4.9 4.8 4.6 888 3.0 41 213 8 891 10 327
Otjiherero 9.1 8.4 4.3 2 237 7.4 56 283 12 944 15 018
Rukavango 11.7 15.0 6.1 1 793 6.0 35 146 5 777 6 853
Nama/Damara 12.4 11.8 4.5 2 296 7.6 42 258 9 379 10 925
Oshiwambo 46.8 48.3 4.9 11 077 36.8 54 219 11 098 12 869
Setswana 0.3 0.2 3.7 113 0.4 87 050 23 502 26 696
Afrikaans 9.3 7.2 3.7 7 272 24.2 178 844 48 879 54 921
German 0.8 0.4 2.5 1 360 4.5 383 066 150 730 158 298
English 2.0 1.4 3.3 2 183 7.3 243 990 74 952 83 172
Other European 0.5 0.5 4.2 356 1.2 150 336 35 719 40 835
Other African 0.4 0.3 3.3 156 0.5 81 878 24 648 27 707
Other Languages - - 2.6 37 0.1 175 215 66 858 70 237
Total 100 100 4.7 30 085 100 68 878 14 559 16 895
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.2.3
Annual household income
by main language spoken in
household
N$150 730
The annual per capita
income for German speaking
households. The per capita
income for RuKavango speaking
households is only N$5 777
NHIES 2009/2010Page 136
Table 9.2.4 shows that 55 percent of households in Namibia lives with
relatives. These households accounts for about 51 percent of the total
household income. About 19 percent of households live with neither children
nor relatives and represent 17 percent of the total household income while
those who live with more than two children represent 15 percent of the total
households and accounts for 18 percent of total household income.
Households with orphans account for a lower proportion of the population
compared to households without orphans but they have a bigger household
size of 7.1. Average household income of these households are N$ 54135,
which is slightly lower than the national average but the income per capita is
only about half compared to households without orphans.
Household composition
House-
holds
Popu-
lation
Aver-
age
house-
hold
size
Total income
Aver-
age
house-
hold
income
In-
come
per
capita
Adjust-
ed per
capita
income
Orphan hood % %
Million
N$
% N$ N$ N$
Household composition
with head or head &
spouse only
18.5 4.9 1.3 5 168 17.2 64 033 50 625 50 656
with 1 child no relatives 7.3 4.0 2.6 2 435 8.1 76 139 29 355 33 150
with 2+ children no
relatives
15.0 15.0 4.7 5 512 18.3 84 347 17 778 21 455
with relatives 54.9 72.7 6.3 15 401 51.2 64 249 10 256 11 981
with non-relatives 4.4 3.4 3.7 1 569 5.2 82 399 22 560 24 992
Total 100 100 4.7 30 085 100 68 878 14 559 16 895
Orphan hood
Households without
orphans
77.4 66.1 4.0 24 736 82.2 73 187 18 101 20 734
Households with orphans 22.6 33.9 7.1 5 349 17.8 54 135 7 644 9 102
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.2.4
Annual household income by
household composition and
orphan hood
N$54 135
The average income of
households with orphans.
The average income of the
household with no orphans is
higher at N$73 187
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 137
There is a strong relationship between the educational attainment of the
head of household and the average household income and income per capita
(table 9.2.5). As the level of educational attainment rises from no formal
education to tertiary both average household income and income per capita
also increases. The average household income for the households having a
head with no formal education is N$ 28 253 which is about 8 times lower than
the households having a head with tertiary education. Similarly, the income
per capita for the households having a head with no formal education is N$
5 005, which is about 10 times lower than in households having a head with
tertiary education.
Average household size follows the reverse trend. The households having a
head with no formal education has the highest average household size of 5.6
and it decreases as the level of education increases.
Highest level
of educational
attainment of head
of household
House-
holds
Popu-
lation
Aver-
age
house-
hold
size
Total income
Aver-
age
house-
hold
income
Income
per
capita
Adjust-
ed per
capita
income
% %
Million
N$
% N$ N$ N$
No formal education 18.6 22.2 5.6 2 299 7.6 28 253 5 005 5 895
Primary 27.9 30.5 5.2 5 018 16.7 41 206 7 969 9 318
Secondary 41.4 36.9 4.2 12 657 42.1 70 046 16 618 19 141
Tertiary 10.0 8.5 4.0 9 356 31.1
214
337
53 393 60 077
Not stated 2.1 2.0 4.4 755 2.5 81 305 18 673 21 484
Total 100 100 4.7 30 085 100 68 878 14 559 16 895
Table 9.2.6 reveals that households who reported commercial farming as
the main source of income has the highest average household income and
income per capita of N$ 368 103 and N$ 111 483 respectively. Households
where subsistence farming is the main source of income has a low per capita
income of N$ 6 533. The population share of commercial farming households
is lower with 0.4 percent and they also have a low average household size
of 3.3. Subsistence farming households account for 29 percent of the total
population and the average household size is 6.0.
Households, who reported salaries and wages as their main source of income,
have the highest population share of 43 percent and contribute with almost
61 percent to the total income. The income per capita is N$ 20 668.
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.2.5
Annual household income by
highest level of educational
attainment head of household
NHIES 2009/2010Page 138
Households whose main source of income is business activities (non-farming),
pensions from employment, rental income and interest from savings/
investments have a higher income per capita.
Households, who reported any of the remaining categories as their main
source of income, have a low income per capita and are below the national
average of N$ 14 559. Among this group the highest population share (12
percent) is observed for households with state old age pension as the main
source of income and the income per capita is only N$ 5 511.
Main source of
income
House-
holds
Popu-
lation
Aver-
age
house-
hold
size
Total income
Average
house-
hold
income
Income
per
capita
Adjust-
ed per
capita
income
% %
Million
N$
% N$ N$ N$
Salaries and/or
wages
49.1 42.8 4.1 18 280 60.8 85 218 20 668 23 507
Subsistence farming 23 29.4 6.0 3 974 13.2 39 510 6 533 7 786
Commercial farming 0.6 0.4 3.3 929 3.1 368 103 111 483 123 396
Business activities,
non-farming
8.1 7.5 4.4 3 395 11.3 96 272 22 005 25 393
Pensions from
employment
1.2 1.0 3.9 632 2.1 125 119 31 855 36 031
Cash remittances 2.9 2.2 3.5 463 1.5 36 022 10 292 12 030
Rental income 0.5 0.4 3.8 230 0.8 108 308 28 724 32 415
Interest from
savings/investments
0.3 0.1 2.5 232 0.8 196 386 77 460 84 679
State old pension 9.9 12.1 5.8 1 381 4.6 31 820 5 511 6 450
War veterans/ex-
combatants grant
0.1 0.1 6.4 11 - 44 283 6 950 7 780
Disability grants for
adults (over 16 yrs)
0.7 0.7 4.7 67 0.2 21 889 4 668 5 531
State child
maintenance grants
0.7 0.8 5.8 94 0.3 32 465 5 640 6 752
State foster care
grant
0.2 0.3 6.7 29 0.1 35 754 5 309 6 347
State special
maintenance grants
(Disabled 16 yrs or
less)
- - 2.7 2 - 17 645 6 489 7 146
Alimony and similar
allowance
0.3 0.2 3.9 46 0.2 38 959 10 063 11 514
Drought relief
assistance
0.5 0.5 4.6 28 0.1 13 881 2 994 3 501
in kind receipts 1.2 0.8 3.1 107 0.4 20 810 6 610 7 827
Other 0.9 0.7 3.9 180 0.6 48 412 12 260 14 549
Total 100 100 4.7 30 085 100 68 878 14 559 16 895
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.2.6
Annual household income by
main source of income
N$111 483
The average per capita
income of commercial
farmers. The average
income of subsistence
farmers is much
lower at N$6 533
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 139
In table 9.2.7, both the percentile and the deciles groups reveal the disparities
that exist among the Namibian households with regard to the distribution of
household income which is much skewed. The 25 percent of the households
in the first percentile group 1-25 has on average 6 to 7 persons living in
their households and their proportion of the total income is only 7 percent.
The 2 percent of the households in the last percentile group has only 2 to 3
persons in the household and their contribution to the total income is about
17 percent, which is more than twice as much compared to the first group,
where the population share is about 36 percent.
The average household income of the first percentile group is N$ 19 938
compared to N$ 573 092 in the last group, which is about 29 times larger.
Disparity becomes even more evident when income per capita is considered,
where N$ 2 957 of the first group can be compared to N$ 230 616 in the last
group, which is about 77 times higher.
Deciles also reveals a similar picture where the 10th decile has a per capita
income of N$ 103 882 compared to N$ 2 085 in the first decile, which is about
50 times higher.
Percentile
group
House-
holds
Popula-
tion Average
house-
hold size
Total income
Average
house-
hold
income
Income
per
capita
Adjust-
ed per
capita
income
Deciles % %
Million
N$
% N$ N$ N$
Percentile
group
1-25 25.0 35.6 6.7 2 177 7.2 19 938 2 957 3 535
26-50 25.0 26.7 5.1 3 415 11.4 31 320 6 186 7 251
51-75 25.0 21.1 4.0 5 480 18.2 50 168 12 555 14 242
76-90 15.0 10.6 3.3 6 168 20.5 94 230 28 264 31 448
91-95 5.0 3.2 3.0 3 922 13 177 978 58 824 64 628
96-98 3.0 1.7 2.7 3 880 12.9 297 071 110 506 119 800
99-100 2.0 1.1 2.5 5 044 16.8 573 092 230 616 253 138
Total 100 100 4.7 30 085 100 68 878 14 559 16 895
Deciles
1 10 15.9 7.5 686 2.3 15 701 2 085 2 497
2 10 13.5 6.4 949 3.2 21 734 3 412 4 080
3 10 12.3 5.8 1 136 3.8 26 008 4 484 5 316
4 10 11.0 5.2 1 321 4.4 30 244 5 824 6 822
5 10 9.7 4.6 1 500 5.0 34 472 7 468 8 708
6 10 8.8 4.2 1 805 6 41 202 9 870 11 266
7 10 8.3 3.9 2 244 7.5 51 311 13 148 14 927
8 10 8.0 3.8 3 174 10.6 72 753 19 278 21 541
9 10 6.6 3.1 4 424 14.7 101 674 32 416 35 967
10 10 6.0 2.8 12 846 42.7 292 621 103 882 113 679
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Table 9.2.7
Annual household income by
percentile group after adjusted
per capita income
NHIES 2009/2010Page 140
The nominal values (i.e. without adjusting for inflation) of adjusted per capita
income have increased from 1993/94 to 2009/10.
The nominal values (i.e. without adjusting for inflation) of adjusted per capita
income have increased over the past fifteen years period for both male
headed and female headed households but relatively more for male headed
households.
9. Annual Consumption and Income
Figure 9.2.1
Annual household income by region
)
)
Figure 9.2.2
Annual adjusted per capita income (in N$) by urban/rural areas, over time
)
.0) 5.0) 10.0) 15.0) 20.0) 25.0) 30.0) 35.0) 40.0)
Caprivi)
Kunene)
Omaheke)
Hardap)
Oshikoto)
Karas)
Kavango)
Otjozondjupa)
Ohangwena)
OmusaN)
Oshana)
Erongo)
Khomas)
Total)Income) Households))
0)
5000)
10000)
15000)
20000)
25000)
30000)
Urban) Rural) Namibia)
A
d
ju
st
e
d
)p
e
r)
ca
p
it
a
)i
n
co
m
e
)
1993/04)
2003/04)
2009/10)
Figure 9.2.2b
Adjusted per capita income (in N$) by sex of head of household, 1993/1994-2009/2010
)
)
CHAPTER 10
Figure 10.2.4.2
Incidence of poverty by sex of head of household, 2009/2010
)
)
)
0)
5000)
10000)
15000)
20000)
25000)
Female) Male) Both)sexes)
A
d
ju
st
e
d
)p
e
r)
ca
p
it
a
)i
n
co
m
e
)
1993/04)
2003/04)
2009/10)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%)
Total)
Female)
Male)
Total) Female) Male)
Poor) 19.52%) 22.39%) 17.57%)
Severely)poor) 9.59%) 11.13%) 8.53%)
Figure 9.2.2a
Annual adjusted per capita
income (in N$) by urban/rural
areas, over time
Figure 9.2.2b
Adjusted per capita income
(in N$) by sex of
head of household,
1993/1994 - 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 141
9.3 The GINI-coefficient
Definition GINI-coefficient
The GINI coefficient (see definition below) for Namibia is 0.5971 according
to results from NHIES 2009/2010. It is calculated on the adjusted per capita
income for every single household member. In NHIES 2003/2004 it was
0.6003.
In the Scandinavian countries, where the income is fairly evenly distributed in
a global perspective, the GINI is around 0.25.
Lorenz diagram for income distribution among the population in Namibia
2009/2010
9. Annual Consumption and Income
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
2004 2010
45° line
% of Population
%
o
f I
nc
om
e
0.597
The Gini coefficient
captured during the
2009/10 NHIES
Gini-coefficient is a
measure of income
distribution in a country
and it ranges from 0 to 1.
An equal distribution
of income gives a
coefficient close to 0.
Figure 9.3
Lorenz diagram for income
distribution among the
population in Namibia for
2003/04 and 2009/10
The GINI-coefficient is a summary statistics of the Lorenz Curve. It is a
measure of the income distribution in a country. It compares the actual
distribution to a totally equal distribution. The coefficient ranges from 0
to 1. An equal distribution of income gives a coefficient close to 0. The
more unequal the distribution is the closer the coefficient is to 1. The
coefficient gives different results depending on how it is calculated. In
this survey it is calculated on the adjusted per capita income of every
single household member, which gives a more accurate result. It can also
be calculated on average per capita income per household or per group
of persons or households such as deciles. It is important to know the
method of computation to be able to compare over time and between
countries.
NHIES 2009/2010Page 142
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 143
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the distribution of consumption in the Namibian households. The chapter focuses on households consumption choices irrespective of the source of income. The results
show an improvement in the consumption levels of the poor resulting in the
reduction of poverty levels.
10.1 Consumption groups
Table 10.1.1 indicates that almost a quarter of total household consumption
expenditures in Namibia is spent on food and beverages (including alcoholic
beverages and tobacco). Rural households spent more on food compared
to urban households, 39 and 15 percent, respectively. The second highest
consumption item is housing at 23 percent followed by transport and
communication and other goods and services both at 18 percent. The
category other includes recreation, culture, accommodation services and
miscellaneous goods and services. As it was shown in the NHIES 2003/2004
the consumption of education and health continues to make up a very small
proportion of total household consumption, 2 and 3 percent, respectively,
while the proportion of consumption on clothing and footwear is reported to
be 6 percent, the same as the previous findings.
It is also observed that urban households continue to spend a smaller
proportion of their consumption on food and beverages (15 percent) than
rural households (39 percent). Nevertheless, urban households tend to spend
a larger proportion of their consumption on housing with 25 compared to 20
percent in rural areas, a trend which was also observed in 2003/04.
A higher proportion of food consumption, between 35 and 42 percent, is
observed in Caprivi, Kunene, Oshikoto, Omusati Ohangwena and Kavango,
while the proportion of consumption on housing is highest in Khomas region
followed by Ohangwena, Erongo, Omaheke and Oshikoto.
NHIES 2009/2010Page 144
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Region
Annual consumption, % Total
household
consump-
tion
Average
household
consump-
tion
Food
and
beve-
rages
Hous-
ing
Cloth-
ing
and
foot-
wear
Health
Educa-
tion
Furn-
ishing
and
equip-
ment
Trans-
port
and
com-
muni-
cation
Other Total
Urban/Rural Million N$ N$
Caprivi 35.1 14.7 7.2 1.4 1.9 13.5 15.5 10.6 100 673 31 660
Erongo 16.8 23.2 6.5 2.2 2.4 8.2 19.9 20.8 100 3 136 79 960
Hardap 25.9 19.9 5.7 1.4 1.4 9.2 19.1 17.4 100 998 62 767
Karas 19.7 18.7 5.6 1.8 3.2 6.7 19.7 24.7 100 1 388 65 176
Kavango 42.4 18.9 6.5 1.3 2.4 7.3 12.5 8.7 100 1 567 35 703
Khomas 12.6 27.4 5.3 1.9 3.9 7.8 18.4 22.7 100 10 597 126 811
Kunene 35.5 21.8 5.1 3.3 1.4 7.7 15.1 10.0 100 759 44 416
Ohangwena 41.7 23.8 5.7 1.0 1.8 5.1 10.8 10.2 100 1 739 44 584
Omaheke 27.9 22.6 3.8 1.3 1.8 11.3 17.7 13.6 100 786 51 823
Omusati 40.6 18.2 5.6 0.7 2.9 4.5 16.7 10.8 100 2 091 46 294
Oshana 28.0 17.7 6.5 1.4 3.0 7.5 21.0 14.8 100 2 212 63 045
Oshikoto 40.0 22.6 5.1 0.9 2.2 6.7 10.3 12.3 100 1 082 33 770
Otjozondjupa 23.8 20.1 6.2 1.5 2.0 7.8 19.5 19.2 100 1 517 53 922
Namibia 23.7 23.0 5.7 1.7 2.9 7.5 17.5 17.9 100 28 544 65 348
Urban 15.3 24.8 5.9 1.9 3.4 7.9 19.3 21.4 100 18 485 97 816
Rural 39.1 19.7 5.3 1.2 2.1 6.8 14.2 11.6 100 10 058 40 589
Table 10.1.1
Annual
household by
consumption
group, region
and urban/rural
areas
39%
The percentage
of total income
spend by rural
households
on food and
beverages. In
urban areas,
households
spend only
about 15% of
their income
on food and
beverages
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 145
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Table 10.1.2 shows that the consumption on food and beverages is higher in
female headed than in male headed households (31 percent compared to
21 percent). The distribution of consumption on housing, clothing/footwear,
health, and education does not differ much between female and male headed
households though slightly higher for female headed households. However,
in male headed households, 20 percent of the annual consumption is spent
on transport/communication and 20 percent on other items, compared to 12
and 14 percent, respectively for female headed households. This difference
in consumption patterns is reflected in both urban and rural households.
Urban/rural
Annual consumption, % Total
household
consump-
tion
Average
household
consumption Food
and
beve-
rages
Hous-
ing
Cloth-
ing
and
foot-
wear
Health
Educa-
tion
Furn-
ishing
and
equip-
ment
Trans-
port
and
com-
muni-
cation
Other Total
Sex of head
Million
N$
N$
Urban
Female 19.3 26.7 7.0 2.0 4.3 8.3 14.3 18.0 100 5 006 67 362
Male 13.9 24.1 5.5 1.9 3.1 7.8 21.2 22.6 100 13 423 117 794
Total 15.3 24.8 5.9 1.9 3.4 7.9 19.3 21.4 100 18 485 97 816
Rural
Female 47.6 21.2 6.1 .9 1.8 5.7 8.2 8.5 100 3 580 32 417
Male 34.5 18.8 4.9 1.3 2.2 7.3 17.6 13.3 100 6 420 47 425
Total 39.1 19.7 5.3 1.2 2.1 6.8 14.2 11.6 100 10 058 40 589
Namibia
Female 31.1 24.4 6.7 1.6 3.2 7.2 11.8 14.1 100 8 586 46 474
Male 20.5 22.4 5.3 1.7 2.8 7.7 20.0 19.6 100 19 843 79 586
Total 23.7 23.0 5.7 1.7 2.9 7.5 17.5 17.9 100 28 544 65 348
Table 10.1.2
Annual
consumption by
consumption
group, urban/
rural areas and
sex of head of
household
NHIES 2009/2010Page 146
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Table 10.1.3 illustrates major differences by languages groups. Rukavango
speaking households spend the highest proportion on food and beverages
followed by Oshiwambo and Khoisan speaking households. English and
German speaking households reported the highest levels of annual average
household consumption but they spent the lowest proportion on food and
beverages.
Households, where the main language spoken is English, German Afrikaans
and Nama/Damara, spend a higher proportion of consumption on housing,
29, 27, 26 and 25, percent, respectively.
Main
language
spoken
Annual consumption, % Total
household
consump-
tion
Average
household
consump-
tion
Food
and
beve-
rages
Hous-
ing
Cloth-
ing
and
foot-
wear
Health
Educa-
tion
Furn-
ishing
and
equip-
ment
Trans-
port
and
com-
muni-
cation
Other Total
Million N$ N$
Khoisan 30.2 19.3 2.9 1.7 2.9 8.3 13.5 21.3 100 177 29 805
Caprivi 29.4 17.8 7.1 1.7 4.3 11.9 16.0 11.8 100 840 39 010
Otjiherero 27.1 22.7 6.6 1.9 4.0 6.9 17.1 13.7 100 2 131 53 619
Rukavango 42.1 19.3 6.7 1.2 2.5 7.2 12.5 8.5 100 1 744 34 193
Nama/
Damara
26.4 24.7 7.6 1.5 1.5 7.0 15.7 15.7 100 2 184 40 211
Oshiwambo 31.5 20.0 6.9 1.2 3.2 6.4 17.5 13.4 100 10 589 51 828
Setswana 12.8 23.9 4.7 2.2 5.3 16.6 16.4 18.2 100 103 79 547
Afrikaans 12.1 26.0 4.0 2.5 2.5 7.9 19.5 25.5 100 6 770 166 514
German 9.9 26.8 1.6 2.2 1.2 12.2 20.7 25.5 100 1 307 368 277
English 10.4 28.7 4.4 1.2 3.7 9.1 15.0 27.4 100 2 027 226 638
Other 12.4 31.4 4.4 1.7 5.3 6.9 22.0 15.9 100 535 119 398
Total 23.7 23.0 5.7 1.7 2.9 7.6 17.5 17.9 100 28 544 65 348
Table 10.1.3
Annual
consumption
by consumption
group and main
langauge spoken
in household
<4%
The percentage
of total income
spend on items
such as health
and education
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 147
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Household size and composition are crucial variables in analysing households
consumption. Housing is the most common consumption item for households
with no relatives. Table 10.1.4 shows that, households with relatives spent
the highest proportion on food and beverages with 28 percent compared to
other households composition groups. Households with orphans spend more
on food and beverages compared to households without orphans with 34
and 22 percent respectively.
Household
composition
Annual consumption, %
Total
household
consump-
tion
Average
household
consump-
tion
Food
and
beve-
rages
Hous-
ing
Cloth-
ing
and
foot-
wear
Health
Ed-
uca-
tion
Furn-
ishing
and
equip-
ment
Trans-
port
and
com-
muni-
ca-
tion
Other Total
Million
N$
N$
With only
head or head
& spouse 18.8 23.8 4.1 2.0 1.8 8.7 18.5 22.2 100 4 878 60 438
With 1 child,
no relatives 18.3 25.0 4.7 1.4 1.6 8.8 18.3 21.9 100 2 283 71 392
With 2+
children, no
relatives 19.3 24.3 5.4 2.0 3.2 7.4 16.9 21.6 100 5 233 80 072
With relatives 28.2 22.0 6.5 1.5 3.3 6.6 17.3 14.7 100 14 685 61 260
With non-
relatives 19.7 23.0 6.0 1.6 4.2 11.3 17.0 17.2 100 1 465 76 940
Total 23.7 23.0 5.7 1.7 2.9 7.6 17.5 17.9 100 28 544 65 348
Households
without
orphans 21.5 23.4 5.5 1.7 3.0 7.7 17.9 19.4 100 23 405 69 249
Household
with orphans 33.9 21.4 6.8 1.3 2.6 6.9 15.8 11.2 100 5 139 52 005
Table 10.1.4
Annual
consumption by
consumption
group,
household
composition and
orphan hood
NHIES 2009/2010Page 148
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Table 10.1.5 indicates that consumption varies by educational attainment. The
table shows that the highest consumption of food and beverages is observed
among the households where the head has no formal education or primary
education. As the level of education increases from primary to tertiary the
proportion of consumption on food and beverages decreases. Households
whose heads have attained tertiary education spend about one quarter of
their consumption on housing as well as on other goods and services.
Household
composition
Annual consumption, %
Total
household
consump-
tion
Average
household
consump-
tion
Food
and
beve-
rages
Hous-
ing
Cloth-
ing
and
foot-
wear
Health
Educa-
tion
Furn-
ishing
and
equip-
ment
Trans-
port
and
com-
muni-
cation
Other Total
Million
N$
N$
No formal
Education
25.62 20.52 5.46 2.50 5.05 3.37 27.70 9.78 100 379 44 599
Primary 37.74 22.18 6.56 1.10 2.54 6.22 14.10 9.56 100 4 714 38 399
Secondary 22.67 22.01 6.28 1.77 2.62 7.64 18.28 18.73 100 12 132 67 140
Tertiary 10.88 24.34 4.58 1.86 3.89 8.80 21.20 24.45 100 8 781 201 158
Total 23.73 23.01 5.70 1.66 2.93 7.55 17.51 17.92 100 28 544 65 348
Table 10.1.5
Annual
consumption by
consumption
group and
highest level
of educational
attainment
of head of
household
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 149
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
The main source of income indicates the means of survival of households
and thus consumption choices. Households that reported state foster care
grant, state child maintenance grants and drought relief assistance as their
main source of income have the highest proportion of their consumption
on food (67, 54 and 51 percent respectively). Households where the main
source of income is commercial farming have the highest average household
consumption of N$324 023 and they spend only about 11 percent of their
total consumption on food and beverages (table 10.1.6).
Main source of income
Annual consumption, %
Total house-
hold con-
sumption
Average
household
consumption Food
and
beve-
rages
Hous-
ing
Cloth-
ing and
foot-
wear
Health
Educa-
tion
Furn-
ishing
and
equip-
ment
Trans-
port
and
com-
muni-
cation
Other Total
Million N$ N$
Salaries and/or wages 18.11 22.94 6.43 1.74 3.32 7.75 18.43 21.28 100 17 302 80 661
Subsistence farming 47.15 20.59 5.31 0.95 1.97 5.08 11.57 7.38 100 3 804 37 822
Commercial farming 11.81 13.59 1.73 3.02 3.89 12.87 26.84 26.24 100 818 324 023
Business activities, non-
farming
18.79 21.65 4.59 1.47 2.11 8.46 23.94 19.00 100 3 244 91 963
Pensions from
employment
16.91 30.79 2.59 2.92 1.52 8.88 20.09 16.29 100 587 116 208
Cash remittances 28.67 32.21 6.47 0.91 8.91 5.59 10.29 6.95 100 456 35 418
Rental income 11.95 34.76 2.89 2.63 1.56 18.93 10.81 16.45 100 225 106 366
Interest from savings/
investments
13.39 30.73 1.69 6.13 0.11 7.31 18.74 21.91 100 221 187 586
State old pension 47.92 27.92 5.13 1.20 1.23 5.18 6.82 4.61 100 1 327 30 592
War veterans/ex-
combatants grant
17.75 31.65 2.85 2.17 0.18 9.16 21.48 14.76 100 10 41 843
Disability grants for
adults (over 16 yrs)
48.26 27.65 5.73 0.95 1.05 6.49 5.77 4.09 100 64 21 030
State child maintenance
grants
53.97 25.49 6.32 0.55 2.37 3.61 4.24 3.45 100 92 31 934
State foster care grant 66.45 14.14 5.73 1.13 1.27 3.01 5.69 2.58 100 29 35 496
State special
maintenance grants
(Disabled 16 yrs or less)
43.45 46.03 4.22 0.10 0.18 2.10 2.67 1.24 100 2 17 645
Alimony and similar
allowance
33.87 25.23 5.38 4.12 3.46 4.13 10.27 13.54 100 45 37 604
Drought relief assistance 51.41 27.61 3.83 0.49 0.50 3.72 10.24 2.21 100 28 13 870
in kind receipts 39.71 27.95 5.20 0.67 5.48 4.63 12.10 4.26 100 106 20 485
Other, specify 22.01 30.36 3.93 0.72 3.93 10.45 11.80 16.80 100 171 51 361
No income 42.19 47.23 3.88 0.32 0.00 1.69 1.94 2.76 100 7 18 055
Total 23.73 23.01 5.70 1.66 2.93 7.55 17.51 17.92 100 28 544 65 348
Table 10.1.6
Annual consumption by
consumption group and main
source of income
NHIES 2009/2010Page 150
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
The first percentile group of households (1-25) with the lowest adjusted
per capita income has the highest proportion of consumption on food and
beverages with 53 percent. As the household income increases the food
consumption decreases as shown in table 10.1.7. A reverse trend could be
observed in the consumption of transport/communication and other goods
and services. This trend is also observed with the deciles groups
Percentile
group
Annual consumption, %
Total
house-hold
consump-
tion
Average
house-
hold
consump-
tion
Food
and
beve-
rages
Hous-
ing
Cloth-
ing
and
foot-
wear
Health
Educa-
tion
Furn-
ishing
and
equip-
ment
Trans-
port
and
com-
muni-
cation
Other Total
Decile Million N$ N$
Percentile
1-25 53.3 24.4 6.7 0.9 1.5 4.3 4.9 3.9 100 2 147 19 668
26-50 47.2 22.7 7.5 0.9 1.6 5.5 7.9 6.6 100 3 334 30 573
51-75 32.2 22.8 8.0 1.4 2.8 7.1 13.4 12.4 100 5 279 48 326
76-90 20.3 21.8 6.8 1.6 4.0 8.2 19.2 18.1 100 5 835 89 154
91-95 12.9 24.2 5.2 2.4 4.1 7.6 21.7 21.9 100 3 702 167 970
96-98 10.4 25.3 3.4 1.7 3.4 7.8 22.2 25.8 100 3 671 281 009
99-100 6.7 21.6 2.1 2.3 2.1 9.9 25.8 29.4 100 4 577 520 044
Total 23.7 23.0 5.7 1.7 2.9 7.5 17.5 17.9 100 28 544 65 348
Deciles
1 55.0 25.0 6.7 1.0 1.6 4.1 4.0 2.7 100 678 15 516
2 52.4 24.9 6.7 0.9 1.5 4.3 4.8 4.6 100 937 21 446
3 52.3 23.4 6.9 0.8 1.4 4.7 5.9 4.5 100 1 117 25 570
4 48.9 22.3 7.5 1.0 1.6 5.3 7.3 6.0 100 1 292 29 582
5 43.9 22.6 7.5 0.9 1.8 5.9 9.4 8.0 100 1 457 33 501
6 36.8 23.8 7.7 1.2 2.6 6.2 11.7 10.0 100 1 753 40 008
7 32.6 22.4 8.1 1.1 2.4 7.5 13.7 12.2 100 2 152 49 204
8 25.3 22.0 7.6 1.6 3.6 7.7 16.6 15.7 100 3 034 69 543
9 18.5 21.7 6.6 1.8 4.2 8.5 19.7 19.0 100 4 175 95 953
10 9.8 23.5 3.5 2.1 3.1 8.5 23.4 26.0 100 11 949 272 183
Table 10.1.7
Annual
consumption by
consumption
group and
percentile group/
decile after
adjusted per
capita income
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 151
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
10.2 Poverty and inequality
10.2.1 Introduction
In 2003/2004 Namibia has introduced a paradigm shift from the use of
the conventional food consumption ratio to the use of the cost of basic
needs approach as a measure of the poverty threshold in Namibia. Poverty
thresholds are particularly useful for creation of the poverty profiles, poverty
mapping, estimating deprivation indices, implementing poverty social
impact analysis on the poor and the vulnerable, exploring and re-evaluating
determinants of poverty and ultimately guiding policy interventions aimed
at reducing poverty as stipulated in the National Development Plans, Vision
2030 and in the Millennium Development Goals.
10.2.2 Poverty lines
In this chapter poverty is defined as the number of households who are unable
to command sufficient resources to satisfy basic needs. They are counted as
the total number of households living below a specified minimum level of
income or below a national poverty line. Table 10.2.2 shows the estimated
poverty lines for 2009/2010. The food poverty line estimate for 2009/2010
is N$ 204.05, with the lower bound poverty line estimated at N$ 277.54 and
the upper bound poverty line at N$ 377.96, respectively. The upper bound
poverty line identifies those households that are considered to be poor;
while the lower bound poverty line identifies those households that are food
poor since their total consumption expenditures are insufficient to meet their
daily calorific requirement. The details of the estimation procedures can be
found in appendix 3.
Poverty line 2003/2004 2009/2010
Food poverty line 127.15 204.05
Lower bound poverty line: severely poor 184.56 277.54
Upper bound poverty line: poor 262.45 377.96
Table 10.2.2
Namibias poverty lines,
monthly N$ per capita, in
2003/2004 and 2009/2010
dollars
NHIES 2009/2010Page 152
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
10.2.3 Household expenditures
The data provided by the NHIES 2009/10 allows computing an indicator of
annual total expenditures for each household, in a way that is consistent with
what was done using the NHIES 2003/04. Dividing these total expenditures
by 12 generates monthly household total expenditures. To obtain adult
equivalent total expenditures, monthly household total expenditures are
divided by the number of adult equivalents found in the household. To
compute the number of adult equivalents, a weight of 0.5 is given to children
under the age of 6 years, a weight of 0.75 is assigned to children between 6
and 15 years of age, and a weight of 1 is given to all members 16 years and
over.
Table 10.2.3
Distribution of monthly adult
equivalent total expenditures,
2009/2010, with lower bound
and upper bound poverty lines
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 153
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
10.2.4 Poverty profiles
In this section, the poverty lines for those that are poor (below the upper
bound poverty line) and those that are severely poor (below the lower
bound poverty line) are used to draw a consumption based poverty profile
for Namibia. This profile describes the two overlapping categories of poor
households according to a range of economic, social and demographic variables,
and makes comparisons with the category of non-poor households. The
poverty rates show the proportion of Namibian households under the lower
and upper poverty lines, by economic and socio-demographic variables. The
findings indicate that the poor are disproportionately located in rural areas,
mainly pensioners or subsistence farmers, households with lower level of
education, women and households with bigger average household size.
Incidence (P0) Depth (P1) Severity (P2)
Poor 19.5% 5.6% 2.4
Severely poor 9.6% 2.5% 1.0
Table 10.2.4.1 shows the incidence, depth and severity of poverty as measured
by the conventional P0, P1 and P2 indices respectively for both the upper
and lower bound poverty lines. According to these measures, 20 percent of
Namibias households are considered poor using the upper bound poverty
line (N$377.96). This indicates a decline in poverty levels from 28 percent
households in 2003/2004. On average households are 6 percent below the
poverty line, meaning that they are N$21 on average below the upper bound
poverty line. P2 shows the severity index over time. The measurement of
the severity of poverty gives a higher weight to the poorest of the poor; this
can be particularly useful in tracking developments for the poorest over time
and comparing severe deprivation across groups. In this regard, the severity
index has improved from the 2003/2004 NHIES. The depth of poverty has
also fallen based on the upper bound poverty line; although 20 percent of
households remain poor, more and more of the these households are moving
closer to the poverty line.
About 10 percent of the households are severely poor or food poor as
measured by the lower bound poverty line of N$277.54. This indicates that
the incidence of severely poor households declined from 14 percent in
2003/2004. On average households are 3 percent below the severe poverty
line. The measurement of the depth of poverty says that an average of
N$6.91 additional consumption expenditure per household would be needed
to lift Namibian households out of severe poverty (that is, 3 percent times
N$277.54).
Table 10.2.4.1
Incidence, depth and severity
of poverty by category of poor
households, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010Page 154
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Figure 10.2.4.2 shows the incidence of poverty by sex of the head of
household. The incidence of poverty in female headed households is higher
with 22 percent compared to the male headed households with 18 percent.
The female headed households also have a larger incidence of severely
poor with 11 percent compared to 9 percent for male headed households.
Comparisons with the 2003/2004 survey show that poverty levels have
fallen from 30 to 22 percent for female headed households and from 26
to 18 percent for male headed households, respectively. The incidence of
severely poor households has also fallen from 15 to 11 percent for female
headed households and from 13 to 9 percent for male headed households.
Despite these reductions in both the incidence of poverty and the incidence
of severely poor households, poverty still remains disproportionately higher
in female headed households.
Figure 9.2.2b
Adjusted per capita income (in N$) by sex of head of household, 1993/1994-2009/2010
)
)
CHAPTER 10
Figure 10.2.4.2
Incidence of poverty by sex of head of household, 2009/2010
)
)
)
0)
5000)
10000)
15000)
20000)
25000)
Female) Male) Both)sexes)
A
d
ju
st
e
d
)p
e
r)
ca
p
it
a
)i
n
co
m
e
)
1993/04)
2003/04)
2009/10)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%)
Total)
Female)
Male)
Total) Female) Male)
Poor) 19.52%) 22.39%) 17.57%)
Severely)poor) 9.59%) 11.13%) 8.53%)
22%
The poverty incidence
for female headed households.
The poverty incidence for male
headed households is less at
18 %
Figure 10.2.4.2
Incidence of poverty by sex of
head of household, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 155
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Differences in poverty status across age of the head of household are presented
in Figure 10.2.4.3. Poverty is relatively low for households where the head
of the household is between 16 and 34 years of age. Poverty increases for
households where the head of the household is between the age of 35 and
54 and is relatively high where the head of the household is 55 years and
older. Despite the trend observed between age of the head of household and
the incidence of poverty, age does not necessarily cause poverty since other
variables that may lead to poverty can also be correlated with age.
)
Figure 10.2.4.3
Incidence of poverty by age of head of household, 2009/2010
)
)
Figure 10.2.4.4
Incidence of poverty by urban/rural areas, 2009/2010
)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%) 30%) 35%)
Total)
65+)
6064)
5559)
3539)
4549)
5054)
4044)
1620)
2529)
3034)
2124)
Total) 65+) 6064) 5559) 3539) 4549) 5054) 4044) 1620) 2529) 3034) 2124)
Poor) 19.5%)29.4%)25.5%)24.3%)19.3%)19.2%)19.2%)17.8%)13.0%)12.7%)11.9%)11.0%)
Severely)poor) 9.6%) 14.3%)13.9%)11.9%) 8.9%) 10.0%)11.4%) 7.8%) 7.9%) 5.6%) 5.2%) 5.7%)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%) 30%)
Total)
Rural)
Urban)
Total) Rural) Urban)
Poor) 19.52%) 27.15%) 9.51%)
Severely)poor) 9.59%) 13.56%) 4.38%)
>24%
More than 24% of households
headed by persons 55 years
and above are poor
Figure 10.2.4.3
Incidence of poverty by age of
head of household, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010Page 156
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Figure 10.2.4.4 indicates that the poor are disproportionately located in
rural areas. About 27 percent of rural households are poor, compared to 10
percent for urban households. The incidence of severely poor households
is also higher among rural households, where 14 percent of the households
were found to be severely poor compared to 4 percent in urban areas.
)
Figure 10.2.4.3
Incidence of poverty by age of head of household, 2009/2010
)
)
Figure 10.2.4.4
Incidence of poverty by urban/rural areas, 2009/2010
)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%) 30%) 35%)
Total)
65+)
6064)
5559)
3539)
4549)
5054)
4044)
1620)
2529)
3034)
2124)
Total) 65+) 6064) 5559) 3539) 4549) 5054) 4044) 1620) 2529) 3034) 2124)
Poor) 19.5%)29.4%)25.5%)24.3%)19.3%)19.2%)19.2%)17.8%)13.0%)12.7%)11.9%)11.0%)
Severely)poor) 9.6%) 14.3%)13.9%)11.9%) 8.9%) 10.0%)11.4%) 7.8%) 7.9%) 5.6%) 5.2%) 5.7%)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%) 30%)
Total)
Rural)
Urban)
Total) Rural) Urban)
Poor) 19.52%) 27.15%) 9.51%)
Severely)poor) 9.59%) 13.56%) 4.38%)
27%
The percentage of poverty in
rural areas. The percentage of
poverty in urban areas is 9.5%.
Figure 10.2.4.4
Incidence of poverty by urban/
rural areas, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 157
Figure 10.2.4.5 indicates that poverty vary greatly between Namibias
administrative regions. The highest incidence of poverty is found in Kavango
region where 43 percent of the households are poor and 24 percent are
severely poor. In Caprivi region, 42 percent of the households are poor and
26 percent are severely poor. Poverty incidence is lowest in Erongo where 5
percent of the households are poor and 2 percent are severely poor. Poverty
is also found to be low in the Khomas region where 8 percent of households
are considered to be poor and 3 percent of are severely poor.
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
43%
The poverty incidence in the
Kavango, the region with the
highest poverty incidence rate.
In second place is the Caprivi,
with 42%.
Figure 10.2.4.5
Incidence of poverty by region,
2009/2010
SUMMARY NHIES 2009/2010 17
Chapter 10: Distribution of annual consumption
Most consumption in Namibia is on food and beverages, 24%, followed by housing, 23% and
Other Consumption, 18%, which includes recreation and culture, accommodation services and
miscellaneous goods and services. About the same share of consumption is spent on transport
and communications, close to 18%. In urban areas the largest share of consumption is allocated to
housing (25%), whil in rural areas most of the consumption is on food (39%).
Female headed households have a higher share of consumption on food/beverages than male headed
households, which in turn have a higher share of consumption on transport and communication.
In the 2003/2004 survey Namibia has introduced a paradigm shift from the conventional food
consumption ratio as an indicator of poverty to the cost of basic needs approach. Thus in
2009/2010 poverty is measured by this approach. Each household is classified as poor or severely
poor based on their costs of basic needs compared to the poverty lines.
Figure 2 Incidence of poverty by region, 2009/2010
Figure 10.2.4.5
Incidence of poverty by region, 2009/2010
)
Figure 10.2.4.12
Incidence of poverty by main language spoken, 2009/2010
)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%) 30%) 35%) 40%) 45%) 50%)
Total)
Kavango)
Caprivi)
Oshikoto)
Ohangwena)
Otjozondjupa)
Omaheke)
Hardap)
Kunene)
Karas)
Oshana)
OmusaN)
Khomas)
Erongo)
Total)
Kava
ngo)
Capri
vi)
Oshik
oto)
Ohan
gwen
a)
Otjoz
ondju
pa)
Oma
heke)
Hard
ap)
Kune
ne)
Karas)
Osha
na)
Omus
aN)
Khom
as)
Erong
o)
Poor) 19.5%)43.4%)41.7%)33.9%)23.7%)22.9%)20.9%)17.2%)16.8%)15.3%)13.5%)12.6%)7.6%) 5.1%)
0%) 10%) 20%) 30%) 40%) 50%) 60%)
Total)
Saan)
Kavango)
Caprivi)
Nama/Damara)
Oshiwambo)
Otjiherero)
Tswana)
Other)
Afrikaans)
Total) Saan)
Kavang
o)
Caprivi)
Nama/
Damara)
Oshiwa
mbo)
Otjihere
ro)
Tswana) Other)
Afrikaa
ns)
Poor) 19.5%) 54.9%) 41.3%) 36.3%) 23.7%) 16.0%) 13.4%) 9.5%) 5.1%) 4.1%)
Severely)poor) 9.6%) 37.1%) 23.4%) 22.1%) 14.3%) 5.7%) 6.6%) 4.4%) 5.1%) 1.3%)
Total Kavango Caprivi Oshikoto Ohangwena Otjozondjupa Omaheke Hardap Kunene Karas Oshana Omusati Khomas Erongo
Poor 19.5% 43.4% 41.7% 33.9% 23.7% 22.9% 20.9% 17.2% 16.8% 15.3% 13.5% 12.6% 7.6% 5.1%
Figure 10.2.4.5
Incidence of poverty by region, 2009/2010
)
Figure 10.2.4.12
Incidence of poverty by main language spoken, 2009/2010
)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%) 30%) 35%) 40%) 45%) 50%)
Total)
Kavango)
Caprivi)
Oshikoto)
Ohangwena)
Otjozondjupa)
Omaheke)
Hardap)
Kunene)
Karas)
Oshana)
OmusaN)
Khomas)
Erongo)
Total)
Kava
ngo)
Capri
vi)
Oshik
oto)
Ohan
gwen
a)
Otjoz
ondju
pa)
Oma
heke)
Hard
ap)
Kune
ne)
Karas)
Osha
na)
Omus
aN)
Khom
as)
Erong
o)
Poor) 19.5%)43.4%)41.7%)33.9%)23.7%)22.9%)20.9%)17.2%)16.8%)15.3%)13.5%)12.6%)7.6%) 5.1%)
0%) 10%) 20%) 30%) 40%) 50%) 60%)
Total)
Saan)
Kavango)
Caprivi)
ama/Damara)
Oshiwambo)
Otjiherero)
Tswana)
Other)
Afrikaans)
Total) Saan)
Kavang
o)
Caprivi)
Nama/
Damara)
Oshiwa
mbo)
Otjihere
ro)
Tswana) Other)
Afrikaa
ns)
Poor) 19.5%) 54.9%) 41.3%) 36.3%) 23.7%) 16.0%) 13.4%) 9.5%) 5.1%) 4.1%)
Severely)poor) 9.6%) 37.1%) 23.4%) 22.1%) 14.3%) 5.7%) 6.6%) 4.4%) 5.1%) 1.3%)
NHIES 2009/2010Page 158
Figure 10.2.4.6 reports poverty incidence estimates surrounded by a 95
percent confidence interval. As noted earlier, poverty incidence is estimated
to be highest for Kavango region followed by Caprivi for the poor households
while the positions are interchanged for severely poor households. However,
there is no significant difference between the two regions because of the
overlapping confidence intervals. In terms of poor households, significant
differences are observed between Oshikoto and the remaining regions. There
are no significant differences among the remaining regions from Ohangwena
to Karas regions; whilst Ohangwena region shows a significantly higher
incidence of poverty compared to Oshana and Omusati regions with respect
to the poor households. On the other end of the distribution, Erongo and
Khomas regions show the lowest incidence of both poor and severely poor
households
The two vertical lines show the lower and upper limits of the confidence
intervals of national poverty. The width of those confidence intervals is smaller
than for regional poverty, since the national estimates are more precise.
Kavango, Caprivi and Oshikoto exhibit a poverty level that is statistically
larger than the national one; Oshana, Omusati, Khomas and Erongo exhibit a
poverty level that is statistically lower than the national one.
For more information on confidence intervals, refer to appendix 3, section 3.3.
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
10 Distribution of annual consumption
)
)
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 17
)
Figure 10.2.4.6 reports poverty incidence estimates surrounded by a 95 percent confidence interval.
As noted earlier, poverty incidence is estimated to be highest for Kavango region followed by
Caprivi for the poor households whil the positions re interchanged fo severely poor households.
However, there is no significant difference between the two regions because of the overlapping
confidence intervals. In terms of poor households, significant differences are observed between
Os ikoto and the remaining regions. There are no significant differences among th remaining
regions from Ohangwena to Karas regions; whilst Ohangwena region shows a significantly higher
incidence of poverty compared to Oshana and Omusati regions with respect to the poor
households. On the other end of the distribution, Erongo and Khoma regions sh w the lowest
incidence of both poor and severely poor households
The two vertical lines show the lower and upper limits of the confidence intervals of national
poverty. The width of th se confide ce intervals is smaller than for regional p verty, since the
national estimates are more precise. Kavango, Caprivi and Oshikoto exhibit a poverty level that is
statistically larger than the national one; Oshana, Omusati, Khomas and Erongo exhibit a poverty
level that is statistically l wer than the natio al one.
For more information on confidence intervals, refer to appendix 3, section 3.3.
Figure 10.2.4.6
Incidence of poverty by region, with 95% confidence intervals, 2009/2010
)
Figure 10.2.4.6
Incidence of poverty by region,
with 95% confidence intervals,
2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 159
Figure 10.2.4.7 shows the contribution of the different regions to total poverty
in Namibia. These regional poverty shares are computed by multiplying
the proportions of poor households found in each of the regions by the
demographic contribution of each of those regions to the total number of
households in the country. Kavango still contributes the largest regional
share of poverty in 2009/2010 with 22 percent from 18 in 2003/2004.
Oshikoto region comes second with a share of 13 percent. The poverty share
of Ohangwena region has dropped between 2003/2004 and 2009/2010 from
17 to 11 percent. Erongo region contributed the least to total poverty with 2
percent, followed by Hardap, Kunene, Omaheke and Karas regions with 3, 3,
4 and 4 percent respectively.
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
10 Distribution of annual consumption
)
)
Page 18 NHIES 2009/2010
)
Figure 10.2.4.7 shows the contribution of the different regions to total poverty in Namibia. These
regional poverty shares are computed by multiplying the proportions of poor households found in
each of the regions by the demographic contribution of each of those regions to the total number of
households in the country. Kavango still contributes the largest regional share of poverty in
2009/2010 with 22 percent from 18 in 2003/2004. Oshikoto region comes second with a share of
13 percent. The poverty share of Ohangwena region has dropped between 20 3/2004 and
2009/2010 from 17 to 11 percent. Erongo region contributed the least to total poverty with 2
percent, followed by Hardap, Kunene, Omaheke and Karas regions with 3, 3, 4 and 4 percent
respectively.
Figure 10.2.4.7
Poverty shares of total national poverty by region, 2009/2010
)
Figure 10.2.4.7
Poverty shares of total national
poverty by region, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010Page 160
Figure 10.2.4.8 shows the distribution of poverty across the country. The dark
colours represent regions with higher poverty levels and the light colours the
regions with lower poverty levels. There are very high levels of poverty in the
north-eastern parts of the country, where poverty is either very high or high for
all regions. Lower levels of poverty are found in Khomas, Erongo and Omusati
regions. The distribution of severely poor households across the country is
highly concentrated to the north-eastern parts of Namibia. Hardap region
has a disproportionately higher concentration of severely poor households,
while Kunene region has a disproportionately lower concentration of severely
poor households.
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
10 Distribution annual consumption
)
)
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 19
)
Figure 10.2.4.8 shows the distribution of poverty across the country. The dark colours represent
regions with higher poverty levels and the light colours the regions with lower poverty levels.
There are very high levels of poverty in the north-eastern parts of the country, where poverty is
either very high or high for all regions. Lower levels of poverty are found in Khomas, Erongo and
Omusati regions. The distribution of severely poor households across the country is highly
concentrated to the north-eastern parts of Namibia. Hardap region has a disproportionately higher
concentration of severely poor households, while Kunene region has a disproportionately lower
concentration of severely poor households.
Figure 10.2.4.8
Poverty across regions, 2009/2010
)
Figure 10.2.4.8
Poverty across regions,
2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 161
Figure 10.2.4.9 shows the change in the incidence of poverty across the
regions between 2003/2004 and 2009/2010. The light colours show the
regions where poverty has either fallen only slightly or increased, and the
dark colours show the regions where poverty has decreased. In this regard,
poverty has increased in the Caprivi, Otjozondjupa and Khomas regions, while
falling in all other regions. This map also highlights that although poverty
is still very high in Kavango, the region appears to be making meaningful
improvements in poverty reduction.
10 Distribution of annual consumption
)
)
Page 20 NHIES 2009/2010
)
Figure 10.2.4.9 shows the change in the incidence of poverty across the regions between
2003/2004 and 2009/2010. The light colours show the regions where poverty has either fallen only
slightly or increased, and the dark colours show the regions where poverty has decreased. In this
regard, poverty has increased in the Caprivi, Otjozondjupa and Khomas regions, while falling in all
other regions. This map also highlight that although poverty is still very high in Kavango, the
region appears to be making meaningful improvements in poverty reduction.
Figure 10.2.4.9
Regional changes in the proportions of the poor, 2003/2004 to 2009/2010
)
.
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Figure 10.2.4.9
Regional changes in the
proportions of the poor,
2003/2004 to 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010Page 162
Table 10.2.4.10 shows that in Namibia the average household size in
2009/2010 is 5 persons. There are, however, differences between rural and
urban households, to the extent that the average household size is 4 persons
for urban households and 5 persons for rural. Households that are classified
as severely poor have the largest household sizes, those classified as poor
have large household sizes, while households classified as non-poor have the
smallest household sizes. The greater the extent of poverty in a region, the
larger on average is the household size of that region.
Severely poor Poor Non-poor
Average
household size
Caprivi 6.3 5.7 4.0 4.7
Erongo 5.3 4.9 3.4 3.5
Hardap 6.7 6.4 3.8 4.2
Karas 6.8 6.4 3.2 3.7
Kavango 9.3 8.2 5.1 6.5
Khomas 5.8 5.8 3.9 4.1
Kunene 8.5 7.8 3.7 4.4
Ohangwena 8.6 7.8 5.6 6.1
Omaheke 6.0 6.2 3.6 4.1
Omusati 8.5 7.9 4.8 5.2
Oshana 7.3 7.0 4.5 4.9
Oshikoto 7.3 6.6 4.3 5.0
Otjozondjupa 6.3 6.0 3.5 4.1
Urban 6.6 6.4 3.9 4.1
Rural 7.8 7.1 4.4 5.2
Namibia 7.6 7.0 4.2 4.7
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Table 10.2.4.10
Average household size by
region, urban/rural areas and
poverty status, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 163
Table 10.2.4.11 shows the average number of children under the age of 18
by poverty status, region and urban/rural areas. The national average is
between 2 and 3 children per household. There are differences between rural
and urban households. The average number of children in rural households
is between 2 and 3, and between 1 and 2 children in urban households.
Households that are classified as poor have between 4 and 5 children on
average, compared to 2 children in non-poor households. This also shows
that there are more children less than 18 years in poor households than in
non-poor households.
Severely poor Poor Non-poor
Average number
of children
under 18 yrs
Caprivi 3.9 3.4 2.1 2.6
Erongo 2.7 2.6 1.3 1.4
Hardap 3.6 3.5 1.6 2.0
Karas 4.3 3.8 1.2 1.6
Kavango 5.8 5.1 2.7 3.7
Khomas 3.2 2.9 1.5 1.6
Kunene 4.8 4.4 1.7 2.2
Ohangwena 5.8 5.1 3.7 4.0
Omaheke 3.3 3.4 1.6 2.0
Omusati 5.1 5.1 2.7 3.0
Oshana 4.3 4.2 2.2 2.5
Oshikoto 4.9 4.2 2.3 2.9
Otjozondjupa 3.5 3.2 1.5 1.9
Namibia 4.6 4.2 2.0 2.4
Urban 3.7 3.5 1.6 1.8
Rural 4.8 4.4 2.4 2.9
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Table 10.2.4.11
Average number of children
under 18 in households by
region, urban/rural areas and
poverty status, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010Page 164
Figure 10.2.4.12 presents the results of poverty incidence by main language
spoken in the households. The highest incidence of both poor and severely
poor households is found where Khoisan is the main language spoken.
High poverty levels are also recorded in Rukavango and Caprivi speaking
households. Conversely, among households where Afrikaans is the main
language spoken recorded the lowest poverty incidence.
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Figure 10.2.4.5
Incidence of poverty by region, 2009/2010
)
Figure 10.2.4.12
Incidence of poverty by main language spoken, 2009/2010
)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%) 30%) 35%) 40%) 45%) 50%)
Total)
Kavango)
Caprivi)
Oshikoto)
Ohangwena)
Otjozondjupa)
Omaheke)
Hardap)
Kunene)
Karas)
Oshana)
OmusaN)
Khomas)
Erongo)
Total)
Kava
ngo)
Capri
vi)
Oshik
oto)
Ohan
gwen
a)
Otjoz
ondju
pa)
Oma
heke)
Hard
ap)
Kune
ne)
Karas)
Osha
na)
Omus
N)
Khom
as)
Erong
o)
Poor) 19.5%)43.4%)41.7%)33.9%)23.7%)22.9%)20.9%)17.2%)16.8%)15.3%)13.5%)12.6%)7.6%) 5.1%)
0%) 10%) 20%) 30%) 40%) 50%) 60%)
Total)
Saan)
Kavango)
Caprivi)
Nama/Damara)
Oshiwambo)
Otjiherero)
Tswana)
Other)
Afrikaans)
Total) Saan)
Kavang
o)
Caprivi)
Nama/
Damara)
Oshiwa
mbo)
Otjihere
ro)
Tswana) Other)
Afrikaa
ns)
Poor) 19.5%) 54.9%) 41.3%) 36.3%) 23.7%) 16.0%) 13.4%) 9.5%) 5.1%) 4.1%)
Severely)poor) 9.6%) 37.1%) 23.4%) 22.1%) 14.3%) 5.7%) 6.6%) 4.4%) 5.1%) 1.3%)
Set
Ruk
Khois
Set-
swana
Ru-
kavango
Khois-
an
54.9%
The poverty incidence among
the Khoisan, the highest among
all the language groups. In
addition 37.1% percentage
of all Khoisan speaking
households are classified as
severely poor
Figure 10.2.4.12
Incidence of poverty by main
language spoken, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 165
Another way of looking at the poverty levels among the language groups is by
poverty share, which takes into account the size of the population groups and
indicates how much each group contributes to the total number of poor in
Namibia. Figure 10.2.4.13 shows that the households with Oshiwambo as the
main language spoken in the household contribute most to national poverty,
with 38 percent, while Rukavango speaking households contribute 25 percent
to national poverty, followed by Nama/Damara with 15 percent, Caprivi with
9 percent and Otjiherero with 6 percent. Smaller language groups such as
Khoisan and Setswana contribute 4 percent and 0.1 percent respectively to
total poverty in Namibia.
There is a general decrease in the national shares of poverty across the main
language spoken in the households, except for households speaking Caprivi
languages. For instance, the share of poverty of the Oshiwambo speaking
households decreased from 50 percent in 2003/2004 to 38 percent in
2009/2010.
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
10 Distribution of annual consumption
)
)
Page 24 NHIES 2009/2010
)
Another way of looking at the poverty levels among the language groups is by poverty share,
which takes into account the size of the population groups and indicates how much each group
contributes to the total number of poor in Namibia. Figure 10.2.4.13 shows that the households
with Oshiwambo as the main language spoken in the household contribute most to national
poverty, with 38 percent, while Rukavango speaking households contribute 25 percent to national
poverty, followed by Nama/Damara with 15 percent, Caprivi with 9 percent and Otjiherero with 6
percent. Smaller language groups such as Khoisan and Setswana contribute 4 percent and 0.1
percent respectively to total poverty in Namibia.
There is a general decrease in the national shares of poverty across the main language spoken in
the households, except for households speaking Caprivi languages. For instance, the share of
poverty of the Oshiwambo speaking households decreased from 50 percent in 2003/2004 to 38
percent in 2009/2010.
)
Figure 10.2.4.13
Poverty shares of total national poverty by main language spoken in household, 2009/2010
)
Setswana
0.1%
Rukavango
24.8%
38.4%
The share of Oshiwambo
speaking households among all
poor households
Figure 10.2.4.13
Poverty shares of total
national poverty by main
language spoken in household,
2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010Page 166
The correlation between the level of education of the head of household
and household poverty can be clearly seen in Figure 10.2.4.14. The highest
incidence of poverty is found in households whose head has no formal
education, where 34 percent of the households are found to be poor and
18 percent are found to be severely poor. The incidence of poverty drops to
26 and 11 percent when the head of household has primary or secondary
education, respectively. The incidence of poverty therefore decreases as
the level of education of the household head increases, to the extent that
households whose head has tertiary education have very low incidence of
poverty.
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Figure 10.2.4.14
Incidence of poverty by educational attainment of head of household, 2009/2010
)
Figure 10.2.4.15
Incidence of poverty by main source of income, 2009/2010
)
0.0%) 5.0%) 10.0%) 15.0%) 20.0%) 25.0%) 30.0%) 35.0%) 40.0%)
TerNary)educaNon)
Secondary)educaNon)
Total)
Primary)educaNon)
No)formal)educaNon)
TerNary)
educaNon)
Secondary)
educaNon)
Total)
Primary)
educaNon)
No)formal)
educaNon)
Poor) 0.6%) 10.8%) 19.5%) 25.8%) 33.9%)
Severely)poor) 0.0%) 4.4%) 9.6%) 13.1%) 17.9%)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%) 30%) 35%)
Salaries)and)wages)
Household)Business)
Total)
Other)inc.)source)
Subsistence)farming)
Pension)
Salaries)and)
wages)
Household)
Business)
Total)
Other)inc.)
source)
Subsistence)
farming)
Pension)
Poor) 10.2%) 17.3%) 19.5%) 27.0%) 31.2%) 32.6%)
Severely)poor) 4.6%) 7.4%) 9.6%) 15.9%) 14.6%) 17.6%)
Figure 10.2.4.14
Incidence of poverty by
educational attainment of head
of household, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 167
Figure 10.2.4.15 shows the correlation between poverty and main source
of income. Households, whose main source of income is pension, exhibit
the highest level of poverty. The lowest poverty levels are found in those
households whose main source of income is salaries and wages or household
business.
The incidence of poverty has dropped since 2003/2004 in households that rely
on pension as the main source of income from 50 to 33 percent. Poverty has
also declined among subsistence farming households from 40 to 31 percent,
and among salary and wage earning households from 14 to 10 percent.
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Figure 10.2.4.14
Incidence of poverty by educational attainment of head of household, 2009/2010
)
Figure 10.2.4.15
Incidence of poverty by main source of income, 2009/2010
)
0.0%) 5.0%) 10.0%) 15.0%) 20.0%) 25.0%) 30.0%) 35.0%) 40.0%)
TerNary)educaNon)
Secondary)educaNon)
Total)
Primary)educaNon)
No)formal)educaNon)
TerNary)
educaNon)
Secondary)
educaNon)
Total)
Primary)
educaNon)
No)formal)
educaNon)
Poor) 0.6%) 10.8%) 19.5%) 25.8%) 33.9%)
Severely)poor) 0.0%) 4.4%) 9.6%) 13.1%) 17.9%)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%) 30%) 35%)
Salaries)and)wages)
Household)Business)
Total)
Other)inc.)source)
Subsistence)farming)
Pension)
Salaries)and)
wages)
Household)
Business)
Total)
Other)inc.)
source)
Subsistence)
farming)
Pension)
Poor) 10.2%) 17.3%) 19.5%) 27.0%) 31.2%) 32.6%)
Severely)poor) 4.6%) 7.4%) 9.6%) 15.9%) 14.6%) 17.6%)
32.6%
The poverty incidence among
pensioners
Figure 10.2.4.15
Incidence of poverty by main
source of income, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010Page 168
Table 10.2.4.16 combines the average age of the household head with
the average household size classified by main income source. The average
household size is largest for households whose main source of income is
pension. A reverse relationship is found for those households where main
income source is salaries and wages or household business.
Average age of head of
household
Average household size
Salaries and wages 40.0 4.1
Subsistence farming 53.8 6.0
Pension 71.1 5.8
Household Business 41.5 4.4
Other inc. source 45.6 3.9
Figure 10.2.4.17 shows the incidence of poor and severely poor by composition
of households. In households where there are children, poverty incidence is
higher than the national average and highest in households with orphans
(34 percent). The same pattern can be observed among the severely poor
households.
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Figure 10.2.4.17
Incidence of poverty for households with children and orphans, 2009/2010
)
)
)
)
0%) 5%) 10%) 15%) 20%) 25%) 30%) 35%) 40%)
No)children)018)years)
No)orphans)018)years)
All)households)
Children)018)years,)not)orphaned)
Orphans)018)years)
No)children)
018)years)
No)orphans)
018)years)
All)households)
Children)018)
years,)not)
orphaned)
Orphans)018)
years)
Poor) 4.10%) 15.43%) 19.52%) 22.29%) 33.50%)
Severely)poor) 1.71%) 7.15%) 9.59%) 10.44%) 17.94%)
Table 10.2.4.16
Average age of the head
of household and average
household size by main source
of income
Figure 10.2.4.17
Incidence of poverty for
households with children and
orphans, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 169
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
10.3 Annual consumption in kind and cash
At the national level about 73 percent of total consumption is in cash and
27 percent is in kind (table 10.3.1). Cash transactions are more common in
urban areas, 81 percent, than in rural areas, 58 percent.
The consumption in cash ranges between 49 percent in Ohangwena and 82
percent in Erongo.
Regions
Transaction type, %
Total household
consumption
In Kind Cash Total Million N$
Caprivi 23.2 76.7 100 673
Erongo 17.6 82.4 100 3 136
Hardap 20.3 79.6 100 998
Karas 18.4 81.5 100 1 388
Kavango 37.6 62.3 100 1 567
Khomas 21.0 79.0 100 10 597
Kunene 36.4 63.5 100 759
Ohangwena 50.8 49.1 100 1 739
Omaheke 30.5 68.9 100 786
Omusati 42.4 57.6 100 2 091
Oshana 24.8 75.1 100 2 212
Oshikoto 46.2 53.7 100 1 082
Otjozondjupa 22.1 77.8 100 1 517
Namibia 26.8 73.1 100 28 544
Urban 18.8 81.2 100 18 485
Rural 41.5 58.4 100 10 058
Table 10.3.1
Annual consumption by type
of transaction, region
and urban/rural areas
NHIES 2009/2010Page 170
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Male headed households reported a higher share of cash transactions, 76
percent, compared to female headed households, 68 percent (table 10.3.2).
The pattern is similar in both urban and rural areas.
Urban/rural Transaction type, %
Total household
consumption
Sex of head In Kind Cash Total Million N$
Urban
Female 19.8 80.2 100 5 006
Male 18.4 81.6 100 13 423
Both sexes 18.8 81.2 100 18 485
Rural
Female 49.8 50.2 100 3 580
Male 36.9 63.1 100 6 420
Both sexes 41.6 58.4 100 10 058
Namibia
Female 32.3 67.7 100 8 586
Male 24.3 75.7 100 19 843
Both sexes 26.8 73.2 100 28 544
Table 10.3.3 shows that households, that reported other African languages
as their main language spoken have almost all their consumption in cash
(95 percent), followed by Setswana (84 percent), English (80 percent), and
Afrikaans (80 percent) speaking households. In any case, the cash transaction
type is predominant among all households, regardless of main language
spoken in the household.
Main language
spoken
Transaction type, %
Total household
consumption
In Kind Cash Total Million N$
Khoisan 36.1 63.8 100 177
Caprivi
languages
21.9 78.0 100 840
Othjiherero 30.6 69.1 100 2 131
Rukavango 36.7 63.3 100 1 744
Nama/Damara 26.5 73.4 100 2 184
Oshiwambo 31.8 68.2 100 10 589
Setswana 16.0 84.0 100 103
Afrikaans 19.8 80.1 100 6 770
German 21.9 77.9 100 1 307
English 19.7 80.3 100 2 027
Other European 24.0 76.0 100 345
Other African 4.7 95.3 100 154
Other Languages 26.8 73.2 100 36
Total 26.8 73.1 100 28 544
Table 10.3.2
Annual consumption by type
of transaction, urban/rural
areas and sex of head of
household
Table 10.3.3
Annual consumption by type
of transaction and main
language spoken in household
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 171
Table 10.3.4 shows that households, composed by head or head and spouse
only, have the highest proportion of cash transactions (79 percent) followed
by households with 1 child and no relatives (78 percent). Households without
orphans recorded a higher proportion of cash consumption compared to those
with orphans. In kind transactions are high in households with orphans.
Household composition Transaction type, %
Total household
consumption
Orphan hood In Kind Cash Total Million N$
with only head or head and
spouse
21.2 78.8 100 4 878
with 1 child, no relatives 22.4 77.6 100 2 283
with 2+ children, no relatives 24.4 75.6 100 5 233
with relatives 30.5 69.5 100 14 685
with non-relatives 24.0 76.0 100 1 465
Total 26.8 73.2 100 28 544
Orphan hood
Households without orphans 24.7 75.3 100 23 405
Households with orphans 36.4 63.6 100 5 139
Table 10.3.5 demonstrates that households where the head has no formal
education have a higher proportion of consumption in kind of 56 percent,
while households where head of household attained tertiary or secondary
education reported the highest proportion of consumption in cash of 81 and
77 percent, respectively. The proportion of cash transactions increases as the
educational attainment of the head of household increases.
Educational attainment of
head of household
Transaction type, % Total household
consumption
Million N$In Kind Cash Total
No formal education 55.9 43.9 100 2 235
Primary 38.0 61.9 100 4 676
Secondary 22.7 77.2 100 12 132
Tertiary 19.0 80.9 100 8 781
Not stated 27.4 72.6 100 720
Total 26.8 73.1 100 28 544
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Table 10.3.4
Annual consumption by type
of transaction, household
composition and orphan hood
Table 10.3.5
Annual consumption by type
of transaction and highest level
of educational attainment of
head of household
NHIES 2009/2010Page 172
Households, which reported drought relief, state special maintenance grants,
state old pension and subsistence farming as their main source of income have
more than half of their consumption in kind (Table 10.3.6). In households with
commercial farming or salaries and wages as their main source of income the
proportions of in kind transactions are 15 and 21 percent, respectively.
Main source of income
Transaction type, %
Total household
consumption
In Kind Cash Total Million N$
Salaries and/or wages 20.5 79.5 100 17 302
Subsistence farming 53.2 46.8 100 3 804
Commercial farming 14.7 85.3 100 818
Business activities, non-farming 18.1 81.9 100 3 244
Pensions from employment 28.7 71.3 100 587
Cash remittances 25.3 74.7 100 456
Rental income 33.0 67.0 100 225
Interest from savings/investments 23.2 76.8 100 221
State old pension 55.4 44.6 100 1 327
War veterans/ex-combatants grant 34.3 65.7 100 10
Disability grants for adults (over 16 yrs) 46.4 53.6 100 64
State child maintenance grants 48.8 51.2 100 92
State foster care grant 34.1 65.9 100 29
State special maintenance grants
(Disabled 16 yrs or less)
74.0 26.0 100 2
Alimony and similar allowance 24.9 75.1 100 45
Drought relief assistance 55.8 44.2 100 28
In kind receipts 48.8 51.2 100 106
Other, specify 35.5 64.5 100 178
Namibia 26.8 73.2 100 28 544
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Table 10.3.6
Annual consumption by type of
transaction and main source of
income
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 173
Table 10.3.7 shows that in kind transactions decrease as total household
consumption increases. The higher the adjusted per capita income, the lower
are the proportions of in kind transactions.
Table 10.3.7
Annual consumption by type of transaction and percentile group/decile after
adjusted per capita income
Percentile group Transaction type, %
Total household
consumption
Decile In Kind Cash Total Million N$
Percentiles
1 - 25 55.0 45.0 100 2 147
26 - 50 45.2 54.8 100 3 334
51 - 75 29.6 70.4 100 5 279
76 - 90 20.0 80.0 100 5 835
91 - 95 20.2 79.8 100 3 702
96 - 98 19.5 80.5 100 3 671
99 - 100 16.9 83.1 100 4 577
Total 26.8 73.2 100 28 544
Deciles
1 58.0 42.0 100 678
2 54.2 45.8 100 937
3 52.9 47.1 100 1 117
4 46.0 54.0 100 1 292
5 41.3 58.7 100 1 457
6 34.7 65.3 100 1 753
7 29.2 70.8 100 2 152
8 23.6 76.4 100 3 034
9 18.6 81.4 100 4 175
10 18.7 81.3 100 11 949
10. Distribution of Annual Consumption
Table 10.3.7
Annual consumption by type
of transaction and percentile
group/decile after adjusted per
capita income
NHIES 2009/2010Page 174
Appendices
Appendix 1 Regional tables distributed by urban/rural areas
Region and
urban/rural
areas
Distance in km to drinking water Total
number of
households
0 1 2 3 4-5 6-10 >10 Total
Percent of households
Caprivi
Urban 95.2 4.2 0.6 - - - - 100 6 353
Rural 69.9 20.4 5.7 0.1 2.6 0.1 - 100 14 901
Total 77.5 15.6 4.2 0.1 1.8 0.1 - 100 21 254
Erongo
Urban 98.8 1.1 0.1 - - - - 100 33 070
Rural 68.5 19.0 6.4 3.0 1.3 0.3 0.3 100 6 151
Total 94.0 3.9 1.1 0.5 0.2 - - 100 39 221
Hardap
Urban 95.4 3.7 0.6 0.3 - - - 100 7 308
Rural 90.4 7.2 1.2 - 0.7 0.5 - 100 8 587
Total 92.7 5.6 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.3 - 100 15 894
Karas
Urban 96.0 3.3 0.7 - - - - 100 8 396
Rural 82.0 10.9 4.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 - 100 12 902
Total 87.5 7.9 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 - 100 21 299
Kavango
Urban 91.0 7.6 - 1.0 - - - 100 7 112
Rural 41.6 30.2 17.3 1.8 5.5 0.8 1.4 100 36 778
Total 49.6 26.5 14.5 1.6 4.6 0.7 1.1 100 43 889
Khomas
Urban 95.2 3.1 1.7 - - - - 100 77 447
Rural 73.0 24.8 0.3 - 1.6 - - 100 6 115
Total 93.6 4.7 1.6 - 0.1 - - 100 83 562
Kunene
Urban 96.7 3.3 - - - - - 100 6 490
Rural 58.3 18.9 6.2 3.8 1.6 4.9 0.3 100 10 606
Total 72.9 13.0 3.8 2.4 1.0 3.1 0.2 100 17 096
Ohangwena
Urban 94.8 4.9 0.3 - - - - 100 2 836
Rural 44.6 33.1 16.4 1.8 3.0 0.6 0.1 100 36 161
Total 48.2 31.0 15.3 1.7 2.8 0.6 0.1 100 38 997
Omaheke
Urban 71.8 19.4 8.4 - - - - 100 4 687
Rural 73.5 20.4 6.1 - - - - 100 10 472
Total 73.0 20.1 6.8 - - - - 100 15 159
Table 7.1.1UR
Households by distance to
drinking water and urban/rural
areas within regions
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 175
Region and
urban/rural
areas
Distance in km to drinking water
Total
number of
households
0 1 2 3 4-5 6-10 >10 Total
Percent of households
Omusati
Urban 95.4 3.7 0.9 - - - - 100 1 657
Rural 42.3 35.2 15.9 2.9 2.2 0.7 - 100 43 504
Total 44.3 34.0 15.3 2.8 2.1 0.7 - 100 45 161
Oshana
Urban 91.9 6.8 0.9 0.2 0.2 - - 100 15 518
Rural 60.7 23.3 10.1 2.9 1.9 0.7 - 100 19 569
Total 74.5 16.0 6.0 1.7 1.1 0.4 - 100 35 087
Oshikoto
Urban 97.4 1.3 0.7 - 0.5 - - 100 3 923
Rural 47.8 31.6 14.3 3.7 0.8 0.7 - 100 28 116
Total 53.9 27.9 12.6 3.2 0.7 0.6 - 100 32 038
Otjozondjupa
Urban 86.2 9.3 4.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 - 100 14 184
Rural 82.3 13.9 2.2 1.1 - - - 100 13 951
Total 84.3 11.5 3.1 0.7 0.1 - - 100 28 135
Namibia
Urban 94.3 4.2 1.4 0.1 - - - 100 188 981
Rural 55.7 26.5 11.6 2.0 2.2 0.7 0.2 100 247 813
Total 72.4 16.8 7.2 1.2 1.3 0.4 0.1 100 436 795
Appendices
Table 7.1.1UR
Continued
NHIES 2009/2010Page 176
Region and
urban/rural
areas
House-
holds
Popu-
lation Average
household
size
Total
consumption
Average
household
consumption
Consumption
per capita
% % Million N$ % N$ N$
Caprivi
Urban 29.9 28.9 4.6 318 47.3 50 122 10 977
Rural 70.1 71.1 4.8 354 52.7 23 789 4 972
Total 100 100 4.7 673 100 31 660 6 709
Erongo
Urban 84.3 85.4 3.6 2 900 92.5 87 703 24 573
Rural 15.7 14.6 3,3 236 7.5 38 325 11 723
Total 100 100 3.5 3 136 100 79 960 22 702
Hardap
Urban 46.0 52.7 4.9 497 49.8 68 008 13 976
Rural 54.0 47.3 3.7 501 50.2 58 307 15 700
Total 100 100 4.2 998 100 62 767 14 791
Karas
Urban 39.4 40.8 3.8 603 43.5 71 876 19 012
Rural 60.6 59.2 3.6 785 56.5 60 816 17 013
Total 100 100 3.7 1 388 100 65 176 17 828
Kavango
Urban 16.2 15.0 6.0 471 30.1 66 297 11 058
Rural 83.8 85.0 6.6 1 096 69.9 29 787 4 542
Total 100 100 6.5 1 567 100 35 703 5 521
Khomas
Urban 92.7 94.5 4.1 10 340 97.6 133 517 32 203
Rural 7.3 5.5 3.1 256 2.4 41 889 13 605
Total 100 100 4,1 10 597 100 126 811 31 173
Kunene
Urban 38.0 38.0 4.4 266 35.1 41 026 9 378
Rural 62.0 62.0 4.4 493 64.9 46 492 10 665
Total 100 100 4.4 759 100 44 416 10 175
Ohangwena
Urban 7.3 4.2 3.6 183 10.6 64 705 18 181
Rural 92.7 95.8 6.3 1 555 89.4 43 006 6 814
Total 100 100 6.1 1 739 100 44 584 7 295
Appendices
Table 9.1.1UR
Annual consumption by
urban/rural areas within
regions
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 177
Region and
urban/rural
areas
House-
holds
Popu-
lation Average
household
size
Total
consumption
Average
household
consumption
Consumption
per capita
% % Million N$ % N$ N$
Omaheke
Urban 30.9 32.9 4.4 253 32.2 53 979 12 240
Rural 69.1 67.1 4.0 533 67.8 50 859 12 615
Total 100 100 4.1 786 100 51 823 12 491
Omusati
Urban 3.7 1.7 2.5 94 4.5 56 637 22 860
Rural 96.3 98.3 5.3 1 997 95.5 45 900 8 633
Total 100 100 5.2 2 091 100 46 294 8 881
Oshana
Urban 44.2 35.7 3.9 1 212 54.8 78 082 19 868
Rural 55.8 64.3 5.6 1 000 45.2 51 121 9 095
Total 100 100 4.9 2 212 100 63 045 12 938
Oshikoto
Urban 12.2 10.3 4.2 309 28.6 78 793 18 629
Rural 87.8 89.7 5.2 773 71.4 27 489 5 327
Total 100 100 5.0 1 082 100 33 770 6 693
Otjozondjupa
Urban 50.4 56.2 4.6 1 037 68.3 73 098 16 041
Rural 49.6 43.8 3.6 480 31.7 34 426 9 538
Total 100 100 4.1 1 517 100 53 922 13 194
Namibia
Urban 43.3 37.9 4.1 18 485 64.8 97 816 23 592
Rural 56.7 62.1 5.2 10 058 35.2 40 589 7 841
Total 100 100 4.7 28 544 100 65 348 13 813
Appendices
Table 9.1.1UR
Continued...
NHIES 2009/2010Page 178
Region
Urban/rural
areas
Annual consumption, %
Total con-
sump-
tion
Average
house-
hold con-
sump-
tion
Food/-
beve-
rages
Hous-
ing
Cloth-
ing/-
foot-
wear
Health Educa-tion
Furn-
ishing/-
equip-
ment
Trans-
port/-
com-
munica-
tion
Other Total
Million
N$ N$
Caprivi
Urban 28.5 18.9 7.2 1.5 2.5 11.6 16.2 13.7 100 318 50 122
Rural 41.1 11.0 7.1 1.4 1.4 15.3 14.9 7.8 100 354 23 789
Total 35.1 14.7 7.2 1.4 1.9 13.5 15.5 10.6 100 673 31 660
Erongo
Urban 15.7 23.5 6.6 2.3 2.4 8.0 20.3 21.4 100 2 900 87 703
Rural 30.8 20.0 6.3 1.3 2.1 10.4 15.6 13.6 100 236 38 325
Total 16.8 23.2 6.5 2.2 2.4 8.2 19.9 20.8 100 3 136 79 960
Hardap
Urban 25.8 22.7 6.9 1.5 0.9 8.9 17.0 16.2 100 497 68 008
Rural 26.0 17.1 4.5 1.3 1.9 9.4 21.1 18.7 100 501 58 307
Total 25.9 19.9 5.7 1.4 1.4 9.2 19.1 17.4 100 998 62 767
Karas
Urban 18.6 19.9 7.3 2.6 3.2 6.5 20.8 21.2 100 603 71 876
Rural 20.5 17.8 4.2 1.2 3.2 7.0 18.8 27.3 100 785 60 816
Total 19.7 18.7 5.6 1.8 3.2 6.7 19.7 24.7 100 1 388 65 176
Kavango
Urban 25.9 18.2 6.8 1.2 3.8 9.7 20.8 13.6 100 471 66 297
Rural 49.5 19.1 6.4 1.3 1.9 6.3 9.0 6.6 100 1 096 29 787
Total 42.4 18.9 6.5 1.3 2.4 7.3 12.5 8.7 100 1 567 35 703
Khomas
Urban 12.3 27.7 5.3 2.0 4.0 7.6 18.4 22.8 100 10 340 133 517
Rural 26.3 17.0 5.2 1.1 1.4 12.7 17.9 18.3 100 256 41 889
Total 12.6 27.4 5.3 1.9 3.9 7.8 18.4 22.7 100 10 597 126 811
Kunene
Urban 30.9 18.3 8.4 1.8 1.2 10.8 14.1 14.3 100 266 41 026
Rural 38.0 23.7 3.4 4.1 1.5 5.9 15.6 7.7 100 493 46 492
Total 35.5 21.8 5.1 3.3 1.4 7.7 15.1 10.0 100 759 44 416
Ohangwena
Urban 21.6 22.7 7.6 1.2 2.2 8.4 17.5 18.8 100 183 64 705
Rural 44.1 24.0 5.5 0.9 1.7 4.7 10.0 9.2 100 1 555 43 006
Total 41.7 23.8 5.7 1.0 1.8 5.1 10.8 10.2 100 1 739 44 584
Appendices
Table
10.1.1UR
Annual
consumption by
consumption
group and urban/
rural areas within
regions
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 179
Region
Urban/rural
areas
Annual consumption, % Total
con-
sump-
tion
Average
house-
hold con-
sump-
tion
Food/-
beve-
rages
Hous-
ing
Cloth-
ing/-
foot-
wear
Health Educa-tion
Furn-
ishing/-
equip-
ment
Trans-
port/-
com-
munica-
tion
Other Total
Million
N$ N$
Omaheke
Urban 20.6 20.6 5.0 1.6 3.7 9.0 19.5 20.0 100 253 53 979
Rural 31.3 23.5 3.1 1.2 0.9 12.4 16.9 10.5 100 533 50 859
Total 27.9 22.6 3.8 1.3 1.8 11.3 17.7 13.6 100 786 51 823
Omusati
Urban 21.2 16.4 8.2 0.8 4.0 8.1 17.2 24.0 100 94 56 637
Rural 41.5 18.3 5.4 0.7 2.9 4.3 16.7 10.1 100 1 997 45 900
Total 40.6 18.2 5.6 0.7 2.9 4.5 16.7 10.8 100 2 091 46 294
Oshana
Urban 19.7 17.4 6.6 1.7 3.5 8.7 26.0 16.5 100 1 212 78 082
Rural 38.1 18.2 6.5 1.1 2.5 6.1 14.8 12.8 100 1 000 51 121
Total 28.0 17.7 6.5 1.4 3.0 7.5 21.0 14.8 100 2 212 63 045
Oshikoto
Urban 15.6 24.8 5.1 1.8 3.5 8.2 15.5 25.5 100 309 78 793
Rural 49.7 21.7 5.1 0.5 1.6 6.1 8.1 7.1 100 773 27 489
Total 40.0 22.6 5.1 0.9 2.2 6.7 10.3 12.3 100 1 082 33 770
Otjozondjupa
Urban 17.1 20.8 6.6 1.3 2.3 7.5 21.5 22.9 100 1 037 73 098
Rural 38.2 18.6 5.3 1.8 1.2 8.5 15.2 11.3 100 480 34 426
Total 23.8 20.1 6.2 1.5 2.0 7.8 19.5 19.2 100 1 517 53 922
Namibia
Urban 15.3 24.8 5.9 1.9 3.4 7.9 19.3 21.4 100 18 485 97 816
Rural 39.1 19.7 5.3 1.2 2.1 6.8 14.2 11.6 100 10 058 40 589
Total 23.7 23.0 5.7 1.7 2.9 7.5 17.5 17.9 100 28 544 65 348
Appendices
Table
10.1.1UR
Continued
NHIES 2009/2010Page 180
Appendix 2 Detailed tables
Assets Owns Has Access Has no access Total
Radio 71.7 11.6 16.7 100
Stereo/HiFi 25.2 5.9 68.9 100
Tape Recorder 24.4 5.6 69.9 100
Television 38.0 10.1 51.9 100
Satellite TV(e.g. DStv) 13.3 5.7 81.0 100
Video cassette recorder/DVD 25.6 3.9 70.5 100
Telephone (landline) 32.7 23.6 43.7 100
Cell telephone 78.8 9.4 11.7 100
Refrigerator 35.3 5.2 59.5 100
Stove, gas, electric, paraffin 50.7 2.3 47.1 100
Microwave oven 19.0 2.5 78.5 100
Freezer 22.0 4.5 73.4 100
Washing machine 16.9 2.4 80.7 100
Motor vehicle 20.1 19.3 60.5 100
Motor cycle/Scooter 2.0 1.0 97.1 100
Sewing /Knitting machine 14.4 4.7 80.9 100
Donkey cart/ Ox cart 9.3 6.5 84.2 100
Plough 22.2 11.5 66.4 100
Tractor 1.6 11.8 86.6 100
Wheelbarrow 8.9 13.2 78.0 100
Grinding mill 1.8 16.4 81.8 100
Bicycle 15.1 6.2 78.7 100
Computer 11.5 7.3 81.2 100
Internet services 5.9 7.4 86.7 100
Canoe/Boat 1.5 2.3 96.2 100
Motorboat 0.3 0.6 99.1 100
Camera 13.3 8.4 78.4 100
Appendices
Table 8.1.9
Households by ownership of
and access to assets
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 181
Consumption items Caprivi Erongo Hardap Karas Kavango Khomas Kunene Ohang-wena
Total number of households 21 254 39 221 15 894 21 299 43 889 83 562 17 096 38 997
Average household size 4.7 3.5 4.2 3.7 6.5 4.1 4.4 6.1
Food expenditures, cash 7 838 11 896 13 236 10 314 7 748 15 307 7 969 6 226
Bread and cereals 2 607 2 643 2 430 2 025 2 726 2 934 2 196 1 884
Meat 1 164 2 326 2 062 1 733 1 320 2 764 1 085 1 235
Fish 810 407 113 153 698 386 98 652
Milk, cheese and eggs 498 975 910 680 352 1 362 477 170
Oils, fats 411 519 378 336 359 533 314 232
Vegetables 465 780 592 596 561 1 139 439 375
Fruts, Nuts and berries 87 316 144 186 133 405 114 78
Sugar 567 778 1 113 862 633 892 830 372
Non-Alcoholic beverages 618 1 025 1 116 986 503 1 554 661 411
Alcoholic beverages, tobacco 281 996 1 240 787 160 1 288 1 018 505
Other food 264 534 2 385 1 729 220 1 140 467 145
Ready-Made foods 65 597 754 241 84 910 271 167
Food consumption, in kind 3 275 1 519 2 955 2 460 7 373 674 7 782 12 358
Bread and cereals 1 138 167 186 128 3 960 67 1 205 5 493
Meat 230 312 862 807 269 218 1 253 1 009
Fish 459 120 35 34 333 23 88 242
Vegetables 602 55 59 40 1 583 32 251 2 388
Fruits, nuts and berries 99 25 29 103 941 6 116 198
Other food 522 564 775 1 130 237 220 4 520 2 876
Ready-Made food 225 278 1 010 219 50 107 348 151
Food consumption, cash/in kind
not stated 11 24 91 53 14 31 20 9
Total food consumption 11 125 13 439 16 283 12 827 15 135 16 012 15 770 18 592
Clothing and footwear 2 267 5 226 3 583 3 625 2 326 6 709 2 280 2 533
Housing 4 669 18 576 12 482 12 197 6 731 34 756 9 701 10 632
Furnishing and equipment 4 277 6 519 5 755 4 397 2 607 9 829 3 399 2 257
Health 457 1 767 871 1 153 452 2 458 1 473 433
Transport and communication 4 903 15 916 11 965 12 824 4 475 23 320 6 711 4 803
Education 613 1 900 881 2 079 870 4 977 627 791
Recreation and culture 926 3 376 1 736 1 597 605 5 543 873 589
Other 2 425 13 240 9 212 14 476 2 503 23 209 3 583 3 952
Total non-food consumption 20 536 66 521 46 484 52 349 20 569 110 799 28 646 25 991
Total consumption 31 660 79 960 62 767 65 176 35 703 126 811 44 416 44 584
Total consumption 2003/2004 24 304 52 675 41 575 43 247 22 849 89 064 25 914 21 685
Ratio consumtion 2009/2010 over
consumption 2003/2004 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.7 2.1
Appendices
Table 10.1.9
Average annual household
consumption by region, urban/
rural areas and consumption
items, Namibian Dollar
NHIES 2009/2010Page 182
Consumption items Omaheke Omusati Oshana Oshikoto Otjozon-djupa Namibia Urban Rural
Total number of households 15 159 45 161 35 087 32 038 28 135 436 795 188 981 247 813
Average household size 4.1 5.2 4.9 5.0 4.1 4.7 4.1 5.2
Food expenditures, cash 8 515 7 281 11 206 4 752 9 001 9 885 14 182 6 609
Bread and cereals 2 041 2 337 3 169 1 282 2 449 2 459 3 037 2 019
Meat 1 047 1 211 1 893 975 1 634 1 729 2 632 1 041
Fish 68 780 947 326 139 485 467 499
Milk, cheese and eggs 707 256 564 273 678 668 1 144 304
Oils, fats 282 284 421 261 466 390 540 275
Vegetables 335 577 896 283 447 661 1 011 394
Fruts, Nuts and berries 83 153 301 69 161 207 351 98
Sugar 1 136 514 755 401 946 723 871 611
Non-Alcoholic beverages 612 464 1 056 383 742 851 1 377 450
Alcoholic beverages, tobacco 619 422 579 247 611 703 1 092 407
Other food 1 391 174 389 165 425 640 959 397
Ready-Made foods 195 110 238 86 301 367 700 113
Food consumption, in kind 5 853 11 492 6 399 8 733 3 769 5 590 787 9 252
Bread and cereals 213 6 033 2 812 3 096 309 2 136 156 3 646
Meat 946 1 799 542 1 414 523 718 158 1 144
Fish 26 459 422 189 24 197 43 314
Vegetables 89 1 481 847 1 507 51 765 64 1 299
Fruits, nuts and berries 11 528 298 144 105 227 19 386
Other food 4 411 1 101 1 332 2 370 2 558 1 371 193 2 270
Ready-Made food 157 91 147 13 198 176 155 192
Food consumption, cash/in kind
not stated 91 19 46 13 41 30 40 22
Total food consumption 14 459 18 792 17 651 13 497 12 811 15 505 15 009 15 883
Clothing and footwear 1 945 2 580 4 126 1 727 3 345 3 727 5 778 2 163
Housing 11 694 8 439 11 184 7 639 10 838 15 034 24 245 8 009
Furnishing and equipment 5 871 2 090 4 736 2 258 4 209 4 931 7 771 2 765
Health 689 330 878 287 798 1 082 1 869 482
Transport and communication 9 186 7 728 13 212 3 462 10 519 11 441 18 900 5 754
Education 937 1 350 1 899 730 1 059 1 915 3 325 840
Recreation and culture 962 448 1 541 668 1 579 2 051 4 034 540
Other 6 080 4 536 7 819 3 502 8 764 9 662 16 886 4 153
Total non-food consumption 37 364 27 502 45 394 20 273 41 111 49 843 82 807 24 705
Total consumption 51 823 46 294 63 045 33 770 53 922 65 348 97 816 40 589
Total consumption 2003/2004 39 152 25 325 43 965 25 735 33 251 42 078 64 863 26 568
Ratio consumtion 2009/2010 over
consumption 2003/2004 1.3 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5
Appendices
Table 10.1.9
Continued
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 183
Consumption items
Urban Rural
Female Male Not stated
Both
sexes Female Male
Not
stated
Both
sexes
Total number of households 74 316 113 953 712 188 981 110 435 135 378 2 000 247 813
Average household size 4.2 4.1 3.7 4.1 5.4 5.0 2.6 5.2
Food expenditures, cash 12 036 15 594 12 215 14 182 5 927 7 216 3 206 6 609
Bread and cereals 2 827 3 169 3 784 3 037 1 911 2 121 1 045 2 019
Meat 2 147 2 950 2 300 2 632 1 014 1 070 564 1 041
Fish 381 522 586 467 546 460 546 499
Milk, cheese and eggs 987 1 251 524 1 144 247 355 68 304
Oils, fats 475 583 515 540 251 298 97 275
Vegetables 841 1 126 533 1 011 350 432 225 394
Fruts, Nuts and berries 306 381 295 351 99 97 59 98
Sugar 874 872 532 871 554 664 142 611
Non-Alcoholic beverages 1 212 1 488 815 1 377 390 504 126 450
Alcoholic beverages, tobacco 655 1 373 1 599 1 092 254 534 240 407
Other food 840 1 039 550 959 227 541 73 397
Ready-Made foods 492 839 184 700 82 140 21 113
Food consumption, in kind 912 699 1 882 787 9 475 9 101 7 115 9 252
Bread and cereals 222 110 417 156 4 073 3 300 3 479 3 646
Meat 150 162 303 158 955 1 303 883 1 144
Fish 47 40 82 43 350 283 392 314
Vegetables 76 54 274 64 1 589 1 068 910 1 299
Fruits, nuts and berries 28 14 15 19 377 397 147 386
Other food 218 174 479 193 1 955 2 544 1 169 2 270
Ready-Made food 169 145 314 155 176 207 136 192
Food consumption, cash/in kind
not stated 32 44 144 40 16 28 1 22
Total food 12 980 16 337 14 241 15 009 15 417 16 345 10 322 15 883
Clothing and footwear 4 741 6 452 6 080 5 778 1 980 2 320 1 704 2 163
Housing 17 984 28 361 18 944 24 245 6 881 8 938 7 453 8 009
Furnishing and equipment 5 595 9 202 5 942 7 771 1 856 3 475 4 959 2 765
Health 1 365 2 194 2 489 1 869 298 636 216 482
Transport and communication 9 648 24 989 9 965 18 900 2 653 8 340 1 911 5 754
Education 2 897 3 603 3 419 3 325 574 1 066 180 840
Recreation and culture 2 639 4 942 4 339 4 034 338 711 94 540
Other 9 514 21 714 13 589 16 886 2 421 5 595 2 212 4 153
Total non-food consumption 54 382 101 457 64 766 82 807 17 000 31 080 18 731 24 705
Total consumption 67 362 117 794 79 007 97 816 32 417 47 425 29 054 40 589
Total consumption 2003/2004 45 912 76 325 - 64 863 21 130 30 584 - 26 568
Ratio consumtion 2009/2010 over
consumption 2003/2004 1.5 1.5 - 1.5 1.5 1.6 - 1.5
Appendices
Table 10.1.10
Average annual household
consumption by urban/rural
areas, sex of head of household
and consumption items,
Namibian Dollar
NHIES 2009/2010Page 184
Consumption items
Namibia
Female Male Not stated Both sexes
Total number of households 184 752 249 331 2 711 436 795
Average household size 4.9 4.6 2.9 4.7
Food expenditures, cash 8 384 11 045 5 570 9 885
Bread and cereals 2 280 2 600 1 764 2 459
Meat 1 470 1 929 1 020 1 729
Fish 480 489 556 485
Milk, cheese and eggs 544 765 188 668
Oils, fats 341 428 206 390
Vegetables 548 749 306 661
Fruts, Nuts and berries 182 227 121 207
Sugar 682 759 245 723
Non-Alcoholic beverages 721 954 307 851
Alcoholic beverages, tobacco 415 918 597 703
Other food 474 769 198 640
Ready-Made foods 247 459 64 367
Food consumption, in kind 6 030 5 261 5 742 5 590
Bread and cereals 2 524 1 842 2 675 2 136
Meat 631 782 730 718
Fish 228 172 311 197
Vegetables 981 605 743 765
Fruits, nuts and berries 236 222 112 227
Other food 1 256 1 461 988 1 371
Ready-Made food 173 178 183 176
Food consumption, cash/in kind not
stated 22 36 39 30
Total food 14 437 16 342 11 351 15 505
Clothing and footwear 3 091 4 208 2 853 3 727
Housing 11 347 17 815 10 469 15 034
Furnishing and equipment 3 360 6 092 5 217 4 931
Health 727 1 348 813 1 082
Transport and communication 5 467 15 949 4 025 11 441
Education 1 508 2 226 1 030 1 915
Recreation and culture 1 263 2 645 1 209 2 051
Other 5 274 12 962 5 198 9 662
Total non-food consumption 32 037 63 245 30 814 49 843
Total consumption 46 474 79 586 42 165 65 348
Total consumption 2003/2004 30 465 50 112 - 42 078
Ratio consumtion 2009/2010 over
consumption 2003/2004 1.5 1.6 - 1.6
Appendices
Table 10.1.10
Continued
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 185
Consumption items
Main language spoken
Khoisan Caprivi languages
Otji-
herero
Ruka-
vango
Nama/-
Damara
Oshi-
wambo
Sets-
wana
Total number of households 5 954 21 537 39 748 51 011 54 323 204 305 1 299
Average household size 4.7 4.6 4.3 6.1 4.5 4.9 3.7
Food expenditures, cash 3 878 8 519 8 403 7 749 7 771 8 741 7 883
Bread and cereals 1 113 2 724 2 392 2 736 2 026 2 465 1 909
Meat 439 1 295 1 255 1 263 1 376 1 607 1 193
Fish 44 765 84 636 88 650 80
Milk, cheese and eggs 163 580 856 348 477 400 800
Oils, fats 163 421 393 375 334 351 151
Vegetables 124 511 410 531 383 617 570
Fruts, Nuts and berries 20 98 99 128 115 180 236
Sugar 662 594 931 662 931 576 844
Non-Alcoholic beverages 238 678 648 549 751 737 1 007
Alcoholic beverages, tobacco 196 270 611 186 469 652 629
Other food 679 497 504 260 663 322 285
Ready-Made foods 39 86 219 75 159 186 178
Food consumption, in kind 5 111 2 943 6 070 6 618 2 819 7 545 2 259
Bread and cereals 1 064 994 637 3 371 262 3 366 63
Meat 610 210 839 279 720 955 546
Fish 73 438 60 296 44 267 35
Vegetables 467 499 163 1 376 43 1 169 5
Fruits, nuts and berries 966 104 56 824 21 219 6
Other food 1 671 496 4 151 388 1 272 1 468 1 081
Ready-Made food 260 203 164 83 456 101 524
Food consumption, cash/in kind
not stated 15 22 42 14 43 21 10
Total food consumption 9 004 11 485 14 514 14 380 10 633 16 307 10 152
Clothing and footwear 855 2 785 3 545 2 279 3 042 3 568 3 705
Housing 5 743 6 942 12 170 6 610 9 929 10 371 18 995
Furnishing and equipment 2 463 4 627 3 721 2 463 2 800 3 310 13 210
Health 513 657 1 030 418 612 610 1 722
Transport and communication 4 025 6 257 9 153 4 278 6 294 9 066 13 078
Education 862 1 666 2 130 859 602 1 637 4 231
Recreation and culture 225 1 081 1 287 676 1 429 1 157 2 084
Other 6 116 3 511 6 070 2 230 4 871 5 802 12 370
Total non-food consumption 20 801 27 526 39 105 19 813 29 578 35 521 69 395
Total consumption 29 805 39 010 53 619 34 193 40 211 51 828 79 547
Total consumption 2003/2004 14 505 29 133 42 478 20 659 23 920 31 188 40 025
Ratio consumtion 2009/2010
over consumption 2003/2004 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.0
Appendices
Table 10.1.11
Average annual
household
consumption by main
language spoken and
consumption items,
Namibian Dollar
NHIES 2009/2010Page 186
Consumption items
Main language spoken
Afrikaans German English Other European
Other
African
Other
langua-
ges
Not
stated Total
Total number of households 40 660 3 549 8 946 2 367 1 902 209 985 436 795
Average household size 3.7 2.5 3.3 4.2 3.3 2.6 4.3 4.7
Food expenditures, cash 18 678 34 912 23 272 13 665 14 059 24 032 8 393 9 885
Bread and cereals 2 530 3 334 3 136 2 640 3 476 3 360 1 959 2 459
Meat 3 379 4 911 4 347 2 211 2 598 2 254 1 550 1 729
Fish 334 487 479 456 501 288 196 485
Milk, cheese and eggs 1 869 3 918 2 258 1 758 1 354 2 162 543 668
Oils, fats 573 1 016 675 511 541 592 230 390
Vegetables 1 301 3 245 1 706 1 237 1 241 2 587 578 661
Fruts, Nuts and berries 461 1 642 836 553 555 410 136 207
Sugar 1 002 1 945 867 694 901 130 448 723
Non-Alcoholic beverages 1 756 2 942 2 201 1 698 1 253 2 388 974 851
Alcoholic beverages, tobacco 1 838 2 865 1 924 537 432 7 446 1 180 703
Other food 2 298 5 063 1 739 640 420 196 254 640
Ready-Made foods 1 338 3 542 3 105 730 787 2 220 345 367
Food consumption, in kind 1 447 1 469 274 440 426 527 2 912 5 590
Bread and cereals 77 74 30 195 146 4 1 413 2 136
Meat 489 433 101 81 35 0 193 718
Fish 26 37 31 0 38 0 50 197
Vegetables 34 53 57 60 48 0 367 765
Fruits, nuts and berries 15 35 4 63 15 18 197 227
Other food 484 631 34 28 121 49 596 1 371
Ready-Made food 321 206 19 13 24 458 95 176
Food consumption, cash/in
kind not stated 54 118 85 28 38 78 0 30
Total food consumption 20 178 36 499 23 631 14 133 14 523 24 637 11 305 15 505
Clothing and footwear 6 635 5 777 10 063 6 802 3 519 3 357 2 977 3 727
Housing 43 315 98 667 65 103 51 759 17 521 57 240 17 754 15 034
Furnishing and equipment 13 201 44 766 20 672 10 530 4 540 15 047 3 217 4 931
Health 4 107 8 013 2 784 2 456 1 512 3 006 3 421 1 082
Transport and
communication 32 413 76 299 33 994 32 544 16 041 48 948 35 775 11 441
Education 4 230 4 511 8 366 6 771 6 522 0 3 088 1 915
Recreation and culture 6 480 14 977 14 365 7 023 1 862 3 025 3 101 2 051
Other 35 954 78 768 47 659 13 889 14 690 15 695 56 043 9 662
Total non-food consumption 146 336 331 778 203 006 131 775 66 208 146 319 125 375 49 843
Total consumption 166 514 368 277 226 638 145 908 80 731 170 957 136 680 65 348
Total consumption 2003/2004 93 156 193 684 193 505 - - - - 42 078
Ratio consumtion 2009/2010
over consumption 2003/2004 1.8 1.9 1.2 - - - - 1.6
Appendices
Table 10.1.11
Continued
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 187
Appendix 3 Evaluation of poverty
3 Re-evaluating Namibias lower and upper poverty lines
In a previous report of the Central Bureau of Statistics, the cost of basic needs
approach was used to estimate Namibias2003/2004 (lower and upper)
poverty lines. This was done on the basis on data from the 2003/04 NHEIS. The
food poverty line was first estimated on the basis of calorie intake, through
the assessment of the cost of meeting a specified daily calorific minimum.
The food poverty line estimate that was obtained was N$ 127.15. Two
approaches were subsequently used to estimate two non-food poverty lines.
The first approach set the non-food poverty line to the non-food expenditures
of those households with food expenditures approximately equal to the food
poverty line. The second approach set the non-food poverty line to the non-
food expenditures of those households with food expenditures equal to the
food poverty line.
In assessing the value of Namibias 2009/2010poverty lines, an important
objective is that of consistency. For comparisons of absolute poverty to be
consistently made across time, it is indeed important to ensure that the
value of the 2009/2010 poverty lines yield the same purchasing power as
that provided by the 2003/2004 lines. This can best be done by re-evaluating
(in 2009/2010 dollars) the cost of the goods and services that were used
to construct the food and non-food poverty lines in 2003/2004. This re-
evaluation can be done using CBSs consumer price indices, disaggregated
across CPIs twelve main consumption items. Table 3.1 shows the evolution
of these item indices, which have moved in a somewhat dissimilar pattern
between 2003/2004 and 2009/2010.
3.1 Evaluating the food poverty line
The first step is to re-evaluate the 2003/2004 food poverty in 2009/2010
dollars. This can be done using official food CPI published by the CBS. Between
July-2003/June-2004 and July-2009/June-2010, food prices have increased by
about 60.5 percent. The food poverty line, which has a value of $N 127.15 in
2003/2004 prices, is therefore worth N$ 204.05 in 2009/2010 prices.
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010Page 188
Main consumption group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Food 121.6 122.6 124.4 132.5 148.7 174.0 192.6 198.9
Housing, including utilities 114.6 122.4 124.3 128.3 132.7 138.1 148.8 157.4
Transport 117.7 123.9 132.3 143.0 151.5 171.1 181.2 192.0
Furniture and equipment 110.6 111.3 113.9 116.9 121.7 133.5 148.2 150.8
Clothing and footwear 108.8 109.3 108.2 105.0 108.5 112.9 122.6 126.7
Recreation, entertainment
and sport 109.0 110.3 111.1 113.9 119.1 127.0 139.4 144.0
Communication 104.4 107.4 108.5 109.2 110.8 116.2 123.5 125.1
Education 118.6 135.5 140.6 149.9 158.9 168.7 174.6 183.8
Health care 108.7 111.8 112.6 110.1 115.2 117.9 124.5 130.4
Accommodation services 114.1 120.9 127.1 134.0 143.3 160.0 176.6 190.9
Miscellaneous expenditure 104.7 109.5 108.0 114.8 117.1 123.1 135.2 140.8
Source: CBS, Namibia
Appendices
Table 3.1
Namibias yearly Consumer
Price Index by main
consumption groups
(Dec.2001=100)
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 189
3.2 Evaluating the non-food poverty lines
The second step is to estimate the 2009/2000 value of the non-food poverty
lines that were set in 2003/2004. This is done by estimating the 2003/2004
non-food consumption behaviour of those households with total expenditures
equal to the food poverty line. This is done using a statistical technique that
is sufficiently flexible to take into account the local consumption behaviour
of those relatively close to that food threshold. The detailed procedure is
reported in the annex. Once this is done, it is then possible to calculate the
2009/2010 cost of those non-food items using the CPI data produced by the
CBS. This exercise is performed both for the lower and for the upper non-food
poverty lines. Table 3.2.1 provides the 2009/2010 values of the 2003/2004
poverty lines. These values are consistent across time in the sense that they
provide a level of purchasing power that is equivalent across the two periods,
once we account for the consumption behaviour of those at the 2003/2004
poverty lines.
Main categories of expenditures
Levels of adult equivalent total
expenditures
127.15 262.45
Food 69.74 127.15
Clothing and footwear 5.97 18.20
Housing, including utilities 37.95 78.16
Furniture and equipment 3.59 12.71
Health care 1.76 3.13
Transport 1.63 7.56
Communication 0.39 2.45
Recreation and culture 0.96 1.65
Education 2.56 2.86
Accommodation services 0.00 0.33
Miscellaneous expenditure 2.59 8.27
Total 127.15 262.45
Appendices
Table 3.2.1
Adult equivalent expenditures
by main categories of
expenditures, at two levels
of adult equivalent total
expenditures, 2003/2004
NHIES 2009/2010Page 190
Main categories of expenditures
Quintiles of adult equivalent
expenditure
I II III IV V Total
Food 53.18 50.88 42.42 33.61 13.51 22.52
Clothing and footwear 6.53 6.97 7.40 7.81 4.32 5.36
Housing, including utilities 25.56 23.97 24.47 22.09 23.66 23.56
Furniture and equipment 4.35 5.02 5.76 7.48 8.73 7.93
Health care 0.87 0.92 1.00 1.21 1.99 1.69
Transport 2.18 3.43 5.42 8.56 17.18 13.55
Communication 2.25 2.75 3.86 4.62 3.90 3.90
Recreation, entertainment and 0.84 1.02 1.59 2.34 4.18 3.38
Education 1.38 1.34 1.60 2.38 3.02 2.65
Accommodation services 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.21 0.97 0.71
Miscellaneous expenditure 2.74 3.54 6.29 9.70 18.54 14.74
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Number of households in the sample 1 969 1 895 1 936 1 992 1 864 9 656
Weighted number of households 87 344 87 362 87 309 87 361 87 416 436 795
Appendices
Table 3.2.2
Shares of adult equivalent
total expenditures by quintiles
and different expenditure
categories, 2009/2010
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 191
3.3 Foot note to figure 10.2.4.6, 95% confidence intervals
In addition to the estimated population figures, a symmetric confidence
interval is drawn around those figures to indicate an interval of values that
will contain the true population figure with a certain degree of confidence.
The small red box is the estimated population figure and the horizontal bar
around it indicates the confidence interval. The point shown by the red box
is the estimated value of the population figure based on the sample, but not
the true population figure itself. The true population figure, which is a fixed
value, could lye anywhere within the confidence interval.
The width of the confidence interval depends upon two major factors, the size
of the sample and the variability among the population units with regard to
the particular statistic being estimated. The width of the confidence interval
decreases as the sample size increases. If the variability is high among the
population units, then the confidence interval becomes larger also. If the
confidence intervals for two sub-population groups do not overlap, then one
can reasonably conclude that the difference between the statistics of the two
groups is statistically significant.
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010Page 192
Appendix 4 Unemployment, strict definition
Unemployed population, 15 years and above, strict definition
Region
Female Male Both Sexes
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Caprivi 22 491 5 927 26.4 21 038 3 907 18.6 43 529 9 834 22.6
Erongo 32 068 6 698 20.9 41 657 5 161 12.4 73 725 11 859 16.1
Hardap 11 695 4 192 35.8 15 548 2 935 18.9 27 244 7 127 26.2
Karas 15 479 5 742 37.1 22 366 5 352 23.9 37 846 11 094 29.3
Kavango 58 465 7 713 13.2 46 742 7 319 15.7 105 207 15 031 14.3
Khomas 81 627 20 238 24.8 96 328 18 403 19.1 177 956 38 641 21.7
Kunene 16 263 3 855 23.7 16 502 2 620 15.9 32 765 6 475 19.8
Ohangwena 23 565 7 659 32.5 20 211 8 356 41.3 43 776 16 015 36.6
Omaheke 10 809 3 304 30.6 15 269 2 416 15.8 26 078 5 719 21.9
Omusati 27 198 7 727 28.4 21 734 7 159 32.9 48 932 14 886 30.4
Oshana 27 828 7 723 27.8 24 341 6 362 26.1 52 169 14 085 27.0
Oshikoto 36 272 4 407 12.2 26 672 3 600 13.5 62 945 8 008 12.7
Otjozondjupa 20 177 6 818 33.8 28 342 7 091 25.0 48 519 13 909 28.7
Namibia 383 938 92 003 24.0 396 751 80 682 20.3 780 689 172 685 22.1
Urban 186 838 47 715 25.5 197 223 38 129 19.3 384 061 85 845 22.4
Rural 197 100 44 288 22.5 199 528 42 553 21.3 396 628 86 841 21.9
Age group
Female Male Both Sexes
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
15-19 23 415 11 132 47.5 24 207 10 369 42.8 47 622 21 502 45.2
20-24 66 018 29 899 45.3 66 706 25 256 37.9 132 724 55 156 41.6
25-29 70 611 19 570 27.7 67 447 17 146 25.4 138 058 36 716 26.6
30-34 58 679 12 816 21.8 61 963 11 162 18.0 120 643 23 978 19.9
35-39 45 968 7 879 17.1 49 768 6 018 12.1 95 735 13 897 14.5
40-44 37 775 5 342 14.1 35 730 4 269 11.9 73 505 9 611 13.1
45-49 31 265 3 027 9.7 30 559 2 954 9.7 61 824 5 981 9.7
50-54 21 000 1 432 6.8 23 895 1 548 6.5 44 895 2 980 6.6
55-59 12 406 472 3.8 16 474 1 175 7.1 28 880 1 647 5.7
60-64 6 960 15 0.2 7 683 310 4.0 14 643 325 2.2
65+ 9 840 418 4.2 12 319 475 3.9 22 159 892 4.0
Total 383 938 92 003 24.0 396 751 80 682 20.3 780 689 172 685 22.1
Appendices
Table 4.1
Unemployment rate (strict
definition) by region and
urban/rural areas
Table 4.2
Unemployment rate (strict
definition) by age and sex
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 193
Urban/rural Female Male Both Sexes
Age group Labour Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Urban
15-19 8 720 5 765 66.1 8 284 5 519 66.6 17 004 11 284 66.4
20-24 33 013 17 293 52.4 31 875 12 517 39.3 64 888 29 809 45.9
25-29 39 365 10 321 26.2 35 439 8 239 23.2 74 805 18 560 24.8
30-34 31 886 6 655 20.9 35 666 4 815 13.5 67 552 11 470 17.0
35-39 23 036 3 003 13.0 26 163 2 420 9.3 49 199 5 424 11.0
40-44 20 678 2 469 11.9 20 109 1 747 8.7 40 787 4 215 10.3
45-49 13 961 1 247 8.9 15 397 1 560 10.1 29 358 2 808 9.6
50-54 9 073 536 5.9 12 599 809 6.4 21 672 1 345 6.2
55-59 4 917 306 6.2 7 307 408 5.6 12 224 714 5.8
60-64 1 268 0 0.0 2 574 41 1.6 3 842 41 1.1
65+ 921 120 13.1 1 810 55 3.1 2 730 176 6.4
Total 186 838 47 715 25.5 197 223 38 129 19.3 384 061 85 845 22.4
Rural
15-19 14 695 5 367 36.5 15 923 4 851 30.5 30 618 10 218 33.4
20-24 33 005 12 607 38.2 34 831 12 740 36.6 67 836 25 347 37.4
25-29 31 246 9 249 29.6 32 007 8 907 27.8 63 253 18 156 28.7
30-34 26 794 6 160 23.0 26 297 6 348 24.1 53 091 12 508 23.6
35-39 22 931 4 876 21.3 23 605 3 598 15.2 46 536 8 474 18.2
40-44 17 098 2 873 16.8 15 621 2 522 16.1 32 719 5 396 16.5
45-49 17 304 1 780 10.3 15 162 1 394 9.2 32 466 3 173 9.8
50-54 11 927 897 7.5 11 296 739 6.5 23 223 1 635 7.0
55-59 7 489 166 2.2 9 167 767 8.4 16 656 933 5.6
60-64 5 692 15 0.3 5 109 269 5.3 10 801 285 2.6
65+ 8 919 297 3.3 10 509 419 4.0 19 429 717 3.7
Total 197 100 44 288 22.5 199 528 42 553 21.3 396 628 86 841 21.9
Appendices
Table 4.3
Unemployment rate (strict
definition) by urban/rural
areas, age and sex
NHIES 2009/2010Page 194
Educational
attainment
Female Male Both Sexes
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Unem-
ploy-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
No formal
education 39 496 7 249 18.4 48 508 7 025 14.5 88 004 14 273 16.2
Primary school 87 921 19 371 22.0 105 899 20 801 19.6 193 820 40 171 20.7
Secondary 218 775 60 955 27.9 200 991 49 474 24.6 419 766 110 429 26.3
Tertiary 32 459 2 386 7.4 34 314 1 476 4.3 66 774 3 863 5.8
Not stated 4 515 1 804 40.0 6 078 1 454 23.9 10 593 3 258 30.8
Total 383 166 91 765 23.9 395 790 80 230 20.3 778 957 171 995 22.1
Appendices
Appendices
20 NHIES 2009/2010
Table 4.4
Unemployment rate (strict definition) by educational attainment and sex
Educational
attainment
Female Male Both Sexes
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Un-
employ-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Un-
employ-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
Labour
Force
Unem-
ployed
Un-
employ-
ment
Rate
(Strict)
No formal
education 39 496 7 249 18.4 48 508 7 025 14.5 88 004 14 273 16.2
Primary school 87 921 19 371 22.0 105 899 20 801 19.6 193 820 40 171 20.7
Secondary 218 775 60 955 27.9 200 991 49 474 24.6 419 766 110 429 26.3
Tertiary 32 459 2 386 7.4 34 314 1 476 4.3 66 774 3 863 5.8
Not stated 4 515 1 804 40.0 6 078 1 454 23.9 10 593 3 258 30.8
Total 383 166 91 765 23.9 395 790 80 230 20.3 778 957 171 995 22.1
Figure 4.1
Unemployed population (strict definition) by age and sex
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65+
Female
Male
Both
Sexes
Table 4.4
Unemployment rate (strict
definition) by educational
attainment and sex
Figure 4.1
Unemployed population (strict
definition) by age and sex
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 195
Appendix 5 Sampling errors
A 5.1 Estimation procedure
Since the sample is selected in 2 stages there will be 2 probabilities of selection,
p1 for the first stage and p2 for the second stage. First stage probability is
based on the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) selection procedure and
the second stage probability is based on the random sampling procedure
although the selection was carried out using systematic sampling from an
ordered list.
First stage probability of selection p1 is given by
Where;
= Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h (PSU size
is the number of households as per 2001 Population and
Housing Census)
= Total number of households in the stratum h (stratum size)
= Number of PSUs selected from the stratum h
Second stage probability of selection p
2 is given by
Where;
= Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h according to
survey listing
= Number of households in the sample from PSU (i) in
stratum h
Therefore, the inclusion probability of a household is p = p
1 * p2
Since the PPS selection is an unequal probability selection the sample data
has to be weighted. These weights which are generally called sample weights
or base weights are the inverse of the inclusion probability.
Therefore, the base weight W is given by
Appendices
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 21
Appendix 5 Sampling errors
A 5.1 Estimation procedure
Since the sample is selected in 2 stages there will be 2 probabilities of selection, p1
for the first stage and p2 for the second stage. First stage probability is based on the
Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) selectio procedure and the second stage
probabi ity is based on the random sampling procedure lthou h the selection was
carried out using systematic sampling from an ordered list.
First stage probability of selection p1 is gi e
!! =
!!! !!
!!
Where;
Mhi = Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h (PSU size is the number
of households as per 2001 Population and Housing Census)
Mh = Total number of households in the stratum h (stratum size)
nh = Number of PSUs s lected from the stratum h
Second stage probability of selection p2 is given by
!! =
!!!
!!!!
Where;
Mhi = Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h according to survey listing
mhi = Number of households in the sample from PSU (i) in stratum h
Therefore, the inclusion probability of a household is p = p1 * p2
Since the PPS selection is an unequal probability selection the sample data has to be
weighted. These weights which are generally called sample weights or base weights
are the inverse of the inclusion probability.
Therefore, the base weight W is given by
!!! =
1
! =
1
!!
1
!!
=
!!
!!! !!
!!!!
!!!
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 21
Appendix 5 Sampling errors
A 5.1 Estimation procedure
Since the sample is selected in 2 stages there will be 2 probabilities of selection, p1
for the first stage and p2 for the second stage. First stage probability is based on the
Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) selection procedure and the second stage
probability s based on the random sampling procedure although the selection was
carried out using systematic sampling from an ordered list.
First stage probability of selection p1 is given by
!! =
!!! !!
!!
Where;
Mhi = Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h (PSU size is the number
of hous holds as per 2001 Population and Housing Census)
Mh = Total number of household in the stratum h (stratum size)
nh = Number of PSUs selected from the stratum h
Second stage probability of selection p2 is given by
!! =
!!!
!!!!
Where;
Mhi = Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h according to survey listing
mhi = Number of households in the sample from PSU (i) in stratum h
Therefore, the inclusion probability of a household is p = p1 * p2
Since the PPS selection is an unequal prob bility selection the sample da a has to be
weighted. These weights which are generally called sample weights or base weights
are t inverse of the inclusion probability.
Therefore, the base weight W is given by
!!! =
1
! =
1
!!
1
!!
=
!!
!!! !!
!!!!
!!!
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 21
Appendix 5 Sampling errors
A 5.1 Estimation procedure
Since the sample i s lec d in 2 stages there ill 2 p o abilities of selection, p1
for the first stage and p2 for the second stage. First stage probability is based on the
Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) selection procedure and the second stage
probability is based on the rando sampling procedure although the selection was
carried out using systematic sampling from an ordered list.
First stage probability of selection p1 is given by
!! =
!!! !!
!!
Where;
Mhi Number of hous h ld in PSU (i) in stratum h (PSU size is the number
of households as per 2001 Population and Housing Census)
Mh = Total number of households in the stratum h (stratum size)
nh = Number of PSUs selected from the stratum h
Second stage probability of selection p2 is given by
!! =
!!!
!!!!
Where;
Mhi er of households in PSU (i) in stratu h according to survey listing
mhi = Number of households in the sampl from PSU (i) in stratum h
Therefore, the inclusion probability of a household is p = p1 * p2
Since the PPS selection is an unequal probability selection the sample data has to be
weighted. These weights which are generally called sample weights or base weights
ar the invers of the inclusion probability.
Therefore, the base weight W is given by
!!! =
1
! =
1
!!
1
!!
=
!!
!!! !!
!!!!
!!!
App ndi es
NHIES 2009/2010 21
Appendix 5 Sampling error
A 5.1 Estimation procedure
Since the sample is select d in 2 stages there will be 2 probabilities of selection, p1
for the first stage and p2 for the second stage. First stage probability is based on the
Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) selection procedure and the second stage
probability is based on the random sampling procedure although the selection was
carried out using systematic sampling from an ordered list.
First stage probability of selection p1 is given by
!! =
!!! !!
!!
Where;
Mhi Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h (PSU size is the number
of households as per 2001 Population and Housing Census)
Mh = Total number of households in the stratum h (stratum size)
nh = Number of PSUs selected from the stratum h
Second stage probability of selection p2 is given by
!! =
!!!
!!!!
Where;
Mhi Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h according to survey listing
mhi = Number of househol in the sample from PSU (i) in stratum h
Ther fore, the inclusion probability of a household is p = p1 * p2
Since the PPS selection is an unequal probability selection the sample data has to be
weighted. These weights which are generally called sample weights or base weights
are the inv rse of t e inclus on probability.
Therefore, the base weight is given by
!!! =
1
! =
1
!!
1
!!
=
!!
!!! !!
!!!!
!!!
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 21
Appendix 5 Sampling errors
A 5.1 Estimati n procedure
Since the sample is selected in 2 stages there will be 2 probabilities of selection, p1
for the first stage and p2 f r the second stage. First stage probability is based on the
Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) selection procedure and the second stage
probability is based on the random sampling procedure although the selection was
carried out using systematic sampling from an ordered list.
First stage probability of s lection p1 is given by
!! =
!!! !!
!!
Where;
Mhi = Num er of households in PSU (i) in stratum h (PSU size is the number
of households as per 2001 Popul tion and Housing Census)
Mh = Total number of households in the stratum h (stratum size)
nh = Number of PSUs selected from the str h
Second stage probability of sel ction p2 is given by
!! =
!!!
!!!!
Where;
Mhi = Number f househo ds in PSU (i) in stratum h according to survey listing
mhi = Number of households in the sample from PSU (i) in stratum h
Ther for , the inclus on probability of a household is p = p1 * p
Since th PPS selection is an unequal probability selection the sample data has to be
weighted. These weights which are generally called sample weights or base weights
are the inverse of the inclus on probability.
Therefore, the base weight W is given by
!!! =
1
! =
1
!!
1
!!
=
!!
!!! !!
!!!!
!!!
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 21
Appendix 5 Sampling errors
A 5.1 Estimation procedure
Since the sample is selected in 2 stages there will be 2 probabilities of selection, p1
for the first stage and p2 for the second stage. First stage probability is based on the
Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) selection procedure and t e second stage
probability is based on the random sa pli g procedure although the selection was
carried out using systematic sampling from an ordered list.
First stage probability of selection p1 is given by
!! =
!!! !!
!!
Where;
Mhi = Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h (PSU size is the number
of households as per 2001 Population and Housing Census)
Mh = Total number of households in the stratum h (stratum size)
n = Number of PSUs select d from the stratum h
Second stage probability of selection p2 is given by
!! =
!!!
!!!!
Where;
Mhi PSU (i) in st atum h according o survey listing
mhi = Number of households in the sample from PSU (i) in stratum h
Therefore, the inclusi n probability f a hou ehold is p = p1 * p2
Since the PPS election is an unequal probability selection the sample data has to be
weighted. These weights which are generally called sample weights or base weights
are th i verse f t e inclusion pr bability.
Therefore, the base weight W is given by
!!! =
1
! =
1
!!
1
!!
= !!!! !!
!!!!
!!!
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 21
Appendix 5 Sampling errors
A 5.1 Estimation procedure
Since the sampl is selected in 2 stages there will be 2 probabilities of sel ction, p1
for the first stage and p2 f r the second stag . First stage p ob bility is based on th
Pr ilit Proportional to Size (PPS) selection proc dure and t second stage
probability i based on the r ndom sampling proc ure although the selection was
carried out using systematic sampling from an ordered list.
First stage probability of selection p1 is given by
!! =
!!! !!
!!
Where;
Mhi = Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h (PSU size is the number
f households as r 20 1 Population and Housing Census)
Mh = Total number of households in the stratum h (stratum size)
nh = Number of PSUs selected from the stratum h
Second stage probability of selection p2 is given by
!! =
!!!
!!!!
Wher ;
Mhi = Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h according to survey listing
mhi Number of households in t e sample from PSU (i) in stratum h
Therefore, the inclusion probability of a household is p = p1 * p2
Since the PPS selection is an unequal probability selection the sample data has to be
w ighted. Th se weights which a generally called sample weights or base weights
are the inverse of the inclusion probability.
Th refore, the base weight W is given by
!! =
1
=
1
!!
1
!!
=
!!
!!! !!
!!
!
!!!
NHIES 2009/2010Page 196
Weight adjustment to compensate for non response
Although the expected sample size was the responding households
would be less than this number, say . It was assumed that the non
responding households were a random sample of the selected households,
since the numbers are not too large and the reasons seem to suggest that
there are no remarkable differences between the responding and non re-
sponding households.
Therefore the probability of selection of responding households is
The adjusted sampling weight therefore is
Estimation of a total
A total could be estimated from the sample by the following estimator;
Where;
= Value of any characteristic of the jth household in ith PSU of
stratum h
= Number of strata
Estimation of a ratio
A ratio is estimated by;
Where is estimated in the same way as .
An average is in effect a ratio of two estimates, an estimate of the total and
an estimate of the total number of units (households, individuals etc.). An
average can thus be estimated in the same way as a ratio, where the variable
X takes the value = 1 for all units.
Appendices
Appendices
22 NHIES 2009/2010
Weight adjustment to compensate for non response
Although the expected sample size was !!! the responding households would be less
than this number, say (!!!). It was assumed that the non responding households were
a random sampl of the s lected households, ince the numb rs are ot too large and
the reasons seem to suggest that there are no remarkable differences between the
responding and non responding households.
Therefore the probability of selection of responding households is
!! =
!!!
!!!
The adjusted sampling weight therefore is
!!!! =
!!
!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
Estimation of a total
A total ! could be estimated fro the sample by the following estimator;
! = !!!! !!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
Where;
!!!" = Value of any characteristic of the jth household in ith PSU of stratum h
L = Number of stra a
Estimation of a ratio
A ratio is estimated by;
! =
!
!
Where ! is estimated in the same way as !.
An average is in effect a ratio of two estimates, an estimate of the total !and an
estimate of the total number of units (households, individuals etc.). An average can
thus be estimated in the same way as a ratio, where the v riable X takes the value = 1
for all units.
A proportion can also be e timated s a ratio. In this case the variable y takes value =
1 if the unit belongs to the specific group and the value = 0 if it doesnt belong to the
group. The variable X takes the value = 1 for all units.
Appendices
22 NHIES 2009/2010
Weight adjustment to compe sate for non response
Although the expected sample size was !!! the responding households would be less
than this number, say (!!!). It was assumed that the non responding households were
a random sample of the selected households, since the numbers are not too large and
the reasons seem to suggest that there are no remarkable differences between the
responding and non responding households.
Therefore the probability of selection of responding households is
!! =
!!!
!!!
The adjusted sampling weight therefore is
!!!! =
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
Esti ation of a total
A t t l ! ld be estimated from the sample by the following estimator;
! = !!!! !!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
Where;
!!!" = Value of any characteristic of the jth ousehold in ith PSU of stratum h
L = Number of strata
Estimation of a ratio
A ratio is estimated by;
! =
!
!
Where ! is estimated in the same way as !.
An average is in effect a ratio of two estimates, an estimate of the total !and an
estimate of the total number of units (households, individuals etc.). An average can
thus be estimated in the same way as a ratio, where the variable X takes the value = 1
for all uni s.
A proportion can also be estimated as a ratio. In this case the variable y takes value =
1 if the unit belongs to the specific group and the value = 0 if it doesnt belong to the
group. The variable X takes the value = 1 for all units.
Appendices
22 NHIES 2009/2010
Weight adjustment to compensate for non response
Although the expected sample size was !!! the responding hou eholds would be less
than this number, say (!!!). It was assum d that the non responding households were
a random sample of the selected households, since the numbers are not too large and
the reasons seem to suggest that there are no remarkable differences between the
responding and non responding households.
Therefore the probability of selection of responding households i
!! =
!!!
!!!
The adjusted sampling weight therefore is
!!!! =
!!
!!!!!
!!!
!
!
Estimation of a t t l
A total ! could be estimated from the s mple by the following stimator;
! = !!!! !!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
Where;
!!!" = Value of any characteristic of the jth household in ith PSU of stratum h
L = Number of strata
Estimation of a r tio
A ratio is estimated by;
! =
!
!
Where ! is estimated in the same way as !.
An average is in effect a ratio of two estimates, an estimate of the total !and an
estimate of the total number of units (households, individuals etc.). An average can
thus be estimated in the same way as a ratio, where the variable X takes the value = 1
for all units.
A proportion can also be estimated as a ratio. In this case the variable y takes value =
1 if the unit belongs to the specific group and the value = 0 if it doesnt belong to the
group. The variable X takes the value = 1 for all units.
Appendices
22 NHIES 2009/2010
Weight adjustment to compensate for non response
Although the expected sa e as !!! the resp ouseholds would be less
than this number, say (!!!). It was assumed that the non responding households were
a random sample of the selected households, since the numbers are not too large and
the reasons s to sugge t that there are o remarkable differenc s betw en the
responding and non responding households.
Therefore the probability of selection of responding households is
!! =
!!!
!!!
The adjusted sampling weight therefore is
!!!! =
!!
!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
Estimation of a total
A total ! could be estimated from the sample by the following estimator;
! = !!!! !!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
Where;
!!!" = Value of any characteristic of the jth household in ith PSU of stratum h
L = Number of strata
Esti ation of a ratio
A ratio is estimated by;
! =
!
Where ! is estimated in the same way as !.
An average is in effect a ratio of two estimates, an estimate of the total !and an
estimate of the total number of units (households, individuals etc.). An average can
thus b stimated in the same way s ratio, where the variable X takes the value = 1
for ll units.
A proportion can also be estimated as a ratio. In this ase the variabl y takes value =
1 if the unit belongs t the pecific group nd lue = 0 if it do snt b long to the
group. The variable X tak s the value = 1 for all units.
Appendices
22 NHIES 2009/2010
Weight adjustment to compensate f r n n respons
Although the expected sample size was !!! the responding households would be less
than this number, say (!!!). It was assumed that the non responding households were
a random sample of the selected households, since the numbers are not too large and
the reasons seem to suggest that there are no remarkable differences between the
resp nding and non sponding househol s.
Therefore the probability of selection of responding households is
!! =
!!!
!!!
The adjusted sampling weight therefore is
!!! =
!!
!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
Estimation of a total
A total ! could be estimated from the sample by the following estimator;
! = !!!! !!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
Where;
!!!" = Value of any characteristic of the jth household in ith PSU of stratum h
L = Number of strata
Estimation of a ratio
A ratio is estimated by;
! =
!
!
Where ! is estimated in the same way as !.
An average is in effect a ratio of two estimates, an estimate of the total !and an
estimate of the total number of units (households, individuals etc.). An average can
thus be estimated in the same way as a ratio, where the variable X takes the value = 1
for all units.
A proportion can also be estimated as a ratio. In this case the variable y takes value =
1 if the unit belongs to the specific group and the value = 0 if it doesnt belong to the
group. The variable X takes the value = 1 for all units.
Appendices
22 NHIES 2009/2010
Weight adjustment to co pensate for on r spo se
Alth ugh the expected sample size was !!! the responding households would be less
than this number, say (!!!). I was assumed that the non responding households wer
a ra om sample of the selected lds, since the numbers are not too large and
the reasons seem to suggest that there are no remarkable differences between the
responding and non responding households.
Therefore the probability of selection of responding households is
!! =
!!!
!!!
The adjusted sampling weight therefore is
!!!! =
!
!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
Estimation of a total
A total ! could be estimated from the sample by the following estimator;
! = !!! !!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
Where;
!!!" = Value of aracteristic of the jth household in ith PSU of stratum h
L = Number f strata
Estimation of a ratio
A ratio is estimated by;
! =
!
!
Where ! is estimated in the same way as !.
An average is in effect a ratio of two estimates, an estimate of the total !and an
estimate of the total numbe of units (h useholds, individuals etc.). An average can
thus be esti at d in the sa e ay as a ratio, where th variable X takes the value = 1
for all units.
A proportion can also be esti ated as a rati . In this case the variable y takes value =
1 if the unit belongs to the specific group and the value = 0 if it doesnt belong to the
group. The variable X takes the value = 1 for ll units.
Appendices
22 NHIES 2009/2010
Weigh djustment t comp nsat f r non r spo s
Although the expected sample size was !!! the responding households would be less
than this number, say (!!!). It was assumed that the non responding households were
a random sample of the selected households, since the numbers are not too large and
the reasons seem to suggest that there are no remarkable differences between the
responding nd no responding households.
Therefore the probability of selection of responding households is
!! =
!!!
!!!
The adjusted sampling weight therefore is
!!!! =
!
!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
Estimation of a total
A total ! could be estimated from the sample by the following estimator;
! = !!!! !!!!
!
!!!!!!
!
!!!
Where;
!!!" = Value of any characteristic of the jth household in ith PSU of stratum h
L Number of strata
Estimation of a ratio
A ratio is estimated by;
! =
!
!
Where ! is estimated in the same way as !.
An average is in effect a ratio of two estimates, an estimate of the total !and an
estimate of the total r of units (households, individuals etc.). An average c n
thus b estimated in t ay as a ratio, wher the variable X takes th value = 1
for all units.
A proportion can also be estima ed as a ratio. In is c se t vari ble y takes value =
1 if the unit belongs to the specific group and the value = 0 if it doesnt belong to the
group. The variable X takes the value = 1 for all units.
Appendices
22 NHIES 2009/2010
Weight adjustment to compensate for non re ponse
Al ough the xpected sample size wa !!! the responding households would be less
than this number, say (!!!). It was assumed that the non responding households were
a random sample of the selected households, since the numbers are not too large and
the reasons seem to sug est that th re are no r m rkable differe ces between the
responding and non responding households.
Therefore the probability of selection of responding households is
!! =
!!!
!!
The adjusted sampling t therefore is
!!
! = !!
!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
Estimation of a otal
A total ! could be esti ated from the s mple by the following estimator;
! = !!!! !!
!!!
! !
!
!!!
!
!!!
Where;
!!!" = Value of any characteristic of the jth household in ith PSU of stratum h
L = Number of strat
Estimation of a ratio
A ratio is estimated by;
! =
!
Where ! is estimated in the same way as !.
An average is in effect a ratio of two estimates, an esti ate of the total !and an
estimate of the total number of u its (households, individuals etc.). An verage can
thus be estimated in the same way as a ratio, where the variable X takes the value = 1
for all units.
A proportion can also be estimated as a ratio. In this case the variable y takes value =
1 if the unit belongs to the specific group and the value = 0 if it doesnt belong to the
group. The variable X takes the value = 1 for all units.
Appendices
22 NHIES 2009/2010
Weight dj stment compens t on resp nse
Alth ugh t expected sample size t e responding households would be less
than thi numb r, say (!!!). It was ass e at the on responding households were
a r ndom sample of the selected h u ehol s, sinc the numbers are not t o large and
the re sons seem to suggest that there are no remarkable diff rences between the
responding and non responding households.
Therefore the probability of selection of responding households is
!! =
!!!
!!!
The adjusted sampling weight therefore is
!!!! =
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!!!
Estimation f a total
A total ! could be estimated from the sample by the following estimator;
! = !!!! !!!!
!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
Where;
!!!" = Value of any characteristic of the jth household in ith PSU of stratum h
L = Number of strata
Estim tion of a ratio
A ratio is estimated by;
! =
!
!
Wh r ! is stimated in the same way s !.
An average is n ef ect a ratio of two estimates, an estimate of the total !and an
estimate of the tot numb r of units (households, individuals etc.). An a erage c n
thus b estimated i the sam w y as ratio, wher the variable X takes the value = 1
for all units.
A proportion can also be estimated as a ratio. In this case the variable y takes value =
1 if the unit belongs to the specific group and the v lue = 0 if it d esnt belong to the
group. The variable X takes the value = 1 for all units.
Appendices
22 NHIES 2009/2010
Weight adjustment to compens te for non r s o
Although the expected sample size was !!! the responding households would be less
than this number, say (!!!). It was assumed that the non r sponding households were
a random sample of the selected house olds, sinc the numbers ar not too large a
the reasons seem to suggest that there are no remarkable differences between the
responding and non responding households.
Therefore the probability of s lection of responding ouseholds is
!! =
! !
!!!
The adjusted sampling weight therefore is
!!!! =
!!
!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
Estimation of a total
A total ! could be estimated from the sample by the following estimator;
! = !!!! !!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
Where;
!!!" = Value of any characteristic of the jth household in ith PSU of stratum h
L = Number of strata
Estimation of a ratio
A ratio is estimated by;
! =
!
!
Where ! is estimated in the same way as !.
An average is in effect a ratio of two esti ates, n estimate f the total !and an
estimate of the total numb r of units (house olds, individuals etc.). An average ca
thus be estimated in the same way as a r tio, where the variabl X takes the value = 1
for all units.
A proportion can also be estimated as a ratio. In this case the variable y takes value =
1 if the unit belongs to the specific group and the value = 0 if it doesnt belong to the
group. The variable X takes the value = 1 for all units.
Appendices
22 NHIES 2009/2010
Weight adjustm t to c mpe sate for non response
Although the expected ample size was !!! the r sponding households would be less
than this number, s (!!!). It u e that the non responding households were
a random sampl of the selected households, sinc the numbers are not too large and
he re sons seem to sugge t that there are no r markable differences between the
r sponding and non responding households.
Th refore probability of selection of responding households is
!! =
!!!
!!!
The adjusted sampling weight therefore is
!!!! =
!!
!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
Estimation of a total
A total ! could be estimated from the sample by the following estimator;
= !!!! !!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
Where;
!!" = Value of any characteristic of the jth household in ith PSU of stratum h
L = Number of strata
Estimation of a rati
A rati i es imated by;
! =
!
!
Where ! is estimated in the same way as !.
An average is in effect a ratio of two estimates, an estimate of the total !and an
estimate of th total number of units (households, individuals etc.). An average can
thus be estimated in the same way as ratio, where the variable X takes the value = 1
for all units.
A propor ion ca also be estima ed a a ratio. In this ca th variable y takes value =
1 if the unit belongs o the specific group and the value = 0 if it do snt belong to the
g oup. The variable X takes the value = 1 for all units.
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 197
A proportion can also be estimated as a ratio. In this case the variable y takes
value = 1 if the unit belongs to the specific group and the value = 0 if it doesnt
belong to the group. The variable X takes the value = 1 for all units.
Variances
Let;
A simple expression for an estimate of the variance of is;
An estimate of the variance of a ratio is;
Where;
A 5.2 Sampling errors
Since the sample survey results are estimates of the population figures there
will be a difference between the survey estimates and the actual population
figures. This difference occurs because the data was collected from a sample
of units rather than the whole population and hence is called the sampling
error.
If probability sampling was used in the selection procedure of the units, then
the sampling errors can be evaluated statistically. The sample of households
(10 660) selected for the NHIES 2009/2010 is one sample out of a large
number of samples of same size and design, which could have been selected
from the Namibian households (population). Each of these samples would
have produced somewhat different estimates from NHIES actual sample
and all these estimates would have been around the population figure,
which the survey is trying to find out. Measurement of sampling error of a
Appendices
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 23
Variances
Let;
!!!! = !!!! !!!"
!!!
!!!
A simple expression for an estimate of the variance of ! is;
!"# ! =
!!
!!!!
!!!! ! !!!!
!
/!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
An estimate of the variance of a ratio is;
!"# ! =
1
!!
!"# ! + !!!"# ! 2!!"# !!
Where;
!"# !! =
!!
!!!!
!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!
!!
!!!
/!!
!
!!!
A 5.2 Sampling errors
Since the sample survey results are estimates of the population figures there will be a
difference between the survey estimates and the actual population figures. This
difference occurs bec use the data was coll cted from a sam le of units rather than
the whole population and henc is called the sampling error.
If probability sampling was used in the selection procedure of the units, then the
sampling errors can be evaluated statistically. The sample of households (10 660)
selected for the NHIES 2009/2010 is one sample out of a large number of samples of
same size and design, which could have been selected from the Namibian households
(population). Each of these samples would have produced somewhat different
estimates from NHIES actual sample and all these estimates would have been around
the population figure, which the survey is trying to find out. Measurement of
sampling error of a certain characteristic is the measure of the variability of that
characteristic between all possible samples of ame size and esign. Si c it is not
practical to implement all possible samples, the degree of the variability cannot be
measured exactly but it can be estimated from the survey results of the single actual
sample.
The NHIES 2009/2010 estimates take the form of totals, means or averages,
proportions or percentages, ratios or rates, which are generally termed as statistics.
The sampling error of a particular statistic is measured in terms of the standard
error (SE) of that statistic which is the square root of the variance. A better measure
is developed as the ratio of the standard error relative to the magnitude of the statistic
called the relative standard error (RSE) or simply relative error, which is also
known as coefficient of variation (CV).
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 23
Variances
Let;
!!!! = !!!! !!!"
!!!
!!!
A simple expression for an estimate of the variance of ! is;
!"# ! =
!!
!!!!
!!!! ! !!!!
!
/!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
An estimate of the variance of a ratio is;
!"# ! =
1
!!
!"# ! + !!!"# ! 2!!"# !!
Where;
!"# !! =
!!
!!!!
!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!
!!
!!!
/!!
!
!!!
A 5.2 Sampling errors
Since the sampl survey results are estimates of the population figures there will be a
difference between the survey estimates and the actual population figures. This
difference occurs because the data was collected from a sample of units rather than
the whole population and hence is called the sampling error.
If probability sampling was used in the selection procedure of the units, then the
sampling errors can be evaluated statistically. The sample of households (10 660)
selected for the NHIES 2009/2010 is one sample out f a large number of samples of
same size and design, which could have been selected from the Namibian households
( lati ). Each of these samples would have produced somewhat different
estimates from NHIES actual sample and all these estimates would have been around
the population figure, which the survey i trying to find out. Measurement of
sampling error of a certain characteristic is the measure of the variability of that
characteristic between all possible samples of same size and design. Since it is not
practical to implement all possible samples, the degree of the variability cannot be
measured exactly but it can be estimated from the survey results of the single actual
sample.
The NHIES 2009/2010 estimates take the form of totals, means or averages,
proporti ns or percentages, ratios or rates, which are generally termed as statistics.
The sampling error of a particular statistic is measured in terms of the standard
error (SE) of that statistic which is the square root of the variance. A better measure
is developed as the ratio of the standard error relative to the magnitude of the statistic
called the relative standard error (RSE) or simply relative error, which is also
known as coefficient of variation (CV).
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 23
Variances
Let;
!!!! = !!!! !!!"
!!
!!!
A simple expression for an estimate of the variance of ! is;
!"# ! =
!!
!!!!
!!!! ! !!!!
!
/!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
An estimate of the variance of a ratio is;
!"# ! =
1
!!
!"# ! + !!!"# ! 2!!"# !!
Where;
!"# !! =
!!
!!!!
!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!
!!
!!!
/!!
!
!!!
A 5.2 Sampling errors
Sinc the sample survey results ar estimates of the popul tion figures there will be a
dif erence between the surv y estim tes and the actu l po ulation figures. T is
difference occurs because the data was coll cted from a sample of units rather than
the whole population and hence is called the sampling error.
If probability sampling was sed in the selection procedure of the units, then the
sampling errors can be evaluated statistically. The sample of households (10 660)
selected for the NHIES 2009/2010 is one sampl out of a large number of samples of
same size and design, hich could have been selected from th Namibian households
(popul tion). Each of these l s would hav produced s mewhat differe t
estimates from NHIES actual sa ple and all these estimates would hav been around
the population figure, which the su vey is trying to find out. Me surement of
sampling error of a certain characteristic is the a ure of th variab lity of that
characteristic between all possible samples of sam siz and design. Since it is not
practical to implement all possible samples, the degree of the variability cannot be
measur d exactly but it can be estimated from the survey results of the single actual
sample.
The NHIES 2009/2010 estimates take the form of totals, means or averages,
proportions or pe centages, ra os or rate , which are g nerally termed as statistics.
The sampling error of a particular stati tic is measured in terms of the standard
error (SE) of that statistic w ich is the square roo of he variance. A better me sure
is developed as the ratio of the standard error relative to the magnitude of the statistic
called the relative standard error (RSE) or simply relative error, which is also
known as coefficient of variation (CV).
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 23
Variances
Let;
!!
! = !!! !!"
!!
!!!
A simple expression for an estimate of the v riance of is;
!"# ! =
!!
!!
!!
! ! !!!
!
/!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
An estimate of the v riance of ratio is;
!"# ! =
1
!!
!"# ! + !!"# ! 2!!"# !!
Where;
!"# !! =
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
! !!! !!!
!!
!!!
/!!
!
!!
A 5.2 Sampling errors
Since the s mpl surv y results are es imates of the opulation figures the will be a
diff rence between the survey estimates an the actu l opulation figures. This
difference occurs becaus th dat was coll cted from sample of units rather than
the whole opulatio and hence is called the sampling error.
If pro ability sampling was used in the s lection proc dure of the units, then the
sampling errors can be ev luat d statistically. The s mple f households (10 660)
sel cted for th NHIES 2009/2 10 is on sample out of large num r of samples of
same s ze and design, w i could hav been sel cted from the Namibian hous holds
( opulation). Each of t ese samples would have produced som what different
stimates from NHIES actual sample and all these es imates would hav b en around
the opulation figure, w ich the survey is trying to find out. Me surem nt of
sampling error of a certain ch racte istic is the measure of the v r ability of that
characteristic b tween all po sible samples of same size and design. Since it is not
pra tical to implement ll pos ible samples, degr e of the v riabil ty cannot be
easured exactly but it can be estimated from the survey results of the single actual
sample.
The NHIES 2009/2 10 estimat s tak the form of tota s, m ans or verages,
pr portions or percent ge , ratios o rates, w ich ar g erally termed a statistics.
The sampling error of a particular statistic is measured in te ms of the standard
er or (SE) of t at s atistic w ich is th square ro t of v riance. A b tt r measure
is d velop d as the ratio of the standard error relative to the magnitude of t e t tistic
called the relat ve standard er or (RSE) or simply relative er or, which is also
known as coefficient of v riation (CV).
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 23
Variances
Let;
!!
! = !!!! !!!"
!!!
! !
A simple expression for an estimate of the v ri ! ;
!"# ! =
!!
!!!!
!!!! ! !!!!
!
/!!
!
!!!
!
!!
An estimate of the variance of a ratio is;
!"# ! =
1
! !"# ! + !
!!"# ! 2!!"# !!
Where;
!"# !! =
!!
!!!!
! !! !!!! !!!! !!!!
!
! !
/!!
!
!!
A 5.2 Sampling errors
Since the sample r r ults are estimat s of the l ti figures there will be a
difference betwe n the survey estimates and the actual population figures. This
differenc ccurs b cause the data was collect d from a samp e f units rather than
the whole population and hence is called the sampling error.
If probability sampli g wa used in the s lectio proced r f the units, then the
sampling errors can be evaluated statistically. The sample of households (10 660)
s lecte for the NHIES 2009/2010 is one sample out of a large number of samples of
same size and design, which could have been selected from th N mibian households
(population). E h of thes samples would have pro uced somewhat ifferent
estimates from NHIES actual sample and all these esti ates would hav been around
the p pulation figure, which the surv y is trying to find out. Measurement of
sampling error of a certain characteristic is the measure of the variability of that
characteristic between all possible amples of same siz and design. Since it is not
practical to implement all possible samples, th degree of the variability cannot be
measured exactly but it can be esti ated from the survey results of the single actual
sample.
The NHIES 2009/2010 estimates take the form of totals, means or averages,
proportions or percentages, ratios or rates, which are generally t rmed as statistics.
The sampling error of a particular statistic is measured in terms of the standard
error (SE) of that statistic which is the square root of the variance. A better measure
is develop d as the ratio of the standard error relative to the magnitude of the statistic
called the relative st ndard error (RSE) or simply relative error, which is also
known as coefficient of variation (CV).
NHIES 2009/2010Page 198
certain characteristic is the measure of the variability of that characteristic
between all possible samples of same size and design. Since it is not practical
to implement all possible samples, the degree of the variability cannot be
measured exactly but it can be estimated from the survey results of the single
actual sample.
The NHIES 2009/2010 estimates take the form of totals, means or averages,
proportions or percentages, ratios or rates, which are generally termed as
statistics. The sampling error of a particular statistic is measured in terms
of the standard error (SE) of that statistic which is the square root of the
variance. A better measure is developed as the ratio of the standard error
relative to the magnitude of the statistic called the relative standard error
(RSE) or simply relative error, which is also known as coefficient of variation
(CV).
The standard errors are also used to calculate the Confidence intervals (CI).
Confidence interval for a given statistic is an interval of values computed from
the sample observations such that it includes the unknown true population
figure with a specified high probability. This high probability could be 90%,
95% or 99%. In the calculations of CI s for the NHIES 2009/2010, 95%
probability is used, which means a 95% confidence interval is presented. This
implies that the true population figure of a certain statistic will fall within plus
or minus two standard errors of that statistic in 95 percent out of all possible
samples.
If the sample design of the survey was a simple random sample (SRS) then
the calculation of the sampling errors would have been straightforward.
NHIES 2009/2010, however, used a stratified two stage cluster sample design,
which makes the calculation of sampling errors more complex. Hence, these
calculations were carried out using the STATA software, which takes into
account the stratification, clustering and the weighting. STATA also used
linearized variance estimator for the computation of standard errors which is
based on the first-order Taylor series linear approximation.
Other than the sampling errors, STATA computes the design effect (DEFF) for
each estimate. This is defined as the ratio of the variance of a certain statistic
under the given complex survey design to that of the variance of the same
statistic, if a SRS design is used with the same sample size. If DEFF value is 1,
the complex survey design is as efficient as the SRS. DEFF value more than
1 means sampling errors have increased due to the complex survey design
compared to the SRS and therefore is less efficient.
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 199
Sampling errors are calculated for the whole country, urban and rural
areas and for each region. The different components presented are the
estimate, Standard Error of the estimate, Relative Standard Error, Number of
observations, unweighted and weighted, Confidence Intervals and DEFF.
In this report, sampling errors are presented for the following variables.
1. Average household size (table 5.2.1)
2. Labour force participation rate (table 5.2.2)
3. Unemployment rate (table 5.2.3)
4. Total household consumption (table 5.2.4)
5. Average household consumption (table 5.2.5)
6. Per capita consumption (table 5.2.6)
7. Total household income (table 5.2.7)
8. Average household income (table 5.2.8)
9. Per capita income (table 5.2.9)
10. Adjusted per capita income (table 5.2.10)
11. Consumption group, food and beverages (table 5.2.11)
12. Consumption group, housing (table 5.2.12)
13. Consumption group. clothing and footwear (table 5.2.13)
14. Consumption group. transport and communication (table 5.2.14)
15. Poverty incidence (poor households) (table 5.2.15)
16. Poverty incidence ( severely poor households) (table 5.2.16)
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010Page 200
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error No of observations
Relative
error %
Confidence
limits
Design
effect
E SE Un-weighted Weighted
RE % =
SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 4.7 0.06 9 656 436 795 1.2 4.62 4.84 3.3
Urban 4.1 0.07 4 095 188 982 1.6 4.02 4.28 2.4
Rural 5.2 0.09 5 561 247 813 1.8 5.00 5.36 4.3
Caprivi 4.7 0.13 764 21 254 2.8 4.46 4.98 1.2
Erongo 3.5 0.11 878 39 221 3.2 3.30 3.75 2.3
Hardap 4.2 0.15 707 15 894 3.4 3.96 4.53 1.0
Karas 3.7 0.38 693 21 299 10.4 2.91 4.40 8.6
Kavango 6.5 0.23 774 43 889 3.6 6.01 6.92 4.1
Khomas 4.1 0.11 1 074 83 562 2.7 3.85 4.28 2.9
Kunene 4.4 0.31 430 17 096 7.0 3.76 4.97 3.0
Ohangwena 6.1 0.18 748 38 997 3.0 5.75 6.47 2.4
Omaheke 4.1 0.16 467 15 159 3.8 3.84 4.46 1.1
Omusati 5.2 0.24 732 45 161 4.6 4.74 5.68 6.2
Oshana 4.9 0.10 953 35 087 2.1 4.67 5.08 0.9
Oshikoto 5.0 0.18 737 32 038 3.5 4.70 5.39 2.2
Otjozondjupa 4.1 0.20 699 28 135 5.0 3.69 4.49 3.0
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error No of observations
Relative
error %
Confidence
limits
Design
effect
E SE Un-weighted Weighted
RE % =
SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 70.8 0.52 28 103 1 297 840 0.74 69.7 71.8 3.7
Urban 78.3 0.62 11 689 542 029 0.79 77.1 79.5 2.7
Rural 65.4 0.77 16 414 755 812 1.18 63.9 66.9 4.3
Caprivi 73.1 1.65 2 220 61 664 2.26 69.9 76.4 3.1
Erongo 81.4 1.42 2 155 98 191 1.74 78.6 84.2 2.9
Hardap 72.2 1.49 1 976 44 272 2.06 69.3 75.1 2.2
Karas 77.4 2.80 1 745 51 538 3.62 71.9 82.9 7.8
Kavango 72.0 1.33 2 890 162 643 1.85 69.4 74.6 2.5
Khomas 80.2 1.08 3 029 246 098 1.35 78.0 82.3 2.2
Kunene 81.6 1.71 1 167 46 057 2.10 78.3 85.0 2.3
Ohangwena 55.7 2.17 2 435 129 618 3.90 51.5 60.0 4.7
Omaheke 76.3 1.46 1 247 39 007 1.92 73.4 79.2 1.5
Omusati 52.4 1.95 2 228 140 499 3.72 48.6 56.2 3.4
Oshana 62.8 1.29 2 966 108 686 2.06 60.3 65.4 2.1
Oshikoto 73.6 2.21 2 200 95 983 3.00 69.3 78.0 5.5
Otjozondjupa 74.9 1.96 1 845 73 585 2.62 71.0 78.7 3.8
Appendices
A 5.2.1
Sampling error for average
household size
A5.2.2
Sampling error for labour
force participation rate
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 201
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error No of observations
Relative
error %
Confidence
limits
Design
effect
E SE Un-weighted Weighted
RE % =
SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 33.8 0.7 20 025 918 450 2.15 32.4 35.2 4.7
Urban 29.7 0.8 8 980 424 257 2.7 28.1 31.3 2.8
Rural 37.3 1.2 11 045 494 193 3.1 35.0 39.6 6.3
Caprivi 25.3 2.5 1 622 45 081 9.82 20,4 30.1 5.3
Erongo 22.6 1.3 1 749 79 950 5.9 20.0 25.2 1.8
Hardap 37.1 2.2 1 423 31 973 5.86 32.8 41.3 2.9
Karas 32.9 3.6 1 354 39 875 10.85 25.,9 39.9 7.8
Kavango 23.0 2.8 2 060 117 093 12.24 17.5 28.5 9.2
Khomas 29,4 1.3 2 443 197 267 4.37 26.9 31.9 1.9
Kunene 30,1 3.3 939 37 602 10.89 23.6 36.5 4.8
Ohangwena 61.6 3.0 1 421 72 227 4.84 55.7 67.4 5.3
Omaheke 31.6 2.4 958 29 765 7.7 26.8 36.4 2.6
Omusati 53.7 3.4 1 211 73 611 6.3 47.1 60.4 5.6
Oshana 44.2 1.7 1 843 68 271 3.76 40.9 47.5 2.1
Oshikoto 22.2 3.8 1 617 70 656 17.0 14.8 29.7 13.4
Otjozondjupa 37.2 3.0 1 385 55 081 8.12 31.2 43.1 5.4
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error No of observations Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effectMillion
N$
Million
N$ Un-
weighted Weighted
Million N$
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 28 540 1 090 9 656 436 795 3.8 26 400
30
700 5.0
Urban 18 490 1 030 4 095 188 982 5.6 16 500
20
500 6.0
Rural 10 060 394 5 561 247 813 3.9 9 280 10 800 3.2
Caprivi 673 60 764 21 254 8.9 555 791 3.4
Erongo 3 136 317 878 39 221 10.1 2 510 3 760 5.1
Hardap 998 89 707 15 894 8.9 823 1 170 2.5
Karas 1 388 267 693 21 299 19.2 863 1 910 10.8
Kavango 1 567 140 774 43 889 8.9 1 290 1 840 4.5
Khomas 10 600 930 1 074 83 562 8.8 8 770 12 400 4.1
Kunene 759 88 430 17 096 11.5 587 931 3.3
Ohangwena 1 739 134 748 38 997 7.7 1 480 2 000 4.7
Omaheke 786 73 467 15 159 9.3 642 930 1.1
Omusati 2 091 141 732 45 161 6.7 1 810 2 370 1.9
Oshana 2 212 164 953 35 087 7.4 1 890 2 530 1.8
Oshikoto 1 082 74 737 32 038 6.9 936 1 230 2.2
Otjozondjupa 1 517 206 699 28 135 13.6 1 110 1 920 4.9
Appendices
A 5.2.3
Sampling error for
unemployment rate
A 5.2.4
Sampling error for total
household consumption
NHIES 2009/2010Page 202
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error
No of observa-
tions Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effect
N$ N$
Un-
weighted
Weight-
ed
N$
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 65 348 2 221 9 656 436 795 3.4 60 985 69 712 4.0
Urban 97 816 4 825 4 095 188 982 4.9 88 335 107 297 4.7
Rural 40 589 1 166 5 561 247 813 2.9 38 297 42 880 1.7
Caprivi 31 660 1 815 764 21 254 5.7 28 095 35 226 1.4
Erongo 79 960 7 329 878 39 221 9.2 65 559 94 361 4.2
Hardap 62 767 5 759 707 15 894 9.2 51 452 74 082 2.6
Karas 65 176 6 031 693 21 299 9.3 53 326 77 025 2.5
Kavango 35 703 2 504 774 43 889 7.0 30 783 40 624 2.8
Khomas 126 811 9 750 1 074 83 562 7.7 107 653 145 969 3.1
Kunene 44 416 4 998 430 17 096 11.3 34 596 54 237 3.1
Ohangwena 44 584 2 716 748 38 997 6.1 39 248 49 920 3.0
Omaheke 51 823 4 525 467 15 159 8.7 42 933 60 714 0.9
Omusati 46 294 2 613 732 45 161 5.6 41 159 51 429 1.3
Oshana 63 045 4 237 953 35 087 6.7 54 719 71 370 1.5
Oshikoto 33 770 2 387 737 32 038 7.1 29 080 38 460 2.3
Otjozondjupa 53 922 7 147 699 28 135 13.3 39 879 67 964 4.6
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error
No of observa-
tions Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effect
N$ N$
Un-
weighted
Weight-
ed
N$
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 13 813 494 9 656 436 795 3.6 12 841 14 785 3.9
Urban 23 592 1 215 1 095 188 982 5.2 21 204 25 979 4.6
Rural 7 841 268 5 561 247 813 3.4 7 315 8 367 2.3
Caprivi 6 709 344 764 21 254 5.1 6 033 7 384 1.1
Erongo 22 703 1 939 878 39 221 8.5 18 893 26 512 3.6
Hardap 14 791 1 560 707 15 894 10.5 11 726 17 857 3.0
Karas 17 828 2 780 693 21 299 15.6 12 365 23 291 5.6
Kavango 5 521 424 774 43 889 7.7 4 687 6 355 2.9
Khomas 31 173 2 547 1 074 83 562 8.2 26 169 36 176 3.1
Kunene 10 175 1 465 430 17 096 14.4 7 296 13 055 4.0
Ohangwena 7 295 485 748 38 997 6.6 6 343 8 248 3.5
Omaheke 12 491 1 200 467 15 159 9.6 10 134 14 849 1.1
Omusati 8 881 549 732 45 161 6.2 7 802 9 960 1.6
Oshana 12 938 847 953 35 087 6.5 11 273 14 602 1.4
Oshikoto 6 693 456 737 32 038 6.8 5 797 7 588 2.0
Otjozondjupa 13 194 1 556 699 28 135 11.8 10 136 16 251 3.4
Appendices
A 5.2.5
Sampling error for average
household consumption
A 5.2.6
Sampling error for per
capita consumption
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 203
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error
No of observa-
tions Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effectMillion
N$
Million
N$ Un-
weighted
Weight-
ed
Million N$
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 30 090 1 160 9 656 436 795 3.9 27 800 32 400 4.8
Urban 19 460 1 090 4 095 188 982 5.6 17 300 21 600 5.7
Rural 10 630 421 5 561 247 813 4.0 9 800 11 500 3.1
Caprivi 722 64 764 21 254 8.9 597 847 3.2
Erongo 3 333 345 878 39 221 10.4 2 650 4 010 5.2
Hardap 1 093 101 707 15 894 9.2 894 1290 2.4
Karas 1 467 287 693 21 299 19.6 904 2030 10.7
Kavango 1 613 145 774 43 889 9.0 1 330 1 900 4.6
Khomas 11 050 981 1 074 83 562 8.9 9 120 13 000 4.0
Kunene 817 99 430 17 096 12.1 622 1010 3.4
Ohangwena 1 818 143 748 38 997 7.9 1 540 2 100 4.8
Omaheke 853 81 467 15 159 9.5 695 1010 1.1
Omusati 2 216 147 732 45 161 6.6 1 930 2 510 1.8
Oshana 2 296 166 953 35 087 7.2 1 970 2 620 1.7
Oshikoto 1 117 76 737 32 038 6.8 968 1 270 2.0
Otjozondjupa 1 691 253 699 28 135 15.0 1 190 2 190 2.8
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error No of observations Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effect
N$ N$
Un-
weighted
Weight-
ed
N$
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 68 878 2 373 9 656 436 795 3.4 64 215 73 541 3.8
Urban 102 952 5 159 4 095 188 982 5.0 92 814 113 089 4.5
Rural 42 893 1 255 5 561 247 813 2.9 40 427 45 359 1.7
Caprivi 33 969 1 863 764 21 254 5.5 30 307 37 630 1.2
Erongo 84 989 7 996 878 39 221 9.4 69 279 100 700 4.3
Hardap 68 788 6 526 707 15 894 9.5 55 966 81 610 2.5
Karas 68 885 6 529 693 21 299 9.5 56 056 81 714 2.5
Kavango 36 740 2 588 774 43 889 7.0 31 656 41 825 2.8
Khomas 132 209 10 358 1 074 83 562 7.8 111 858 152 560 3.1
Kunene 47 772 5 720 430 17 096 12.0 36 533 59 010 3.3
Ohangwena 46 622 2 921 748 38 997 6.3 40 883 52 360 3.0
Omaheke 56 289 4 827 467 15 159 8.6 46 804 65 774 0.9
Omusati 49 076 2 670 732 45 161 5.4 43 829 54 322 1.2
Oshana 65 445 4 284 953 35 087 6.5 57 028 73 862 1.4
Oshikoto 34 880 2 447 737 32 038 7.0 30 072 39 687 2.2
Otjozondjupa 60 108 8 827 699 28 135 14.7 42 764 77 453 2.7
Appendices
A 5.2.7
Sampling error for total
household income
A.5.2.8
Sampling error for average
household income
NHIES 2009/2010Page 204
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error
No of
observations
Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effect
N$ N$
Un-
weighted
Weight-
ed
N$
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 14 559 529 9 656 436 795 3.6 13 519 15 600 3.8
Urban 24 830 1 303 4 095 188 982 5.2 22 271 27 390 4.4
Rural 8 286 288 5 561 247 813 3.5 7 720 8 852 2.2
Caprivi 7 198 359 764 21 254 5.0 6 493 7 902 1.0
Erongo 24 130 2 129 878 39 221 8.8 19 948 28 313 3.7
Hardap 16 210 1 750 707 15 894 10.8 12 771 19 649 2.8
Karas 18 843 2 986 693 21 299 15.8 12 977 24 709 5.6
Kavango 5 682 442 774 43 889 7.8 4 814 6 549 2.9
Khomas 32 499 2 713 1 074 83 562 8.3 27 168 37 831 3.1
Kunene 10 944 1 645 430 17 096 15.0 7 712 14 176 4.2
Ohangwena 7 629 524 748 38 997 6.9 6 599 8 658 3.5
Omaheke 13 568 1 290 467 15 159 9.5 11 032 16 103 1.0
Omusati 9 414 565 732 45 161 6.0 8 304 10 524 1.5
Oshana 13 430 857 953 35 087 6.4 11 746 15 115 1.3
Oshikoto 6 912 474 737 32 038 6.9 5 981 7 843 1.9
Otjozondjupa 14 707 1 977 699 28 135 13.4 10 822 18 593 2.2
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error
No of observa-
tions Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effect
N$ N$
Un-
weighted
Weight-
ed
N$
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 16 895 608 9656 436 795 3.6 15 700 18 090 3.8
Urban 28 020 1 458 4095 188 982 5.2 25 155 30 885 4.5
Rural 9 785 332 5561 247 813 3.4 9 132 10 437 2.1
Caprivi 8 387 422 764 21 254 5.0 7 558 9 216 1.1
Erongo 27 079 2 391 878 39 221 8.8 22 381 31 777 3.8
Hardap 18 573 1 993 707 15 894 10.7 14 657 22 490 2.8
Karas 21 516 3 211 693 21 299 14.9 15 206 27 826 5.2
Kavango 6 766 526 774 43 889 7.8 5 732 7 799 3.0
Khomas 36 238 2 995 1 074 83 562 8.3 30 353 42 124 3.1
Kunene 12 807 1 858 430 17 096 14.5 9 155 16 458 4.0
Ohangwena 9 162 608 748 38 997 6.6 7 967 10 357 3.4
Omaheke 15 940 1 465 467 15 159 9.2 13 061 18 819 1.0
Omusati 11 034 637 732 45 161 5.8 9 783 12 285 1.4
Oshana 15 482 991 953 35 087 6.4 13 534 17 430 1.4
Oshikoto 8 163 549 737 32 038 6.7 7 084 9 243 1.9
Otjozondjupa 17 006 2 285 699 28 135 13.4 12 517 21 496 2.2
Appendices
A 5.2.9
Sampling error for per
capita income
A 5.2.10
Sampling error for
adjusted per capita
income
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 205
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error
No of observa-
tions Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effect
N$ N$ Unweigh-
ted
Weigh-
ted
N$
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 23.7 0.7 9 656 436 795 2.9 22.4 25.1 3.7
Urban 15.3 0.6 4 095 188 982 3.8 14.2 16.5 3.9
Rural 39.1 1.0 5 561 247 813 2.7 37.1 41.2 2.1
Caprivi 35.1 1.7 764 21 254 4.7 31.9 38.4 1.5
Erongo 16.8 1.2 878 39 221 7.3 14.4 19.2 3.8
Hardap 25.9 1.6 707 15 894 6.2 22.8 29.1 2.3
Karas 19.7 1.7 693 21 299 8.5 16.4 23.0 2.7
Kavango 42.4 2.5 774 43 889 5.9 37.5 47.3 2.6
Khomas 12.6 0.7 1 074 83 562 5.8 11.2 14.1 2.6
Kunene 35.5 3.6 430 17 096 10.1 28.5 42.5 3.2
Ohangwena 41.7 2.1 748 38 997 5.0 37.6 45.8 3.2
Omaheke 27.9 1.6 467 15 159 5.8 24.7 31.1 0.9
Omusati 40.6 2.0 732 45 161 5.0 36.6 44.6 1.4
Oshana 28.0 1.7 953 35 087 6.1 24.7 31.3 1.4
Oshikoto 40.0 2.0 737 32 038 5.0 36.1 43.9 1.4
Otjozondjupa 23.8 2.5 699 28 135 10.5 18.9 28.6 3.4
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error
No of
observations Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effect
N$ N$ Unweigh-
ted
Weigh-
ted
N$
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 23.0 0.4 9 656 436 795 1.9 22.1 23.9 2.9
Urban 24.8 0.6 4 095 188 982 2.5 23.6 26.0 3.0
Rural 19.7 0.5 5 561 247 813 2.3 18.8 20.6 1.8
Caprivi 14.7 0.9 764 21 254 6.3 12.9 16.6 1.7
Erongo 23.2 1.1 878 39 221 4.9 21.0 25.5 2.8
Hardap 19.9 1.4 707 15 894 7.0 17.2 22.6 2.2
Karas 18.7 1.5 693 21 299 8.1 15.7 21.7 2.5
Kavango 18.9 0.9 774 43 889 4.5 17.2 20.5 1.5
Khomas 27.4 0.9 1 074 83 562 3.5 25.5 29.3 2.1
Kunene 21.8 1.6 430 17 096 7.6 18.6 25.1 2.2
Ohangwena 23.8 0.8 748 38 997 3.6 22.2 25.5 1.1
Omaheke 22.6 1.4 467 15 159 6.2 19.8 25.3 1.4
Omusati 18.2 1.1 732 45 161 6.0 16.1 20.4 1.7
Oshana 17.7 1.2 953 35 087 6.9 15.3 20.1 2.4
Oshikoto 22.6 0.8 737 32 038 3.7 21.0 24.3 1.2
Otjozondjupa 20.1 1.2 699 28 135 6.2 17.7 22.5 1.9
Appendices
A 5.2.11
Sampling error for the
consumption group, food
and beverages
A 5.2.12
Sampling error for the
consumption group,
housing
NHIES 2009/2010Page 206
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error
No of observa-
tions Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effect
N$ N$
Unweigh-
ted
Weigh-
ted
N$
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 5.7 0.2 9 656 436 795 2.7 5.4 6.0 3.4
Urban 5.9 0.2 4 095 188 982 3.9 5.5 6.4 3.9
Rural 5.3 0.2 5 561 247 813 3.0 5.0 5.6 2.1
Caprivi 7.2 0.4 764 21 254 5.8 6.4 8.0 2.3
Erongo 6.5 0.5 878 39 221 7.6 5.6 7.5 3.2
Hardap 5.7 0.4 707 15 894 6.7 5.0 6.5 1.4
Karas 5.6 0.7 693 21 299 13.4 4.1 7.0 5.1
Kavango 6.5 0.3 774 43 889 4.0 6.0 7.0 0.8
Khomas 5.3 0.3 1 074 83 562 6.1 4.7 5.9 2.7
Kunene 5.1 0.6 430 17 096 11.2 4.0 6.3 2.2
Ohangwena 5.7 0.3 748 38 997 5.2 5.1 6.3 2.1
Omaheke 3.8 0.4 467 15 159 11.1 2.9 4.6 1.5
Omusati 5.6 0.4 732 45 161 6.3 4.9 6.3 1.8
Oshana 6.5 0.4 953 35 087 5.9 5.8 7.3 1.5
Oshikoto 5.1 0.3 737 32 038 5.1 4.6 5.6 2.0
Otjozondjupa 6.2 0.5 699 28 135 7.9 5.2 7.2 1.7
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error
No of observa-
tions Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effect
N$ N$ Un-
weighted
Weight-
ed
N$
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 17.5 0.6 9 656 436 795 3.4 16.3 18.7 1.8
Urban 19.3 0.8 4 095 188 982 4.2 17.7 20.9 2.0
Rural 14.2 0.8 5 561 247 813 5.7 12.6 15.8 1.3
Caprivi 15.5 1.6 764 21 254 10.5 12.3 18.7 1.1
Erongo 19.9 1.3 878 39 221 6.6 17.3 22.5 1.9
Hardap 19.1 1.5 707 15 894 7.9 16.1 22.0 1.3
Karas 19.7 1.2 693 21 299 6.2 17.3 22.1 0.9
Kavango 12.5 2.3 774 43 889 18.4 8.0 17.1 1.2
Khomas 18.4 1.2 1074 83 562 6.3 16.1 20.7 1.7
Kunene 15.1 3.1 430 17 096 20.4 9.1 21.2 1.9
Ohangwena 10.8 1.0 748 38 997 9.2 8.8 12.7 1.4
Omaheke 17.7 2.4 467 15 159 13.4 13.1 22.4 1.2
Omusati 16.7 2.9 732 45 161 17.3 11.0 22.4 1.2
Oshana 21.0 2.8 953 35 087 13.3 15.5 26.4 1.4
Oshikoto 10.3 0.9 737 32 038 8.8 8.5 12.0 0.8
Otjozondjupa 19.5 2.2 699 28 135 11.2 15.2 23.8 0.9
Appendices
A 5.2.13
Sampling error for the
consumption group,
clothing and footwear
A 5.2.14
Sampling error for
the consumption
group, transport and
communication
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 207
Appendices
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error
No of
observations Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effect
Poor Non poor
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 19.5 0.6 1 929 7 727 3.3 18.3 20.8 2.5
Urban 9.51 0.7 444 3 651 7.2 8.2 10.9 2.3
Rural 27.15 1.0 1 485 4 076 3.7 25.2 29.1 2.8
Caprivi 41.7 2.3 292 472 5.6 37.1 46.3 1.1
Erongo 5.1 0.8 59 819 16.2 3.5 6.8 1.2
Hardap 17.2 2.6 120 587 15.4 12.0 22.4 1.7
Karas 15.3 3.1 88 605 20.6 9.1 21.4 3.6
Kavango 43.4 3.3 320 454 7.6 36.9 49.8 4.3
Khomas 7.6 1.1 97 977 14.1 5.5 9.7 3.0
Kunene 16.8 3.1 75 355 18.6 10.6 23.0 2.7
Ohangwena 23.7 2.6 164 584 10.8 18.6 28.7 3.1
Omaheke 20.9 3.8 106 361 18.0 13.5 28.3 2.9
Omusati 12.6 1.8 86 646 14.0 9.1 16.1 2.8
Oshana 13.5 1.5 138 815 11.1 10.6 16.5 1.5
Oshikoto 33.9 2.5 227 510 7.3 29.1 38.7 1.9
Otjozondjupa 22.9 3.2 157 542 14.2 16.5 29.3 3.7
Domains of
estimation
Estimate Standard error
No of observa-
tions Relative
error %
Confidence
limits Design
effect
Severe-
ly poor Poor
E SE RE % = SE/E*100
E -
(2*SE)
E +
(2*SE) Deff
Namibia 9.6 0.5 985 1 929 5.0 8.6 10.5 2.6
Urban 4.4 0.5 223 444 10.6 3.47 5.29 2.1
Rural 13.6 0.8 762 1485 5.7 12.04 15.09 2.8
Caprivi 26.4 2.9 179 292 11.1 20.7 32.2 2.1
Erongo 1.9 0.5 25 59 23.6 1.0 2.8 0.9
Hardap 9.6 2.1 67 120 21.3 5.6 13.6 1.7
Karas 9.1 2.0 49 88 22.1 5.1 13.0 2.3
Kavango 23.9 2.8 178 320 11.8 18.4 29.4 4.2
Khomas 2.8 0.6 41 97 21.2 1.6 3.9 2.4
Kunene 8.2 2.2 40 75 26.9 3.9 12.6 2.5
Ohangwena 8.5 1.8 62 164 21.3 4.9 12.0 3.6
Omaheke 13.1 2.6 66 106 19.7 8.0 18.2 2.0
Omusati 4.5 1.0 30 86 23.1 2.4 6.5 2.5
Oshana 4.7 0.8 49 138 17.2 3.1 6.4 1.1
Oshikoto 15.2 1.9 101 227 12.3 11.5 18.8 1.9
Otjozondjupa 14.3 2.6 98 157 18.2 9.2 19.4 3.4
A 5.2.15
Sampling error for
incidence of poverty
(poor households)
A 5.2.16
Sampling error for
incidence of poverty
(severely poor
households)
NHIES 2009/2010Page 208
Appendix 6 Specification of sub groups
Education
Variable Sub group Specification
Highest level
of educational
attainment
Primary
Currently in Sub A/ Grade 1
Sub A/Grade 1
Sub B/Grade 2
Standard 1/ Grade 3
Standard 2/ Grade 4
Standard 3/ Grade 5
Standard 4/ Grade 6
Standard 5/ Grade 7
Secondary
Standard 6/ Grade 8
Standard 7/ Grade 9
Standard 8/ Grade 10
Standard 9/ Grade 11
Standard 10/ Grade 12
Higher Grades (Grade 13, A Level)
Tertiary
University/technical undergraduate
University postgraduate
Post standard 10/grade12
Teatcher training (dipolma, certificates)
Bachelors degree
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 209
Main source of income
Variable Sub group Specification
Main source
of income
Salaries/wages Salaries and/or wages
Subsistence
farming
Subsistence farming
Commercial
farming
Commercial farming
Business income Business activities, non farming
Rental income
Interest from savings/investments
Pension Pensions from employment
State old age pension
Remittances/
grants
Cash remittances
War veterans/ex-combatants grant
Disability grants for adults (over 16 yrs)
State child maintenance grant
State foster care grant
State special maintenance grants (disabled
under 16 yrs)
Alimony and similar allowances
Drought relief Drought relief assistance, in kind receipts
Other Other income
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010Page 210
Housing
Type of dwelling Detached Detached house
Semi-detached Semi-detached house/Town
House
Flat Apartment
Guest flat
Mobile home Mobile home (caravan/tent)
Single quarters Singel quarters
Traditional dwelling Traditional dwelling
Improvised house Improvised housing unit
Other Part commercial/industrial
building
Other
Materials used for dwelling
Roof, outer walls Cement blocks/brick tiles Cement blocks/bricks/stones
Burnt bricks/Face bricks
Brick tiles
Corrugated iron/Zinc Corrugated iron/Zinc
Wood,grass,cow dung Wooden poles, sticks and gras
Sticks, mud, clay and/or cow dung
Thatch, grass
Asbestos Asbestos
Other Slate
Other
Not stated None
Not stated
Materials used for dwelling
Floor Sand Sand
Concrete Concrete
Mud Mud, clay and/or cow dung
Wood Wood
Other Other
Not stated
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010 Page 211
Housing continued..
Type of
tenure
Owned with no mortgage Owned with no outstanding debts
Owned with mortgage Owned, but not yet fully paid off
Occupied free Occupied free
Rented Rented without subsidy
Rented with subsidy
Other Other
Not stated Not stated
Source of
energy
Electricity Electricity from mains
Electricity from generator
Solar energy Solar energy
Gas Gas
Parafin Paraffin
Wood or wood charcoal Wood or wood charcoal
Coal Coal
Candles Candles
Animal dung Animal dung
Other Other
None None
Not stated Not stated
Source of
water
Piped water Piped (tap) water in dwelling
Piped (tap) water on site or in yard
(outside)
Neighbours tap
Public tap
Water-carrier/tanker
Boreholes/protected wells Borehole, private
Borehole, communal
Well, protected
Stagnant water Rain-water tank on site
Dam/Pool/Stagnant water
Well, unprotected
Flowing water Flowing water/Stream/River/Canal
Spring
Other source Other
Not stated
Toilet
facilities
Flush toilet Flush toilet connected to a public
sewage system
Flush toilet connected to a septic tank
Pit latrine Pit latrine with ventilation pipe(VIP)
Pit latrine without ventilation pipe
Bucket toilet Bucket toilet
Other Other
Bush/No toilet Bush/No toilet
Not stated Not stated
Appendices
NHIES 2009/2010Page 212
Appendices
Consumption
Variable Sub group Specification
Consumption
group
Food/
beverages
Food and non-alcoholic beverages
Alcoholic beverages and tobacco
Ready-made foods
Housing Rent paid for dwelling
Other rental costs
Estimated value of rent for dwelling occupied
free or owned
Maintenance and repair of dwelling
Water, sewage, garbage, refuse collection
charges
Other services related to the dwelling (cleaning,
security etc.)
Electricity, gas and other fuels like charcoal,
firewood etc.
Clothing/
footwear
Cost of clothing
Cost of footwear
Cost of home-made clothes and clothing repairs
Health Actual household cost of health services
Cost of medicines
Education Tuition and attendance fees for
Pre-primary schools
Primary, secondary and combined schools
Teatchers training, agricultural and technical
colleges
Universities
Private tuition of educational nature
Other education
Furnishing/
equipment
Furnishing and household equipment
Payment of domestic workers
Cost of furniture, fixtures and floor coverings
Cost of household textiles
Cost of appliances
Household utensils
Tools and equipment for the household
Goods and services for routine household
maintenance
Transport/
communication
Private vehicles, purchased
Running costs for private transport
Public and hired transport
Communication equipment
Two-way radios
Communication for household purposes
Other Recreation and culture
Accommodation services (incl. boarding fees for
schools etc.)
Miscellaneous goods and services
Namibia Statistics Agency
P. O. Box 2133, Post Street Mall, Windhoek
Tel: +264 61 283 4327 | Fax: +264 61 283 4348
www.nsa.org.na