:: Urban Question in Namibia :: NUST Library Special Collections

Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey (NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

2
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Vision Statement

To be a high performance institution in
quality statistics delivery

Core Values

Integrity

Excellent Performance

Accuracy

Team Work

Accountability

Transparency

Mission Statement

Leveraging on partnerships and innovative
technologies, to produce and disseminate
relevant, quality, timely statistics and spatial
data that are fit-for-purpose in accordance
with international standards and best
practice

Namibia Statistics Agency
P.O. Box 2133, FGI House, Post Street Mall,

Windhoek, Namibia

Tel: +264 61 431 3200
Fax: +264 61 431 3253

Email: info@nsa.org.na
www.nsa.org.na

4
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Contents

Contents .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Foreword ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 12

1. Survey Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 16

1.2 Survey Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................. 16

1.3 Sample Design................................................................................................................................................................... 16

1.4 Definitions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18

1.5 Response Rate................................................................................................................................................................... 20

1.6 Consultation With Stakeholders ...................................................................................................................................... 21

1.7 The Questionnaires ........................................................................................................................................................... 21

1.8 Pilot Survey ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22

1.9 Field Organization ............................................................................................................................................................ 23

1.10 Training ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23

1.11 Survey Publicity and Advocacy ....................................................................................................................................... 24

1.12 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................................................ 24

1.13 Survey Monitoring (Data Quality Control) ..................................................................................................................... 24

1.14 Data Processing .............................................................................................................................................................. 25

1.15 In-field Automated listing and Sampling Program ........................................................................................................ 26

1.16 Case Management Program .......................................................................................................................................... 26

1.17 Data Entry ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26

1.18 Data Synchronization ..................................................................................................................................................... 26

1.19 Post Data Processing Programs ...................................................................................................................................... 27

1.20 Data Validation ................................................................................................................................................................ 27

1.21 Other Checks................................................................................................................................................................... 28

1.22 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... 31

2. Demographic Characteristics .......................................................................................................................................... 32

2.1 Households and Population ............................................................................................................................................. 32

2.2 Population by Age and Sex ............................................................................................................................................... 33

2.3 Households and Orphanhood .......................................................................................................................................... 37

Contents

3. Housing and Utilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 42

3.1 Types of Dwelling Units .................................................................................................................................................... 42

3.2 Materials Used for Dwellings ........................................................................................................................................... 48

3.3 Type of Tenure .................................................................................................................................................................. 50

3.4 Sources of Energy ............................................................................................................................................................. 51

3.5 Main Source of Drinking Water ........................................................................................................................................ 54

3.6 Disposal of Child Stools..................................................................................................................................................... 60

3.7 Selected Indicators on Housing Condition....................................................................................................................... 60

4. Access to Services .......................................................................................................................................................... 62

4.1 Time to Drinking Water .................................................................................................................................................... 62

4.2 Distance to Health Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 64

4.3 Distance to Banking Facilities ........................................................................................................................................... 64

4.4 Distance to Public Transport ............................................................................................................................................ 65

4.5 Distance to Primary School .............................................................................................................................................. 66

5. Education ....................................................................................................................................................................... 68

5.1 Literacy .............................................................................................................................................................................. 68

5.2 Mode of Transport to School ........................................................................................................................................... 69

5.3 Age at Enrolment in Primary School ................................................................................................................................ 70

5.4 Cost of Education .............................................................................................................................................................. 70

6. Health ............................................................................................................................................................................ 72

6.1 Type of Chronic Illness ...................................................................................................................................................... 72

6.2 Disability ............................................................................................................................................................................ 75

7. Main Source of Income .................................................................................................................................................. 76

8. Household Indebtedness ................................................................................................................................................ 80

8.1 Types of Debt .................................................................................................................................................................... 81

9. Ownership of and access to assets ................................................................................................................................. 82

9.1 Ownership of and Access to Selected Assets .................................................................................................................. 82

10. Annual Consumption .................................................................................................................................................... 94

10.1 Annual Consumption ..................................................................................................................................................... 95

11. Distribution of annual consumption ............................................................................................................................100

11.1 Consumption Groups ................................................................................................................................................... 100

11.2 Poverty and Inequality.................................................................................................................................................. 104

11.3 The GINI-Coefficient ..................................................................................................................................................... 107

Appendix 1: Detailed Tables ..............................................................................................................................................108

Appendix 2: The Sample Weights ......................................................................................................................................114

Appendix 3: Estimation .....................................................................................................................................................120

Appendix 4: Sampling Errors .............................................................................................................................................122

6
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Figure 1.14.1 NHIES data management and processing process ......................................................................................... 25

Figure 1.16.1 Fieldwork Team data flow ............................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 1.19.1 Primary - Post Data Processing data flow ...................................................................................................... 27

Figure 1.21.1 2015/2016 NHIES-based population pyramid ............................................................................................... 29

Figure 1.21.2 Age heaping, Namibia, 2015/2016 ................................................................................................................ 30

Figure 2.1 Changes in average household size by urban/rural area .................................................................................... 33

Figure 3.4.1 Proportion of households that are not using electricity or gas for cooking by urban/rural areas ................... 54

Figure 3.5.1 Proportions of Households with access to safe water by region ..................................................................... 56

Figure 3.5.2 Households with stagnant, flowing or other main source of drinking water ................................................... 57

Figure 3.5.3 Percentage of Households that use bush/no toilet by urban/rural areas. ....................................................... 59

Figure 5.1.6 Households receiving outside financial assistance for education .................................................................... 71

Figure 8.1.1 Distribution of indebted households by type of debt ...................................................................................... 81

Figure 8.1.2 Component (%) of household debt ................................................................................................................. 81

Figure 9.1.1 Percentage of households that own a radio by region and urban/rural, 1993/1994, 2003/2004-2009/2010,

2015-2016 .................................................................................................................................................................... ......92

Figure 9.1.2 Percentage of households that own a telephone by region and urban/rural, 1993/1994, 2003/2004,

2009/2010, 2015/2016 ................................................................................................................................................. ......92

Figure 9.1.3 Percentage of households that own a motor vehicle by region and urban/rural, 1993/1994, 2003/2004-

2009/2010, 2015-2016 ................................................................................................................................................. ......93

Figure 10.1.1 Annual household consumption by region.................................................................................................... 96

Figure 10.1.2 Monthly per capita consumption (N$), 2003/2004 to 2015/2016 ................................................................. 99

Figure 11.2.1 Incidence of Poverty by Sex of head of household .......................................................................................106

Figure 11.2.2 Incidence of Poverty by Urban and Rural Areas ...........................................................................................106

Figure 11.2.3 Distribution of Poverty by Regions ...............................................................................................................107

Figure 11.3.1 Lorenz diagram for income distribution among the population in Namibia .................................................107

List of Figures

List of Tables

Selected Indicators, 1993/1994-2015/2016 ........................................................................................................................ 15

Table 1.3.1 Institutions and population not covered by the NHIES 2015/2016 ................................................................... 17

Table 1.5.1 Response rate by region ................................................................................................................................... 21

Table 1.9.1 Number of Field staff by regions and quarters ................................................................................................. 23

Table 1.21.1 Measuring age heaping the Whipple index ................................................................................................. 30

Table 2.1 Households and Population by urban/rural and region ...................................................................................... 32

Table 2.2.1 Total Population by sex and age group ............................................................................................................. 33

Table 2.2.2 Population in urban areas by sex and age group .............................................................................................. 34

Table 2.2.3 Population in rural areas by sex and age group ................................................................................................ 35

Table 2.2.4 Population by sex and citizenship..................................................................................................................... 36

Table 2.2.5 Population 12 years and above by marital status and urban/rural area ........................................................... 36

Table 2.3.1 Households by sex of head, urban/rural and region ......................................................................................... 37

Table 2.3.2 Households and population by main language spoken in the households ........................................................ 38

Table 2.3.3 Households with at least one orphaned member aged below 18 years by urban/rural and region .................. 38

Table 2.3.4 Children below 18 years and percentage of orphans by urban/rural and region .............................................. 39

Table 2.3.5 Households headed by orphans, sex of orphans and region ............................................................................. 39

Table 2.3.6 Households by percentage of orphans in the household and region and urban/rural areas ............................. 40

Table 2.3.7 Households by percentage of orphans in the household, urban/rural areas and sex of head of household ..... 41

Table 3.1.1 Households type of dwelling and region and urban/rural areas ..................................................................... 42

Table 3.1.2 Households by type of dwelling, urban/rural areas and sex of head of household .......................................... 43

Table 3.1.3 Households by type of dwelling and main language spoken in the household ................................................. 44

Table 3.1.4 Households by type of dwelling, household composition and orphanhood ..................................................... 44

Table 3.1.6. Households by type of dwelling and main source of income ........................................................................... 45

Table 3.1.7 Households by type of dwelling and percentile group after adjusted per capita income .................................. 46

Table 3.1.8 Average number of persons per room by region and urban/rural areas ........................................................... 47

Table 3.1.9 Distribution of dwellings ownership titles by type of dwelling ......................................................................... 47

Table 3.2.1 Households by main material used for roof and region and urban/rural areas ................................................ 48

Table 3.2.2 Households by main material used for wall and region and urban/rural areas ................................................ 49

Table 3.2.3 Households by main material used for floor and region and urban/rural areas ............................................... 50

Table 3.3.1 Households by type of tenure and region and urban/rural areas ..................................................................... 51

Table 3.4.1 Households main source of energy for cooking by region and urban/rural areas ............................................. 52

Table 3.4.2 Households by source of energy for lighting and region and urban/rural areas ............................................... 52

Table 3.4.3 Households by source of energy for heating and region and urban/rural areas ............................................... 53

Table 3.5.1 Main source of drinking water by region and urban/rural areas ...................................................................... 55

List of Tables

8
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 3.5.2 Households by methods of purifying water for drinking, region and urban/rural areas ................................... 57

Table 3.5.3 Households by toilet facility, region and urban/rural areas .............................................................................. 58

Table 3.5.4 Households by method of child stool disposal, region and urban/rural areas. ................................................. 60

Table 3.5.5 Households by selected indicators on housing condition, orphanhood and region and urban/rural areas ....... 61

Table 4.1.1 Households by time to drinking water, region and urban/rural areas .............................................................. 62

Table 4.1.2 Households by distance to drinking water sources and percentile group after adjusted per capita income ..... 63

Table 4.2.1 Households by distance to hospital/clinic, region and urban/rural areas ......................................................... 64

Table 4.3.1 Households by distance to banking facilities, region and urban/rural areas ..................................................... 65

Table 4.4.1 Households by distance to public transport, region and urban/rural areas ...................................................... 66

Table 4.5.1 Households by distance to primary school, region and urban/rural areas ........................................................ 67

Table 5.1.1 Population 15 years and above by sex, literacy, region and urban/rural areas. ................................................ 68

Table 5.1.2 Population aged 15-24 years by sex, literacy and region and urban/rural areas ............................................... 69

Table 5.1.3 Mode of traveling to school ............................................................................................................................. 69

Table 5.1.4 Age at first enrolment in primary by region ...................................................................................................... 70

Table 5.1.6 Cost of education by expense category and region (average N$ per year) ........................................................ 71

Table 6.1.1 Types of chronic illness in the population by region and urban/rural areas ...................................................... 73

Table 6.1.2 Types of chronic Illness by age groups ............................................................................................................ 74

Table 6.1.3 Types of disabilities by urban/rural areas ......................................................................................................... 75

Table 7.1.1 Households by main source of income, region and urban/rural areas .............................................................. 76

Table 7.1.2 Households by main source of income, urban/rural areas and sex of head of households ............................... 77

Table 7.1.3 Households by main source of income and main language spoken in the household ....................................... 77

Table 7.1.4 Households by main source of income and percentile group after adjusted per capita income ....................... 78

Table 7.5 Households with orphans by main source of income, region and urban/rural areas ........................................... 79

Table 8.1.1 Households by debt/outstanding loans, region and urban/rural areas ............................................................ 80

Table 9.1.1 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets, region and urban/rural areas..................................... 82

Table 9.1.2 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets, sex of head of household and urban/rural areas ....... 84

Table 9.1.3 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets and main language spoken in households .................. 85

Table 9.1.4 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets, household composition and orphan-hood ................ 87

Table 9.1.5 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets and main source of income ........................................ 88

Table 9.1.6 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets, after adjusted per capita income ............................... 90

Table 10.1.1 Annual consumption by region and urban/rural areas ................................................................................... 95

Table 10.1.2 Annual consumption by urban/rural areas and sex of head of household ..................................................... 96

Table 10.1.3 Annual consumption by main language spoken in the household .................................................................. 97

Table 10.1.4 Annual consumption by main source of income ............................................................................................. 98

List of Tables

List of Figures

Table 10.1.5 Annual consumption by percentile group and deciles after adjusted per capita income ................................ 99

Table 11.1.1 Annual consumption by consumption group, region and urban/rural areas .................................................100

Table 11.1.2 Annual consumption by consumption group, urban/rural areas and sex of head of household ....................101

Table 11.1.3 Annual consumption by consumption group and main language spoken in the household ..........................102

Table 11.1.4 Annual consumption by consumption group and main source of income .....................................................103

Table 11.1.5 Annual consumption by consumption group and percentile group after adjusted per capita income ...........103

Table 11.2.1 Namibias poverty lines (current ND/adult/month), 2003/04-2015/2016 .....................................................104

Table 11.2.2 Selected inequality and poverty estimates, 2003/04-2015/2016 ..................................................................105

Table 11.2.3 Incidence, depth and severity of poverty by category of poor persons, 2015/2016 .......................................105

List of Tables

Foreword Namibia has adopted a five-year development cycle called National
Development Plans simply known
as NDPs as well as a long-term goal
of Vision 2030. However, for any
effective and meaningful planning
to take place, the Government and
other developmental stakeholders
need to have appropriate and correct
information on the socio-economic
status of the country. Relevant, quality
and timely data are required from
surveys such as the Namibia Household
Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) as a specialised study that can
provide crucial statistics. In 2003/2004
it was decided to align the undertaking
of NHIES with the planning process of
NDPs and conduct the survey at five-
year regular intervals.

Therefore, information from NHIES
2015/2016 will be used to evaluate
and assess national development
plans to so see if the government is
achieving the intended developmental
objectives. Similarly, NHIES data is
needed to provide baseline data for
poverty and income indicators for the,
monitoring and evaluation of NDP5.
The survey also serves as one of the
main sources of indicators for the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The NHIES 2015/2016 was fully
financed by the Namibian Government
through the Ministry of Economic
Planning.

I would like to thank all our stakeholders,
the media and all participating
households whose co-operations were
vital to the success of the survey. My
gratitude also goes to our international
partners, particularly the United States
Census Bureau through the USAID and
the World Bank (WB) for their technical
inputs to the survey.

ALEX SHIMUAFENI
STATISTICIAN-GENERAL

"
Relevant, quality
and timely data
are required from
surveys such
as the Namibia
Household Income
and Expenditure
Survey (NHIES) as
a specialised study
that can provide
crucial statistics.

The NHIES 2015/2016 was fully financed by the Namibian
Government through the Ministry of Economic Planning sectoral
budget. The technical support in the area of data processing
during the development of data entry and listing applications
was provided by experts from the United States Census Bureau
who were financially supported by USAID. In addition, experts
from the World Bank (WB) provided technical expertise during
data analysis.

I would like to thank all participating households whose co-
operation was vital to the success of this survey. My gratitude
also go to the United States Census Bureau through the USAID
for their technical support in data entry applications, as well as
the World Bank (WB) for technical support in data analysis.

10
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Acronyms
APCI Adjusted Per Capita Income
AU African Union
CAPI Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing
COICOP Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose
DRB Daily Record Book
EA Enumeration areas
HPP Harambee Prosperity Plan
NDP National Development Plans (NDPs)
NDP4 Fourth National Development Plan
NDP5 Fifth National Development Plan
NHIES Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
NSA Namibia Statistics Agency
PPS Probability Proposal to Size
PSU Primary Sampling Unit
SADC Southern African Development Countries
SDGs Sustainable Development Good(s)
TV Television
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WB World Bank

Acronyms

Executive Summary
Background and Overview (Chapter 1)
The main objective of the Namibia Household Income and
Expenditure Survey (NHIES 2015/2016) is to provide data
to measure the levels of living conditions of the Namibian
population, for example, using actual patterns of consumption
and income, as well as a range of other socio-economic
indicators. Statistical information from this survey will inform
planning and policy making processes at national, regional
and international levels in particular the implementation of
Fifth National Development Plan, SADC agenda, AU Agenda
2063 and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The NHIES
was designed to provide policy makers with reliable, up to
date and quality statistics at national, regional levels as well as
rural urban disaggregated statistics for planning and decision
making purposes.

A representative sample of 10368 households from 864
Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) was selected for the survey.
Data was collected over a twelve months period consisting of
thirteen 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, new questions were added to the questionnaire
for 2009/2010 and 2015/2016 surveys in response to users
needs. Survey methodology is discussed in Chapter 1 of this
report. Furthermore, key summary highlights of each chapter
are provided under the following sections.

Demographic Characteristics (Chapter 2)
There were an estimated 544 655 private households during
the survey, with an estimated household population of 2 280
716. The majority of the population (53.1 percent) live in
rural areas, while 46.9 percent live in urban areas. A shift in
the households from rural to urban areas has been observed
since 2009/2010. Khomas is the most populated region with
17.5 percent of the total population, whereas Omaheke is
the least populated with 3.2 percent of the population.

The estimated average household size in Namibia is 4.2
persons. On average rural households are bigger than
urban households, 4.9 compared to 3.6 persons per
household respectively. The national average household
size has decreased from 4.7 persons in 2009/2010 to 4.2 in
2015/2016.

Housing and Utilities (Chapter 3)
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, 33 percent of households
reported that they live in a traditional dwelling, compared to
31 percent in 2009/2010. Of all households 31 percent live in
a detached house, 6 percent in a semi-detached house and
3 percent in a flat. These three categories together can be
considered as modern housing. In rural areas, 66 percent of
households live in traditional dwellings compared to 5 percent
in urban areas. At national level 20 percent of households live
in improvised housing, which is a decrease from 24 percent in
2009/2010.Improvised housing in urban areas (30%) has not
changed since 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. Land right certificate ownership
accounted for a large proportion of traditional dwellings,
followed by leasehold certificate with 72.7 and 61.5 percent
respectively. The tittle deed type of ownership accounted for
a high proportion of detached and semi-detached dwellings
with 64 and 12.6 percent respectively, compared to other
types of ownership.

The survey also collected data on main source of drinking
water. Piped water is the main source of drinking water for
84 percent of all households, 8 percent reported a borehole
or protected well, less than 1 percent stagnant water and
2 percent flowing water. A larger proportion of urban
households, 98 percent, use piped water compared to rural
households that accounted for 69 per cent.

The type of toilet at the disposal of households is one of the
important indicators of sanitation. The survey reported that
45 percent of households use flush toilet, 10 percent use pit
latrine, less than 1 percent use bucket toilet and 45 percent
use bush/no toilet. A large proportion of urban households
use flush toilet (70 percent), compared to rural households
(15 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 in
both urban and rural areas since 1993/1994.

12
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Access to Services (Chapter 4)
A majority of households in Namibia or 66 percent reported
that they have access to drinking water inside their yard.
Among urban households, more than three quarters have
access to drinking water in their yard, compared to 53.5
per cent of rural households. In rural areas, 4.5 percent of
households cover more than 60 minutes to and from their
drinking water sources.

About 33 per cent of households in Namibia are less than 1
kilometre to the nearest hospital or clinic and 32 per cent are
between 2 and 5 kilometres. However, 4.6 percent have to
travel more than 40 kilometres to reach a hospital or clinic.
Urban households travel shorter distances: 48.4 percent
within 1 km compared to rural households with 15 percent.

About 19 per cent of households in Namibia have access
to banks within 1 km or less. However, almost the same
proportion have to travel more than 40 km to reach a bank.
In urban areas, 34.8 per cent of households have access to
banks within 1 km or less compared to rural areas where 40.7
percent of the households have to travel more than 40 km to
a bank.

The distance to the nearest primary school is less than 2
kilometres for 53 percent of households in Namibia. For
about 2 percent of households in Namibia it is more than 40
kilometres. Among urban households, 67 percent are within 1
kilometre to a primary school compared to 37 percent of rural
households.

Out of all rural households 9 percent have more than 10
kilometres to the nearest primary school. In Omaheke,
35 percent have more than 10 kilometres to the nearest
primary school and in Kunene 29 percent have more than 10
kilometres.

Education (Chapter 5)
Literate persons in the population aged 15 years and over
are 87 percent. The difference in literacy rates between
males and females at national level are insignificant.

An estimated 83.4 percent of the school going population
indicated that they walk to school, followed by 8 percent that
take a taxi.

The results show that most of the children started school at
an early age of 6 or 7. The highest enrolment rate are at the
age of 7 with 52.8 percent followed by those aged 6 with 37.4
percent.

Expenditure on education is mostly higher for tuition fees
(N$1136.40 per year) compared to other school expense
categories. Households on average in Khomas region spent
more money on education compared to other regions,
especially on tuition fees and transport with N$3333.0 and
N$892.4 respectively per year.

Health (Chapter 6)
High blood pressure illness is the most prevalent disease in the
population compared to other diseases with 6.1 percent of
the population having this condition. The results shows that
high blood pressure is slightly high in urban than rural areas.
Respiratory diseases which includes asthma is the second
most common illness that affects 1 percent of the population.

Omaheke has the highest cases of high blood pressure with 9.1
percent of the population reporting this condition, followed
by Hardap region, 8.1 percent. Omaheke region also reported
more cases of respiratory diseases (2.2 percent) than other
regions followed by Erongo with 1.9 percent.

Eye problems affect the population the most in the whole
country compared to other disabilities such as hearing, walking,
recalling or concentrating, self-care and communicating. Close
to 9 percent of the people have reported some eye disabilities.

Main Source of Income (Chapter 7)
Households were asked for their main source of income,
including salaries and/or wages, subsistence farming,
commercial farming, pensions, cash remittances, maintenance
grants, drought relief, in kind receipts, etc. More than half of
all households in Namibia reported salaries/wages as their
main source of income, followed by pension with 11 percent
and subsistence farming with 10.6 percent.

There is a large difference between urban and rural
households. In rural areas 22 percent reported subsistence
farming as their main source of income, as compared to only
1 percent of urban households.

In urban areas, 72 percent of the households reported salaries
and wages as the main source of income, followed by business
income with 11.3 percent. On the other hand, 72 percent of
urban households reported salaries/wages as their main
source of income compared to 32 percent of rural households.

Executive Summary

Household Indebtedness (Chapter 8)
Respondents were asked if they had any outstanding debts.
Results show that 23 percent which amounts to 125,425
households owed outstanding balances in one form of debt
or another.

There were more incidences of households with debts in
urban areas with 30 percent than in rural areas which have
15 percent households with debts. Kavango West and Hardap
regions have the highest percent of households which have
debts with 42 percent each respectively. Otjozondjupa and
!Karas have 34 percent and 33 percent respectively.

Cash loan debt from sources in Namibia was the most prevalent
with 29 percent of households which is equal to 35,975
households, followed by car loan debts with 12 percent and
furniture and appliances with 7 percent of households.

Ownership and Access to Assets (Chapter 9)
In order to gauge changes in welfare status of households in
terms of access to assets, the survey collected information
on three broad categories of ownership or access to assets,
namely: owning, not owning but have access and neither
owning nor having access to assets.

The results show that 93 percent of households reported
that they own cell phones, 31 percent reported access to
a motor vehicle and 96 percent did not have access to a
telephone (landline). The proportions of households that own
cell phones are also high in both urban and rural areas with
approximately 97 and 89 percent of households in urban and
rural areas respectively.

Access to a radio was higher in urban areas where 26 percent
of households owned a radio compared to 21 percent in rural
areas. In urban areas, 64 percent of the households owned a
TV set compared to only 17.4 percent of households in rural
areas. It is worth noting that 31.4 percent of households in
rural areas owned a plough and 35.1 percent reported they
have access to a motor vehicle.

The proportion of households that owned a radio had increased
from 65 percent in 1993/1994, to 71 percent in 2003/2004
and 72 percent in 2009/2010, however dropped to 42 percent
in 2015/2016. On the other hand over the period 2009/2010
to 2015/2016, the proportion of households that owned a
telephone lines (landline) had dropped tremendously, from 56
percent to 4.9 percent. Similarly, the proportion of households
owning motor vehicles had also declined between 1993/1994
and 2015/2016 from 20 percent to 16 percent respectively.

Annual Consumption (Chapter 10)
The estimated total household consumption during the
survey period was N$64 849 million. The average annual
consumption per household is N$119 065 while the
consumption per capita is N$28 434. Annual consumption is
significantly higher in urban areas. For example, while rural
areas account for 46 percent of all households in the country,
they only account for 32 percent of total consumption.
Average consumption per capita is N$16 848 in rural areas
compared to N$41 575 in urban areas, a factor of close to
more than three times as high.

Female-headed households which constituted 44 percent of
all households consumed 37 percent of total consumption.
The average consumption in male headed households
is N$134 580 compared to N$99 343 in female headed
households. Similarly, consumption per capita in male
headed households is N$34 085 as compared to N$22 119 in
households headed by females. In other words, consumption
per capita is 42 percent lower in female-headed households
compared to male-headed households.

Household consumption varies greatly across language
groups. Consumption per capita in households where
Khoisan is the main language spoken, is N$7 088 compared
to N$199 330 in households, which speaks German. In other
words, German-speaking households on average have a level
of consumption that is 28 times higher than the Khoisan-
speaking households. There seemed to be, however, a
slight improvement from 2009/2010 when it was 23 times
higher. In 2003/2004, Khoisan speaking households had the
lowest consumption per capita in Namibia. In 2009/2010,
Rukavango speaking households had the lowest per capita
income in Namibia (N$5 777) and in 2015/2016 again,
Khoisan speaking households had the lowest consumption
per capita in Namibia (N$7 088).

The GINI coefficient for Namibia is 0.56 according to the
results from NHIES 2015/2016 compared to 0.5971 in
2009/2010, 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 gradually reduced. The level of
inequality in Namibia remains among the highest in the
world. In the Scandinavian countries the level of inequality is
lowest where the GINI is around 0.25.

14
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Distribution of Annual Consumption (Chapter 11)
Most consumption in Namibia is on food and beverages with
36 percent, followed by housing, 32 percent and Other
Consumption, 11 percent, which includes recreation and
culture, accommodation services and miscellaneous goods
and services. Close to 8 percent of the share of consumption
is spent on transport and communications. In urban areas
the largest share of consumption is allocated to housing
(35%), while in rural areas most of the consumption is on
food (57%).

Female headed households have a higher share of
consumption on food/beverages than male headed
households, which also have a higher share of consumption
on food and beverages.

In the 2003/2004 survey Namibia has introduced a paradigm
shift from the conventional food consumption ratio as
a measure for poverty level to the cost of basic needs
approach. Thus in 2009/2010 and 2015/2016 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 17 percent are classified
as poor and 11 percent as severely poor. In 2009/2010
the corresponding percentages were 19 and 10, while in
2003/2004 the corresponding percentages were 28 and
14. This means that the poverty in Namibia has decreased
significantly since 2003/2004. On average those poor people
were just 6.0% percent below the poverty line, meaning
that they were N$31.2 on average below the upper bound
poverty line. In other words, they needed just N$31.2 each
to be removed from poverty.

Selected Indicators, 1993/1994-2015/2016

1993/1994 2003/2004 2009/2010 2015/2016
Average household size
Namibia 5.7 4.9 4.7 4.2
Urban 4.8 4.2 4.1 3.6
Rural 6.1 5.4 5.2 4.9
Proportion of Households Cooking Without Electricity or Gas
Namibia 73% 65% 61% 52%
Urban 28% 28% 23% 23%
Rural 95% 91% 90% 87%
Proportion of households with no toilet/use bush
Namibia 57% 53% 50% 45%
Urban 8% 16% 14% 23%
Rural 81% 79% 77% 71%
Proportion of households that own a radio
Namibia 65% 71% 72% 46%
Urban 80% 79% 77% 38%
Rural 57% 66% 68% 55%
Average annual per capita consumption (N$)
Namibia 3 031 8 839 14 559 28 434
Female headed 1 804 6 320 9 908 22 119
Male headed 3 783 10 570 18 223 34 085
Proportion of households that are poor or severely poor
Poor households (incl. severely poor) - - 27.6% 19.5% 17.4%
Severely poor households - - 13.8% 9.6% 10.7%
GINI-coefficient 0.701 0.600 0.597 0.560

Executive Summary

1. Survey Methodology
1.1Introduction
The Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey (NHIES) 2015/2016 edition is the fourth of its kind to be executed
in Namibia and the first to be carried out by the Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA) as per its first Strategic plan for the period
of 2012/2013 to 2016/2017.

The NHIES is a household based survey, designed to collect data on income and expenditure patterns of households and the
sole source of information on income and expenditure in the country. Therefore, institutions did not form part of this survey.
Data from the NHIES is used to compute poverty indicators at household and individual levels. The survey also serves as a
statistical framework for compiling the national basket items for the compilation of price indices used in the calculation of
inflation. It also forms the basis for updating prices or rebasing of national accounts.

The implementation of NHIES 2015/2016 was financed by the Government of the Republic of Namibia through the Ministry
of Economic Planning sectoral budget. Technical support in the area of data processing, for example, the development of
data entry and listing applications was provided by experts from the United States Census Bureau through funding by USAID.
In addition, experts from the World Bank (WB) provided technical expertise for during data analysis and sampling.

1.2Survey Objectives
The NHIES 2015/2016 provide data to measure the levels of living of the population of Namibia, for example, using actual patterns of
consumption and income, as well as a range of other socio-economic indicators. Statistical information from this survey will inform
planning and policy making processes at national, regional and international levels in particular the implementation, monitoring
and evaluation of national development plans such as the Harambee Prosperity Plan (HPP) and the Fifth National Development
Plan (NDP5) in support of monitoring and evaluation of the Namibias Vision 2030.

The information is also further used in the monitoring and reporting towards Namibias regional and international
commitments and obligations such as the SADC agenda, AU Agenda 2063 and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The
NHIES was therefore designed to provide policy makers with reliable, up to date and quality statistics at national, regional
levels as well as rural urban disaggregated statistics for planning and decision making purposes.

The specific survey objectives were among others to:
1. Provide information for poverty indicators and profiles
2. Provide data on income distribution and differentials
3. Provide data toward monitoring and evaluation of development programmes and processes
4. Provide data on consumption and expenditure patterns and other data for the construction of a revised basket and

weights for consumer price indices
5. Provide data for the compilation of the National Accounts as well as for regional and international reporting.
6. Provide basic information on the transformations of the economy following trends and shifts in the consumption

patterns of the population.

1.3Sample Design
The sample
The design of the NHIES 2015/2016 differs in comparison to previous NHIES undertakings. One such variation appears in the
reduction of the number of households selected from the sampled primary sampling units (PSUs). This was done to increase
the geographical coverage and by so doing increase the precision level of survey estimates.

16
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

1. Survey Methodology

The number of households to be covered in each PSU have been reduced from 20 in previous NHIES to 12. This procedure
increased the total number of PSUs sampled, from 500 in previous NHIES to 864 while keeping the overall sample households
fixed. Similarly, the collection period of food transactions such as tobacco, beverage and food items in the households has
also been reduced from 28 days in previous NHIES to 7 days.

This new survey methodology was adopted to increase the precision of indicators without significant impact on costs as well
as to reduce the time interviewers spend in households thereby reducing the burden of response fatigue.

Target population and the survey population
The target population for the NHIES 2015/2016 was the non-institutional population residing in private households in
Namibia. The Institutional population were out of scope for NHIES 2015/2016, however private households found within
institutions were included in the target population. In addition, people who were homeless or those who usually reside in
those private households, but were in hospital, prison and school hostels during the time of data collection were not eligible
for NHIES 2015/2016. Table 2.1 below presents the list of institutional population, which were excluded, from the NHIES
2015/2016.

Table 1.3.1 Institutions and population not covered by the NHIES 2015/2016

Homeless

Prison/correctional institutions/police cells

Boarding School hostels

Old age homes
Army and Police barracks/Camp/Ships in harbor
Child care institutions/ Orphanages

Hospital

Hotels

Church centre/Convent/Monastery/Religious retreats

Sampling frame
The primary sampling frame used for this survey is a list of Primary sampling Units (PSUs) based on the 2011 Population and
Housing Census Enumeration Areas (EAs). A PSU can be one EA, part of an EA or more than one EA. A secondary sampling
frame for each of the selected PSUs was created for the purpose of selecting the sample households through a listing
procedure.

The sampling design
The sample design for the survey was a stratified two-stage cluster 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 up-to-date list
of households in the selected PSU were prepared during the listing stage of fieldwork, and 12 households were systematically
selected in each PSUs.

The primary sample frame was stratified first by region followed by urban and rural areas within region. The Urban/rural
strata were further stratified implicitly by constituencies.

The rural strata were also further stratified implicitly taking into consideration the proclaimed villages, settlements within the
rural strata. Once this step was carried out the remaining PSUs in rural strata were implicitly stratified into communal and
commercial farming areas. The PSUs within each of these areas were also geographically arranged.

1. Survey Methodology

The households in the secondary frame constitute a list of all households for each selected PSU were listed generally following
a geographic order. Additional information was collected from the PSUs in the commercial farming areas for the purpose of
carrying out further stratification before selecting sample households.

Sample selection
The first stage sample of PSUs was selected from the sampling frame using the probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling
together with systematic sampling procedure. Once the PSUs were selected a listing operation was carried out to prepare a
fresh list of households then 12 households were selected from the list of households (implicitly stratified) using a systematic
sampling procedure. Selection of the sample households were carried out using a CSPro based sampling application.

Substitution of non-responding households
The survey was divided into four quarters and each quarter was further divided into survey rounds. During each survey
round, some selected households did not respond to the survey as a result of non-contacts and/or refusals. If one household
did not respond in a PSU this case was accepted as non-response. On the other hand if two or more non-responding
households were encountered, then such households were replaced with households from a fresh selection in the same
PSU. The replacement households were randomly selected using the CSPro based sampling application, designed to consider
households with similar characteristics to the original selected households.

The NHIES sample distribution
The overall sample size was calculated to give reliable estimates of different characteristics at regional level as the lowest domain
of estimation. The estimates of the characteristics for all other domains above the regional level will have better precision than
the regions. The total sample size was 10368 households. A sample of 12 households were selected within each selected PSU
from a freshly prepared list of households just before the interview. The total number of sampled PSUs was 864.

The survey needed to cover seasonal variations in different characteristics and therefore was carried out throughout the
year. The survey year consists of four quarters, divided into survey rounds, which were 24 in total. Each survey round was
made up of 15 days that a household was required to participate in the survey. The 864 PSUs were randomly allocated
to the 24 survey rounds so that the sample selected for each round yield a representative sample at national level. Some
adjustments were done when the allocated PSUs were drawn from the same stratum. Hence each survey round covered 36
PSUs that consisted of 432 households.

Sample Realization
The data collection process was followed by the verification of the number of households and PSUs received against the
actual sample. This was then followed by structural editing process to ensure completeness of information and once this
exercise was completed, the household file and person file was made available for weighting. The household file received
had 10090 records, while the individual file had 41581 records, which were used for the weights calculation.

1.4Definitions
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 (cook and eat together) and are
answerable to the same head.

18
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Household member
To qualify as a household member, a person must have stayed in the household and not absent for a period six months or
more in the past 12 months.

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 one of the 7 days 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. If she/he was absent on the survey reference night, the next responsible adult member should be
entered as head.

Household composition
The composition is based on household members relation to head of household. The households have been classified into
five groups:
With only head or head and spouse (1)
With 1 child, no relatives/ non-relative (2)
With 2+ children, no relatives/ non-relatives (3)
With relatives, no non-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.

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.

1. Survey Methodology

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.

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.

1.5Response Rate
The response rate is defined as the proportion (expressed in percentage) of the households, which have responded to the
survey questionnaires out of the total expected households in the survey. During the course of the interviewing phase, it was
not possible to interview some of the sampled households due to refusals or non-contacts. Therefore, if such households
were found to be more than two per PSU, they were replaced1 with households of similar characteristics from the same PSU.
The response rate (RR) was calculated using the following equation:

RR = x 100
Responding Households

Sampled Households

(1)

After data processing, 10090 out of 10368 sampled households were successfully interviewed, resulting in a 97.3 percent
response rate which exceeds the NSA acceptable standard for response rate for social statistics of 80 percent. The lowest
response rate of 94.1% was recorded in Khomas region.

1 A total of 180 households were substituted in the sample

20
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 1.5.1 Response rate by region

Region Expected households Responding households Response rate
!Karas 576 559 97.0
Erongo 864 828 95.8
Hardap 576 561 97.4
Kavango East 576 554 96.2
Kavango West 576 568 98.6
Khomas 1 152 1 084 94.1
Kunene 576 570 99.0
Ohangwena 864 854 98.8
Omaheke 576 557 96.7
Omusati 864 854 98.8
Oshana 864 846 97.9
Oshikoto 864 852 98.6
Otjozondjupa 864 837 96.9
Zambezi 576 566 98.3
Namibia 10 368 10 090 97.3

1.6Consultation With Stakeholders
Consultation with statistics users and producers is essential to achieve consistency and respond to user needs. This is one of
the reasons why NSA makes an effort to consult all relevant stakeholders before embarking on any national survey. The NHIES
2015/2016 is a national endeavour that needed inputs from and support of various stakeholders in order to ensure that user
needs are considered during the development of survey instruments, especially the questionnaire. The technical committee
consisting of 10 major stakeholders was established and consulted for inputs to ensure data relevance. In addition, a user
producer workshop was convened and brought major users and producers of data from various stakeholders at national and
regional levels to provide input to the survey questionnaire and other instruments. To ensure cooperation from respondents,
local and traditional authorities at national, regional and local levels were engaged and regional council meetings in all 14
regions where undertaken as part of the advocacy exercise.

1.7The Questionnaires
The two questionnaires, Form 1 and the Daily Record Book (DRB) or diary, were developed and designed using inputs and
recommendations from the previous NHIES 2009/2010. The DRB had inputs from a similar document used in East Timor.

Furthermore, to ensure best practices, experiences from other countries were used to improve the survey instruments
(questionnaires, data collection applications, fieldwork approach and logistics) for data collection. The questionnaires were
developed with expanded modules and technical assistance was provided by an international expert in questionnaire design,
from Canada, through joint funding from the World Bank and the NSA.

The main questionnaire consisted of 21 sections, namely: household roster, where household members are record; housing
and food adequacy, containing the dwelling characteristics, house costs, domestic workers in the household, access to
services and languages spoken by household members; food adequacy captures information on meals consumed in the
household and the frequency it is available.

The section on education in which the level of education and literacy status of household members from age 6 and above
are captured. Health is an addition to the previous NHIES and collected information about various health conditions with the
focus on chronic illnesses and disabilities. Durable assets captured a selected number of close to 40 durable items possessed
by the households.

1. Survey Methodology

The section on labour force collected information about the size, characteristics and composition and other rates of interest.
After looking at the data it was found not prudent to analyse it since another survey the Annual Labour Force Survey 2016
results were already released. Therefore, no results on labour force are presented in this report.

The section on agricultural activities of households was also incorporated and collected information on crop production and
animal rearing. A caveat is to be mentioned in the way information was collected and it was the questions on ownership of
and keeping animals that were interchanged for the first three quarters of the survey. The question about ownership was
asked after the question about keeping animals. This resulted in under-counting and under-estimation because households
that owned animals but did not keep them were skipped if they answered no to keeping animals.

Another section was on remittances of cash or items between households. Some persons do support other households
besides their own, either as a social responsibility or otherwise. In that case the receiving household would be reporting the
received goods as income while remitting household would report it as expenditure.

The section on income sources and debts collected information about main and other sources of individual and household
income. It also captured information about household debts

The section on expenditure collected information on expenses and were categorized according to the type of commodities
or services purchased. They were grouped as: food and beverages, clothing and foot wear, household equipment, health,
leisure, child care, ICT equipment, transport and holidays and other expenditures such as tax, financial charges, fines and
insurances. These were subcategorized in accordance with frequency they were acquired by households.

The section on savings and investments collected information on savings and investments that households did in the last 12
months prior to the survey. The final section was about anthropometric measurement information of children below 5 years
old.

The expansion of the questionnaire was necessitated by the demand emanated from various stakeholders consultations.

1.8Pilot Survey
A pilot survey was conducted from the 23rd of February to the 10th of March 2015 and the purpose was to test the readiness
of the survey instruments and tools including completion time of survey round before the commencement of the main
survey. The pilot survey was conducted in Erongo, Khomas, Kunene, Hardap, Omaheke, Omusati and Zambezi regions where
seven (7) PSUs were selected covering areas such as urban, rural communal and rural commercial areas. The fieldwork was
conducted by 25 field staff.

Overall, the pilot survey went well in all regions and no major challenges were encountered. The listing and interviewing
processes went well as all regions were able to complete the pilot survey on time in line with the survey round period
of 14 days. The survey questionnaire was administered on time by field staff and the DRB was recorded smoothly by the
selected households for seven (7) consecutive days. Most selected households cooperated with the field team during the
interviewing and DRB recording except for those who travelled during the survey round.
The evaluation of the pilot survey including experience and lesson learned during fieldwork were used to revise and finalize
the survey instruments and tools before the main fieldwork. Similarly, specific areas that needed more training were identified
and were emphasized during the main training. Furthermore, the outcome of the pilot survey was used to inform areas that
should be improved in terms of quality control, while recommendations on how to improve publicity and advocacy were also
made with the inputs from local and traditional leadership.

22
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

1.9Field Organization
The main survey consisted of regional field teams managed by the Regional Supervisor (statistician). There were 9 x
Information Technology Field Technicians (ITFT) who provided IT support to the regions. Two (2) ITFTs were allocated for
each region except for the Zambezi region which was allocated one (1) ITFT because of its long distance from other regions.
The ITFTs worked closely with the Regional Supervisors. Each field team consisted of a team supervisor and 2 interviewers.
Each interviewer was responsible for 6 of the 12 selected households in each PSU. Field personnel were recruited from
their own areas since they were familiar with the local terrain/locality and to facilitate interviews in local languages. In total,
54 teams comprising of 162 field staff were in the field during first quarter of the data collection. This number was further
reduced from quarter 2 to 4 to a total of 36 teams and 108 field staff (Table 1.9.1).

Table 1.9.1 Number of Field staff by regions and quarters

Region

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 to 4

Number of
Teams

Number
of Team

Supervisor

Number of
Interviewer

Total Field
staff

Number
of Teams

Number of
Team Supervisor

Number of
Interviewer

Total Field
staff

!Karas 3 3 6 9 2 2 4 6
Erongo 4 4 8 12 3 3 6 9
Hardap 3 3 6 9 2 2 4 6
Okavango East 3 3 6 9 2 2 4 6
Kavango West 3 3 6 9 2 2 4 6
Khomas 6 6 12 18 4 4 8 12
Kunene 3 3 6 9 2 2 4 6
Ohangwena 5 5 10 15 3 3 6 9
Omaheke 3 3 6 9 2 2 4 6
Omusati 4 4 8 12 3 3 6 9
Oshana 5 5 10 15 3 3 6 9
Oshikoto 4 4 8 12 3 3 6 9
Otjozondjupa 5 5 10 15 3 3 6 9
Zambezi 3 3 6 9 2 2 4 6
Namibia 54 54 108 162 36 36 72 108

The work plan implied that the team remains in the PSU for 15 days. During that period, 10 days were allocated to interviewing
and 5 days to activities such as household listing, quality control, travelling and resting. Each household was visited at least 5
times (every other day) during a 9 day-period, of which 7 days were devoted to the DRB recording and management.

1.10Training
All field staff involved with the survey went first through an intensive training before deployed to their regions of operation.
Before the pilot training, a group of staff from the NSA head office were identified and taken through the first stage of the
training termed the master- trainers-training for a period of one week. The second stage of training comprised a large
number of staff from the NSA head office, regional statisticians, ITFTs and field staff who were to be involved in the pilot
survey and this training was termed the pilot training. In preparation of the main training a group of staff who were involved
in the pilot survey (except the field staff) attended a one-week refresher training termed the training of trainers (TOT) and
were thereafter deployed at different training centres. The main training was meant to train all field staff and was conducted
at three (3) different centres namely Okahandja, Otjiwarongo and Ondangwa. This was done in order to avoid having a
high number of trainees congregated at one training center. Regions were then assigned to the training canters based on
proximity. The field staff were trained for a period of four weeks and this was done to ensure sufficient training was provided
to facilitate the collection of quality data.

1. Survey Methodology

1.11Survey Publicity and Advocacy
High impact methods of communication strategies were utilized for advocacy and publicity during this survey to ensure that
all key stakeholders were informed. The most convenient method used was the handing out of flyers and pasting of posters
to create awareness. During this activity, the Regional Statisticians organised community meetings and had the opportunity
to elaborate on the objectives of the survey. These activities were done in each selected PSU before commencement of data
collection and also during the listing exercise. This was done to ensure that the local people were aware of the survey and
what was expected from them.

In the Khomas and Erongo regions which have the most high income areas, pamphlets about the survey (handouts) were
handed out at traffic light intersections around in these areas. This was necessitated by high refusals and non-contacts
experienced from these areas during the previous surveys. Furthermore, school visits were used to educate learners, who
took the survey messages to their respective households. The use of constituency and local councillors to make radio
announcements and to inform their communities during community meetings was effective. In addition, road shows in
various towns to create awareness in urban and surrounding areas were held in partnership with the Namibia Broadcasting
Corporation (NBC) outside broadcasting initiative. This approach was very effective in creating awareness about the survey.
Furthermore, radio announcements complimented by newspaper articles and few newspaper adverts were placed in the
local newspapers to inform the general public about the survey and its approach. Television (TV) strips were also run on the
national broadcaster before the main News Bulletin and specific talk shows to announce the commencement of the survey
was arranged with NBC Business Today programme. A round table discussion was also held on Talk of the Nation regarding
the use of NHIES data and its importance to development and planning. This platform was used to clarify the roles of the
NSA and its contribution to national development in collaboration with other government institutions. Finally, the NSA made
use of Community Watch groups in Khomas region to seek their cooperation and support in creating survey awareness. Suh
approach proved to be very effective in informing our respondents living in high income areas about the survey to minimize
non-response rates. The communities who lived in rural areas and did not have access to both radio and TV were informed
by the field staff during the listing stage of the survey.

1.12Data Collection
The NHIES 2015/2016 was conducted within the provisions of the Statistics Act No.9 of 2011. There were two major fieldwork
activities: the pilot survey that was undertaken from February 2015 to March 2015 and the main survey that was undertaken
from April 2015 to March 2016. The survey cycle was divided into 22 survey rounds that were further dived into four survey
quarters. The survey equipment and materials provided included digital food portion scales (for measuring weights of food
items consumed), jugs (to measure liquid food items consumed), height meters, measuring boards, roller meters, bathrooms
scales (to measure height and weights for children under 5 years), Tablets (uploaded with data entry application to administer
the questionnaire) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS).

Two Forms of the questionnaire were used to record information on consumption and income using a face-to-face interview
method. Form I recorded demographic information and transactions of infrequent nature like purchases of durable goods as
well as other information from other modules while Form II was the Daily Record Book (DRB) used to capture information of
daily transactions such as buying of bread, presents given to members of households and gifts given outside the household,
etc. during the survey round. Households were shown how to record their daily transactions. However, where there were
no literate persons in the households, interviewers visited them on a daily basis in order to help with the DRB recordings.

1.13Survey Monitoring (Data Quality Control)
The issue of data quality is critical to the production of official statistics because it enhances the credibility of data and the
institution that produces them. Therefore, NSA places data quality at the core of its statistical work across and data collection
activities including this survey, to increase data use. Great efforts were made to check and ensure that collected data were
relevant, reliable, accurate and timely.

24
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Therefore, to achieve these attributes, consultation with key stakeholders were carried out, use of sound survey approach and
sampling methodology, provision of adequate training, well developed questionnaires and training manuals including Data
quality assurance manual, capturing data with Tablets with in-built editing rules and regular field visits by the monitoring
teams routinely were carried out or as the need arise. The monitoring teams consisted mainly of national supervisors were
dispatched to regions at the beginning of each quarter to ensure that field work commenced as planned. Monitoring teams
also conducted control interviews in the same households, which had been covered by the interviewers and sat in some
interviews to observe how interviewers conducted the interviews. Furthermore, monitoring was also done on a daily basis
from the head office through submission of daily monitoring reports from Regional Statisticians. The division for Quality
Assurance took several field trips to undertake quality audits during field work and evaluate whether field staff were following
stipulated guidelines for data collection. The comprehensive and completeness of the data collection were also audited,
and further control measures were introduced to improve data collection. All survey quality checks were guided by quality
guidelines for data collection as prescribed in the Data Quality Assurance and Interviewer Manuals.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that this edition of the NHIES was the first NHIES to make use of the computer assisted
personal interview methodology, using the CSPro-based application in Tablets. This methodology was implemented with the
aim of improving efficiency and thus data quality.

1.14Data Processing
The data management tools to collect, transmit and store as well as clean (primary editing and recoding) survey data were
designed and developed based on the CSPro 6.3 application. The processes involved are shown in Figure 2 below.

Case
Management

3. Questionnaire - CSEntry

5. Daily Cleaning

NSA
Headquarters

Team
Supervisor

Interviewer

FTP
(Internet)

Peer to Peer Wi-fi
(no internet required)

4.Daily Data Viewer
(primary editing & recode)

6. Data Export

1. Listing & Sampling

CAPI Application Modules - NHIES 2015/2016

2. Data Transmission

Figure 1.14.1 NHIES data management and processing process

The programs developed are listed below with explanation on how they were used in the field.

1. Survey Methodology

1.15In-field Automated listing and Sampling Program
Data processing developed a systematic sampling routine program. This reduced error of supervisors not properly following
the sampling algorithm or introducing bias in the household selection. In addition, it ensured that substitution of households
is done procedurally in that substitution households are selected from the same stratum as the households to be substituted.

1.16Case Management Program
This program allowed for the automation of the following field activities with minimum human interventions.

Figure 1.16.1 Fieldwork Team data flow

Case Management and data flow was tightly controlled, but the system allowed for some flexibility. For instance, household
replacement and substitution of sampled households was done with the assistance of the data processing team who provided
codes to unlock the substitution action.

1.17Data Entry
Data entry application was built with many consistency checks, skipping patterns and other validations such as maximum
and minimum acceptance range per variable. Supervisors were given minimum variables to check on a day-to-day basis,
especially for other - specify (notes) variables. As a result, data consistency checks, coding and validation was done at field
level. This minimized the time spent on post data cleaning, validation and editing process.

1.18Data Synchronization
This program allowed for the following: - Supervisors were given SIM cards and controlled transmission of data to the Head
Office. Since MD5 (Message Digest 5) algorithm - protect the integrity of a piece of data or media to detect changes and
alterations to any part of a message. Hashes were stored on the program, only modified data was transferred, and only newly
collected data was sent to head office.

Interviewers did not have SIM cards and hence their programs and files were updated via the supervisors tablets.
Transmissions between supervisors tablets and interviewers tablets was done via a locally created WI-FI hotspot.

26
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

1.19Post Data Processing Programs
The implementation of CAPI methodology allowed for improved data quality due to consistency checks in the data entry
application. In-field coding using lookups files eliminated the need for a time-consuming coding process at the Data Processing
Centre (DPC). For this survey, data cleaning was divided into two (2) parts, primary cleaning, and secondary cleaning.
Primary cleaning was done by data processing unit. Figure 4 exhibits the various applications and processes done as well as
the different versions of data sets produced at each stage.

Figure 1.19.1 Primary - Post Data Processing data flow

The first stage of data processing activities ended at this stage, with the production of the version one (1) dataset. The next
process is the secondary cleaning phase which was done by subject matter and produced version two (2) of the datasets.

1.20Data Validation
Data cleaning
This section provides data quality analysts and researchers with data cleaning and validation methodology used for the NHIES
2015-2016. Ideally, every household survey generates two master data files. The first file presents the data as collected and
entered by the survey teams from the field and go through the primary validation from the Data Processing Division (DP).
While field teams do conduct coherence tests with regards to responses collected, DP staff carried out a high-level tests
for internal coherence across questions, identification of fatal flaws in the collected data when compared with what was
intended from the questionnaire, and as well as erroneous data entry.

A copy is then made from the master file from the DP for secondary cleaning using sets of computer algorithms and visual
checks by various expert involved.

1. Survey Methodology

The secondary data cleaning procedures provided Subject Staff and World Bank experts with step-by-step instructions
developed in STATA 14 to verify the structural stability of the published NHIES 2015/2016 data sets, identify invalid entries
and determine the data points that should be subjected to editing or imputation. The above tasks were scripted in STATA 14
program and do-files were created to automate their accomplishments.

Data validation checks
The validation of data was carried out in STATA, where a program was developed to carry out range checks to ensure that each
provided value is within allowable minima and maxima, and internal consistency checks. For example in the case of minimum
and maximum checks, the program checks that the variable recording responses to question 1.2, Is ... female or male? only
takes values 1 or 2, which are the allowed response codes. Regarding internal consistency checks, an example is the check
of consistency between Relationship to the head of the household (question 1.3) and Marital status (question 1.7): if
the relationship to the head of the household is Spouse, the individual must be married or in union; if there is a Spouse/
Partner in the household the head of household must be married or in union. These types of checks were performed for
many of the variables. Overall, both range checks and internal consistency checks did not highlight major problems.

Outlier detection
Part of data validation is the task of detecting outliers. The term outlier is used to denote an observation that appears to be
much different from neighbouring observations. While the literature is rich with methods to identify outliers, in practice a
few methods are used.

A common practice in empirical works hinges on the underlying distribution of the data. For instance, the Box-Cox method
first introduced by Box and Cox (1964), and currently being revived by a large community of data analysts is based on
the idea of transforming the original variable yh to move its distribution toward normality N(0,1). If yh denotes the total
expenditure of the h-th household, the Box-Cox transformation takes the following form:

(1)

The power transformation is intended to shift from the distribution of the original variable yh, typically skewed to the right,
towards a standard normal N(0,1) distribution. Once normality can be assumed, transformed (standardized or normalized)
observations that exceed a certain threshold (e.g. 2.5, or 3 or even 3.5) are classified and flagged as outliers.

In the case of Namibia, we opted for a simpler solution, which is a special case of equation (1). We started from the algorithm,
in which observations whose logarithms exceeded the mean of logarithms by more than 3 standard deviations where flagged
out as outliers. An absolute value was taken so that the identification of extreme values on both sides of the distribution was
easily made in that any observation that falls outside the interval defined in the above equation was set to missing. Less than
0.5% of observations were flagged as outliers.

1.21Other Checks
Another part of data validation was designed and implemented with the aim of gaining insight into the overall quality of the
data. The focus was on two variables, namely the expansion factors and the age reported by household members.

With respect to the expansion factors, the population pyramids presented in Figure 1.21.1 provides a useful tool to visually
inspect the presence of flaws in the structure of the population by age and sex. The figure shows the population pyramids,
and helps to identify potential anomalies in the data. Overall, no major problems have emerged.

28
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Figure 1.21.1 2015/2016 NHIES-based population pyramid

A second check focused on the variable age. The accuracy of reporting age can be used as signal for assessing data quality: it
can be assumed that round-number preference in reporting ones age is usually connected with other sources of inaccuracy in
age statements, and the index can be accepted as a proxy of the general reliability of responses. This is not an uncontroversial
interpretation, but it turns out that age heaping is positively correlated to issues in data quality. Figure 1.21.2 shows the
distribution of reported ages in the 2015/2016 NHIES.

1. Survey Methodology

Figure 1.21.2 Age heaping, Namibia, 2015/2016

The extent of age heaping can be summarize using the Whipple index, calculated on all individuals aged 23 to 62 as follows:

(2)

The Whipple index takes on a value of 500 in the presence of perfect heaping on multiples of five, that is under the
(hypothetical) situation in which all individuals report ages ending in 0 and 5; a value of 100 represents no preference for 0
or 5 (no heaping at all).2

Table 1.21.1 Measuring age heaping the Whipple index

Quarters Whipple Index

Q1 109.8176

Q2 100.3135

Q3 106.6826

Q4 107.4039

All quarters 106.2050

The Whipple indices shown in Table 1.21.1 take on borderline values between the top two categories used by the United
Nations (that is, highly accurate and fairly accurate data).3 We therefore conclude that the data on the variable age is
highly accurate and fairly accurate, since the Whipple index is less than 109.9.

2 The choice of the range 23 to 72 is a popular, even if arbitrary, one. When computing indexes of heaping, ages
during childhood and old age are often excluded because they are affected by errors of reporting other than the
preference for specific terminal digits.

3 See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dybcens.htm.

30
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

1.22Data Analysis
The results are presented in terms of total numbers, averages and percentages of the different estimates. From the onset,
the procedures to be followed to analyse the NHIES data was designed as follows:
1. Compile descriptive statistics
2. Construct the nominal consumption aggregate,
3. Derive real consumption aggregate (temporal and spatial price indices),
4. Derive 2015/2016 Poverty lines,
5. Construction of a comparable consumption aggregate,
6. Provide insights into poverty trends.

The above procedures provide Subject Staff and World Bank experts with step-by-step instructions developed in STATA 14
Software program to verify the structural stability of the published NHIES 2015/2016 data sets, identify invalid entries and
determine the data points that should be subjected to editing or imputation. The above tasks were scripted in STATA 14
program and were created to automate their accomplishments.

1. Survey Methodology

2. Demographic Characteristics
This chapter provides a brief snapshot on selected demographic characteristics of the population. The survey collected
demographic information such as age, sex, marital status and citizenship. These variables are often used to describe the
demographic profile of the Namibian households and population, income disaggregation, consumption, access to services
and ownership of assets.

2.1Households and Population
Namibias population was estimated to be 2 280 716 people living in 544 655 households, with an average of 4.2 persons per
household as shown in Table 2.1 below. The majority of the population (53.1 percent) lives in rural areas, while 46.9 percent
live in urban areas. A shift in the households from rural to urban areas have been observed since 2009/2010. The most
populated region is Khomas accounting for 17.5 percent of the population, followed by Ohangwena and Omusati regions
with a share of 11.1 and 10.9 percent respectively. Omaheke is the least populated region accounting for 3.2 percent of the
population. Among the regions, Erongo has the lowest average household size with an average of 3.0 which was the same
case in 2009/2010 were Erongo region had the lowest average of household size of 3.5 persons per household. Kavango East
and Kavango West have the highest share of average household size with an average of 5.8 and 6.1 persons per household,
respectively.

Table 2.1 Households and Population by urban/rural and region

Region
Households Population Average Household

sizeNumber % Number %

Namibia 544 655 100 2 280 716 100 4.2

Urban 294 827 54.1 1 068 625 46.9 3.6

Rural 249 827 45.9 1 212 091 53.1 4.9

!Karas 23 567 4.3 84 077 3.7 3.6

Erongo 58 454 10.7 175 853 7.7 3.0

Hardap 20 901 3.8 85 629 3.8 4.1

Kavango East 25 301 4.6 146 151 6.4 5.8

Kavango West 14 518 2.7 88 705 3.9 6.1

Khomas 112 305 20.6 400 191 17.5 3.6

Kunene 21 468 3.9 95 610 4.2 4.5

Ohangwena 48 487 8.9 253 348 11.1 5.2

Omaheke 19 639 3.6 74 040 3.2 3.8

Omusati 53 090 9.7 248 490 10.9 4.7

Oshana 45 331 8.3 186 634 8.2 4.1

Oshikoto 41 411 7.6 192 469 8.4 4.6

Otjozondjupa 38 238 7.0 152 343 6.7 4.0

Zambezi 21 945 4.0 97 176 4.3 4.4

32
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

2. Demographic Characteristics

The average household size in Namibia has been declining since 1993/94, from 5.7 reported in 1993/94 to 4.2 in 2015/2016.
The same pattern can be observed across urban and rural areas. On average households in rural areas were larger (4.9
persons) than households in urban areas (3.6 persons).

Figure 2.1 Changes in average household size by urban/rural area

2.2Population by Age and Sex
Namibia is generally a youthful nation with about 66 percent of the population under the age of 30 years and only 11.9
percent of the population being over 50 years of age. The proportion of the population aged 95 and above is less than 1
percent as in the previous years, while an estimated 13.9 percent is under five years as shown in Table 2.2.1 below.

The sex ratio is estimated to be about 95 males per 100 females. This means that there are more females than males as it was
the case in the previous surveys. The sex ratio is however, lower in older age groups, which is a reflection less male population
compare to female population at older ages comparing to younger age groups, for example those of from zero to fourteen
years of age where the sex ratios is above 100.

Table 2.2.1 Total Population by sex and age group

Age group
Female Male Both Sexes

Sex ratio
Number % Number % Number %

Namibia 1 172 440 100 1 108 276 100 2 280 716 100 94.5

00-04 156 953 13.4 160 550 14.5 317 503 13.9 102.3

05-09 136 088 11.6 138 313 12.5 274 401 12.0 101.6

10-14 118 811 10.1 119 349 10.8 238 160 10.4 100.5

15-19 123 097 10.5 120 385 10.9 243 482 10.7 97.8

20-24 117 978 10.1 113 488 10.2 231 466 10.1 96.2

2. Demographic Characteristics

Age group
Female Male Both Sexes

Sex ratio
Number % Number % Number %

25-29 103 281 8.8 99 547 9.0 202 828 8.9 96.4

30-34 84 146 7.2 79 543 7.2 163 689 7.2 94.5

35-39 70 321 6.0 66 664 6.0 136 985 6.0 94.8

40-44 58 801 5.0 54 020 4.9 112 821 4.9 91.9

45-49 46 998 4.0 41 197 3.7 88 195 3.9 87.7

50-54 39 468 3.4 32 425 2.9 71 893 3.2 82.2

55-59 30 679 2.6 23 243 2.1 53 922 2.4 75.8

60-64 23 633 2.0 18 245 1.6 41 878 1.8 77.2

65-69 19 555 1.7 15 021 1.4 34 576 1.5 76.8

70-74 14 687 1.3 10 031 0.9 24 718 1.1 68.3

75-79 10 178 0.9 6 970 0.6 17 148 0.8 68.5

80-84 7 167 0.6 4 585 0.4 11 751 0.5 64.0

85-89 4 765 0.4 2 339 0.2 7 103 0.3 49.1

90-94 3 753 0.3 1 292 0.1 5 045 0.2 34.4

95+ 2 082 0.2 1 070 0.1 3 152 0.1 51.4

Population in rural areas is younger in comparison with the population in urban areas as shown in Table 2.2.2 and Table 2.2.3.
The same pattern was observed in 2009/2010. In rural areas 70 percent of the population is under 30 years compared to the
61.8 percent in urban areas. The sex ratio for rural areas is relatively lower than urban areas from ages 30 years which may
be a reflection of rural to urban migration in search for employment opportunities.

Table 2.2.2 Population in urban areas by sex and age group

Age group
Female Male Both Sexes

Sex ratio
Number % Number % Number %

Namibia 547 129 100.0 521 496 100.0 1 068 625 100.0 95.3

00-04 71 671 13.1 73 331 14.1 145 002 13.6 102.3

05-09 47 627 8.7 47 847 9.2 95 474 8.9 100.5

10-14 43 001 7.9 41 044 7.9 84 045 7.9 95.4

15-19 49 244 9.0 42 648 8.2 91 892 8.6 86.6

20-24 59 548 10.9 51 138 9.8 110 686 10.4 85.9

25-29 67 811 12.4 64 266 12.3 132 077 12.4 94.8

30-34 54 417 9.9 53 397 10.2 107 814 10.1 98.1

35-39 42 037 7.7 42 062 8.1 84 099 7.9 100.1

40-44 32 367 5.9 32 142 6.2 64 509 6.0 99.3

45-49 23 885 4.4 23 885 4.6 47 770 4.5 100.0

50-54 17 880 3.3 18 265 3.5 36 145 3.4 102.2

55-59 12 974 2.4 12 308 2.4 25 282 2.4 94.9

60-64 8 576 1.6 7 996 1.5 16 572 1.6 93.2

65-69 5 883 1.1 4 606 0.9 10 489 1.0 78.3

34
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Age group
Female Male Both Sexes

Sex ratio
Number % Number % Number %

70-74 3 837 0.7 2 737 0.5 6 574 0.6 71.3

75-79 2 743 0.5 1 823 0.3 4 566 0.4 66.5

80-84 1 823 0.3 1 139 0.2 2 963 0.3 62.5

85-89 946 0.2 388 0.1 1 334 0.1 41.0

90-94 662 0.1 262 0.1 924 0.1 39.6

95+ 196 0.0 211 0.0 408 0.0 107.7

Table 2.2.3 Population in rural areas by sex and age group

Age group
Female Male Both Sexes

Sex ratio
Number % Number % Number %

Total 625 311 100 586 780 100 1 212 091 100 93.8

00-04 85 282 13.6 87 219 14.9 172 501 14.2 102.3

05-09 88 461 14.1 90 466 15.4 178 927 14.8 102.3

10-14 75 810 12.1 78 305 13.3 154 115 12.7 103.3

15-19 73 853 11.8 77 737 13.2 151 590 12.5 105.3

20-24 58 430 9.3 62 350 10.6 120 780 10.0 106.7

25-29 35 470 5.7 35 281 6.0 70 751 5.8 99.5

30-34 29 729 4.8 26 146 4.5 55 875 4.6 87.9

35-39 28 284 4.5 24 602 4.2 52 886 4.4 87.0

40-44 26 434 4.2 21 878 3.7 48 312 4.0 82.8

45-49 23 113 3.7 17 312 3.0 40 425 3.3 74.9

50-54 21 588 3.5 14 160 2.4 35 748 2.9 65.6

55-59 17 705 2.8 10 935 1.9 28 640 2.4 61.8

60-64 15 057 2.4 10 249 1.7 25 306 2.1 68.1

65-69 13 672 2.2 10 415 1.8 24 087 2.0 76.2

70-74 10 850 1.7 7 294 1.2 18 144 1.5 67.2

75-79 7 435 1.2 5 147 0.9 12 582 1.0 69.2

80-84 5 343 0.9 3 446 0.6 8 789 0.7 64.5

85-89 3 819 0.6 1 950 0.3 5 769 0.5 51.1

90-94 3 090 0.5 1 030 0.2 4 120 0.3 33.3

95+ 1 886 0.3 858 0.1 2 744 0.2 45.5

An estimated 98 percent of the total population are Namibian citizens with the rest made up of citizens of other countries,
including, but not limited to Angola, South Africa and Zambia as indicated in Table 2.2.4 below.

2. Demographic Characteristics

Table 2.2.4 Population by sex and citizenship

Citizenship
Female Male Both Sexes

Number % Number % Number %

Total 1 172 440 100 1 108 276 100 2 280 716 100

Namibia 1 151 935 98.3 1 083 138 97.7 2 235 073 98

Non-Namibian 19 577 1.5 24 423 2.1 44 000 1.2

Angola 7 435 0.6 9 942 0.9 17 378 0.8

Botswana 276 0 260 0 536 0

Nigeria 519 0 324 0 843 0

South Africa 3 499 0.3 2 648 0.2 6 146 0.3

Zambia 2 521 0.2 3 706 0.3 6 228 0.3

Zimbabwe 2 505 0.2 2 728 0.2 5 233 0.2

Other SADC 268 0 982 0.1 1 250 0.1

Other Africans 442 0 932 0.1 1 374 0.1

China 95 0 807 0.1 901 0

European countries 1 070 0.1 1 003 0.1 2 073 0.1

All other countries 947 0.1 1 091 0.1 2 038 0.1

Not stated 928 0.1 715 0.1 1 643 0.1

Table 2.2.5 below shows that 62.8 percent of population aged 12 years or older were never married. About 30 percent are
married with certificates, traditionally married or lived in a consensual union. The proportion of the population divorced,
widowed and separated accounts for about 6 percent.

Table 2.2.5 Population 12 years and above by marital status and urban/rural area

Marital status
Urban Rural Total

Number % Number % Number %

Total 792 702 100 797 458 100 1590 161 100

Never married 493 443 62.2 504 672 63.3 998 115 62.8

Married with certificate 145 786 18.4 104 318 13.1 250 104 15.7

Married traditionally 23 648 3.0 60 259 7.6 83 907 5.3

Consensual union 93 838 11.8 61 128 7.7 154 966 9.7

Divorced 9 036 1.1 7 950 1.0 16 986 1.1

Widowed 19 883 2.5 45 402 5.7 65 285 4.1

Separated 7 068 0.9 13 730 1.7 20 798 1.3

36
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

2.3Households and Orphanhood
Table 2.3.1 indicates that, at the national level more than half of households (56 percent) are headed by males. The same
applies to the urban (58.1 percent) and rural (53.5 percent) areas where the majority of the households were headed by males.
Hardap, Erongo, Omaheke, !Karas, and Otjozondjupa, are the regions with higher percentages of male headed households
accounting for 68.5, 67.7, 66.9, 65.8 and 64.3 percent respectively, whereas Omusati, Ohangwena, Oshana, Zambezi and
Oshikoto have more female headed households accounting for 58.3, 57.5, 52.4, 51.8 and 50.8 percent, respectively.

Table 2.3.1 Households by sex of head, urban/rural and region

Region
Female Male Both sexes

Number % Number % Number %

Namibia 239 816 44.0 304 839 56.0 544 655 100

Urban 123 641 41.9 171 186 58.1 294 827 100

Rural 116 175 46.5 133 652 53.5 249 827 100

!Karas 8 049 34.2 15 518 65.8 23 567 100

Erongo 18 891 32.3 39 562 67.7 58 454 100

Hardap 6 575 31.5 14 325 68.5 20 901 100

Kavango East 12 244 48.4 13 057 51.6 25 301 100

Kavango West 6 143 42.3 8 374 57.7 14 518 100

Khomas 42 902 38.2 69 403 61.8 112 305 100

Kunene 9 857 45.9 11 611 54.1 21 468 100

Ohangwena 27 862 57.5 20 624 42.5 48 487 100

Omaheke 6 506 33.1 13 133 66.9 19 639 100

Omusati 30 964 58.3 22 127 41.7 53 090 100

Oshana 23 748 52.4 21 583 47.6 45 331 100

Oshikoto 21 039 50.8 20 372 49.2 41 411 100

Otjozondjupa 13 667 35.7 24 571 64.3 38 238 100

Zambezi 11 368 51.8 10 577 48.2 21 945 100

Respondents were also asked to indicate the main language spoken in the household. There are more than ten spoken
language in Namibia. The most common language is Oshiwambo which is spoken by 50.8 percent of the population (Table
2.3.2). This is followed by Nama/Damara, Rukavango, Otjiherero and Afrikaans spoken by 12, 11.8, 8.9 and 6.3 percent of
the population respectively. Households where Khoisan, Rukavango, or Nama/Damara is the main language spoken have
larger household sizes of 5.6, 5.4 and 4.3 persons per household, which are above the national average of 4.2 persons per
household. English, the official language, is only spoken as a main language in 1.5 percent of the households.

2. Demographic Characteristics

Table 2.3.2 Households and population by main language spoken in the households

Main language
Households Population

Ave household size
Number % Number %

Total 544 655 100 2 280 716 100 4.2

Khoisan 6 115 1.1 34 171 1.5 5.6

Zambezi languages 23 414 4.3 96 456 4.2 4 .1

Otjiherero 49 546 9.1 202 018 8.9 4.1

Rukavango 50 307 9.2 269 153 11.8 5.4

Nama/Damara 63 208 11.6 274 147 12.0 4.3

Oshiwambo 280 225 51.5 1 158 413 50.8 4.1

Setswana 1 311 0.2 3 504 0.2 2.7

Afrikaans 40 334 7.4 144 721 6.3 3.6

German 2 099 0.4 5 086 0.2 2.4

English 7 815 1.4 24 043 1.1 3.1

Other European 3 054 0.6 9 272 0.4 3.0

Other African 6 032 1.1 16 660 0.7 2.8

Other 11 135 2.0 42 846 1.9 3.8

Not stated 59 0.0 226 0.0 3.8

Table 2.3.3 indicates that Ohangwena region (15.9 percent) has a high number of households with one or more orphaned
children aged below 18 years, while !Karas region (2.6 percent) has the least number of households. Currently, the number
of households with one or more orphaned member below 18 years is high (66.6 percent) in rural areas compared to urban
areas (33.4 percent).

Table 2.3.3 Households with at least one orphaned member aged below 18 years by urban/rural and region

Region
Urban Rural Households with orphans

Number % Number % Number %
Namibia 28 948 33.4 57 648 66.6 86 596 100

!Karas 1 637 72.6 617 27.4 2 255 2.6

Erongo 3 768 92.0 328 8.0 4 096 4.7

Hardap 2 452 80.9 580 19.1 3 032 3.5

Kavango East 2 266 33.1 4 579 66.9 6 846 7.9

Kavango West 339 8.1 3 872 92.0 4 210 4.9

Khomas 8 673 94.7 486 5.3 9 159 10.6

Kunene 1 654 46.1 1 932 53.9 3 586 4.1

Ohangwena 451 3.3 13 301 96.7 13 752 15.9

Omaheke 1 360 57.4 1 009 42.6 2 369 2.7

Omusati 139 1.2 11 614 98.8 11 753 13.6

Oshana 2 123 29.4 5 089 70.6 7 212 8.3

Oshikoto 498 5.0 9 446 95.0 9 945 11.5

Otjozondjupa 2 921 61.3 1 842 38.7 4 762 5.5

Zambezi 667 18.4 2 954 81.6 3 621 4.2

38
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 2.3.4 shows that there were 130 263 (13 percent) orphans out of 982 566 children below 18 years in Namibia. It can be
observed from the table that 10.6 percent of the orphans between age 0 and 17 years are in urban areas whereas 15 percent
are in rural areas. Kavango East, Kavango West, Ohangwena, Oshikoto and Omusati each reported more than 15 percent of
orphans while Erongo and !Karas reported below 10 percent of orphans.

Table 2.3.4 Children below 18 years and percentage of orphans by urban/rural and region

Region Children (0-17 years) Orphans (0-17 years) Percentage of orphans

Namibia 982 566 130 263 13.3

Urban 379 225 40 023 10.6

Rural 603 341 90 240 15.0

!Karas 30 563 2 926 9.6

Erongo 56 763 4 979 8.8

Hardap 33 495 4 268 12.7

Kavango East 72 336 11 523 15.9

Kavango West 49 059 7 422 15.1

Khomas 130 854 13 959 10.7

Kunene 46 209 5 426 11.7

Ohangwena 132 855 20 647 15.5

Omaheke 33 196 3 622 10.9

Omusati 120 532 18 638 15.5

Oshana 75 581 9 909 13.1

Oshikoto 90 409 14 013 15.5

Otjozondjupa 65 677 7 165 10.9

Zambezi 45 038 5 767 12.8

Table 2.3.5 presents the distribution of households headed by orphans by sex and region. The result indicates that out
of 544,655 households in Namibia, only 695 households representing 0.1 percent were headed by orphans. About 0.2
percent of households were headed by female orphans and 0.1 were headed by male orphans. At regional level, Ohangwena
recorded the highest percentage of households headed by orphans of 0.4 percent, while !Karas, Erongo, Kavango West,
Omusati, Otjozondjupa and Zambezi regions each recorded 0 percent.

Table 2.3.5 Households headed by orphans, sex of orphans and region

Region
None orphan headed households Orphan headed households

Total number of Households
Number % Number %

Namibia 543 960 99.9 695 0.1 100 544 655

Female 239 401 99.8 415 0.2 100 239 816

Male 304 559 99.9 280 0.1 100 304 839

!Karas 23 567 100 0 0.0 100 23 567

2. Demographic Characteristics

Region
None orphan headed households Orphan headed households

Total number of Households
Number % Number %

Erongo 58 454 100 0 0.0 100 58 454

Hardap 20 881 99.9 20 0.1 100 20 901

Kavango East 25 223 99.7 78 0.3 100 25 301

Kavango West 14 518 100 0 0.0 100 14 518

Khomas 112 190 99.9 115 0.1 100 112 305

Kunene 21 422 99.8 45 0.2 100 21 468

Ohangwena 48 276 99.6 210 0.4 100 48 487

Omaheke 19 603 99.8 36 0.2 100 19 639

Omusati 53 090 100 0 0.0 100 53 090

Oshana 45 228 99.8 103 0.2 100 45 331

Oshikoto 41 324 99.8 88 0.2 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 38 238 100 0 0.0 100 38 238

Zambezi 21 945 100 0 0.0 100 21 945

As indicated in Table 2.3.6, 10.5 percent of the households have 1 to 25 percent of household members who are orphans.
Kavango East and Kavango West regions have the highest share of households with 26 to 50 percent of household members
being orphaned. In Kavango West, 2.8 percent of the households have more than 50 percent of household members who
are orphaned.

Table 2.3.6 Households by percentage of orphans in the household and region and urban/rural areas

Region

Percentage of orphans
Total number of

Households
0 1-25 26-50 >50 Total

Percentage of households

Namibia 84.1 10.5 4.6 0.8 100 544 655

Urban 90.2 6.2 3.2 0.5 100 294 827

Rural 76.9 15.6 6.3 1.2 100 249 827

!Karas 90.4 5.3 3.7 0.6 100 23 567

Erongo 93.0 4.2 2.6 0.2 100 58 454

Hardap 85.5 9.7 4.4 0.4 100 20 901

Kavango East 72.9 16.6 9.2 1.3 100 25 301

Kavango West 71.0 19.3 6.9 2.8 100 14 518

Khomas 91.8 4.8 2.7 0.7 100 112 305

Kunene 83.3 13.5 2.2 1.0 100 21 468

Ohangwena 71.6 20.5 6.4 1.5 100 48 487

Omaheke 87.9 7.7 3.8 0.6 100 19 639

Omusati 77.9 14.5 6.6 1.1 100 53 090

Oshana 84.1 10.6 4.9 0.4 100 45 331

Oshikoto 76.0 17.8 5.7 0.5 100 41 411

40
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Region

Percentage of orphans
Total number of

Households
0 1-25 26-50 >50 Total

Percentage of households

Otjozondjupa 87.5 7.6 4.5 0.3 100 38 238

Zambezi 83.5 8.8 6.5 1.2 100 21 945

Table 2.3.7 below indicates that orphans are more common in female headed households compared to male headed
households. Clearly orphan hood is more prevalent in rural areas than in urban areas with 15.6 percent of rural households
having between 1-25 percent of household members who are orphaned compared to 6.2 percent of urban households.

Table 2.3.7 Households by percentage of orphans in the household, urban/rural areas and sex of head of
household

Urban/rural
Sex of head

Percentage of orphans
Total number of

Households
0 1-25 26-50 >50 Total

Percent of households

Namibia

Female 76.1 15.2 7.3 1.4 100 239 816

Male 90.4 6.8 2.5 0.3 100 304 839

Total 84.1 10.5 4.6 0.8 100 544 655

Urban

Female 84.6 9.5 5.1 0.8 100 123 641

Male 94.2 3.8 1.8 0.2 100 171 186

Total 90.2 6.2 3.2 0.5 100 294 827

Rural

Female 67.0 21.2 9.7 2.1 100 116 175

Male 85.6 10.7 3.4 0.4 100 133 652

Total 76.9 15.6 6.3 1.2 100 249 827

2. Demographic Characteristics

3. Housing and Utilities
3.1Types of Dwelling Units
Housing and utilities are important indicators of household socio-economic status. Housing and utilities play an important
role in the living condition of the population. They have a direct impact on the environmental conditions. Therefore, it is
vital to describe housing characteristics with regard to the type of dwellings occupied by the household, including building
materials used for the roof, floor and wall. The chapter also reflects on the ownership of the dwelling and utilities used by
the household such as sources of energy, water and toilet facilities. The improvement of Namibian households welfare is
determined by these indicators over time. There is an improvement in most indicators since the NHIES 2009/2010, except for
the improvised housing units (shacks) whereby the proportion has increased in both urban and rural areas.

In Namibia, types of dwelling vary across the country. Regional distribution presented in Table 3.1.1 shows that Kavango
West has the highest percent (85.8 %) of households living in traditional dwellings, followed by Omusati and Zambezi regions
with 78.6 and 77.5 percent respectively. The lowest percent of households living in traditional dwelling units, was recorded
in Hardap and Khomas regions with 0.4 and 0.5 percent respectively. Furthermore, Omaheke region reported the highest
percent of households living in improvised housing units (39.8 percent), followed by Khomas with 32.6 percent while Zambezi
region reported the lowest percent of households living in improvised housing units with 0.6 percent. The detached houses
in urban areas makes up 41.5 percent of dwelling units while improvised houses form 29.6 percent of urban dwelling units.

Table 3.1.1 Households type of dwelling and region and urban/rural areas

Region

Type of dwelling, % Total

De
ta

ch
ed

us
e

Se
m

i-d
et

ac
he

d
ho

us
e/

T
ow

n
ho

us
e

A
pa

rt
m

en
t

G
ue

st
fl

Pa
rt

m
m

er
ci

al
/

In
du

st
ria

l
bu

ild
in

M
ob

ile
h

om
e

(c
ar

av
an

/
te

nt
)

Si
ng

le
q

ua
rt

er
s

Tr
ad

iti
on

dw
el

lin
g

Im
pr

ov
is

ho
us

in
g

un
it

O
th

er
s

N
um

be
r

Namibia 30.6 5.8 2.9 2.9 0.5 0.3 3.1 32.9 20.2 0.8 100 544 655

Urban 41.5 8.8 4.7 4.5 0.2 0.2 5.1 4.6 29.6 0.9 100 294 827
Rural 17.7 2.2 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.8 66.3 9.1 0.8 100 249 827

!Karas 62.4 2.8 5.6 1.5 0.7 0.6 2.0 6.0 18.0 0.3 100 23 567

Erongo 39.4 9.0 9.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 4.9 1.8 33.0 0.2 100 58 454

Hardap 63.0 2.7 2.7 3.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 25.2 2.2 100 20 901

Kavango East 18.5 0.1 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.2 72.3 4.4 2.2 100 25 301

Kavango West 9.1 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 85.8 3.0 0.2 100 14 518
Khomas 36.5 12.2 4.9 3.5 0.0 0.2 8.6 0.5 32.6 1.1 100 112 305
Kunene 25.1 7.4 2.2 1.3 0.4 0.7 0.4 45.9 16.2 0.2 100 21 468
Ohangwena 19.2 1.6 0.2 3.6 0.5 0.3 1.3 62.1 11.3 0.0 100 48 487
Omaheke 48.4 3.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.8 6.1 39.8 0.6 100 19 639
Omusati 3.3 3.4 0.2 3.9 3.0 0.0 0.5 78.6 5.6 1.6 100 53 090
Oshana 24.2 5.8 2.1 6.7 0.0 0.1 1.3 36.2 23.0 0.6 100 45 331

Oshikoto 13.8 5.0 2.2 2.2 1.1 0.3 1.6 62.2 10.5 1.1 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 56.0 4.9 1.4 2.1 0.7 0.5 3.5 8.6 21.5 0.8 100 38 238
Zambezi 20.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.0 77.5 0.6 0.0 100 21 945

3. Housing and Utilities

42
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 3.1.2 shows that there is a slight difference between female and male headed households living in detached houses
nationally. The large proportion of male headed households (32.5 percent) reside in detached dwellings compared to 28.1
percent of their female counterparts. In rural areas, more than three quarters of female headed households (75.3 percent)
reside in traditional dwellings compared to 58.5 percent of male headed households. The table further indicates that there
is a slight higher number of male headed households (30.4 percent) that reside in improvised housing units in urban areas
compared to 28.5 percent of female headed households.

Table 3.1.2 Households by type of dwelling, urban/rural areas and sex of head of household

U
rb

an
/R

ur
al

S
ex

o
f h

ea
d Type of dwelling, % Total

De
ta

ch
ed

h
ou

Se
m

i-d
et

ac
he

d
ho

us
e/

T
ow

n
ho

us
e

Ap
ar

tm
en

G
ue

st
fl

Pa
rt

c
om

m
er

ci
al

/
In

du
st

ria
l b

ui
ld

in
g

M
ob

ile
h

om
e

(c
ar

av
an

/
te

nt
)

Si
ng

le
q

ua
rt

er
s

Tr
ad

iti
on

al
d

w
el

lin
g

Im
pr

ov
is

ed
h

ou
si

un
it

O
th

er
s

N
um

be
r

Namibia

Female 28.1 5.0 2.5 3.2 0.6 0.2 2.6 39.4 17.6 0.7 100 239 816

Male 32.5 6.4 3.2 2.6 0.5 0.3 3.5 27.8 22.2 0.9 100 304 839

Both sexes 30.6 5.8 2.9 2.9 0.5 0.3 3.1 32.9 20.2 0.8 100 544 655

Urban

Female 41.9 8.4 4.1 5.6 0.2 0.3 4.7 5.6 28.5 0.9 100 123 641

Male 41.2 9.2 5.1 3.7 0.2 0.2 5.4 3.9 30.4 0.9 100 171 186

Both Sexes 41.5 8.8 4.7 4.5 0.2 0.2 5.1 4.6 29.6 0.9 100 294 827

Rural

Female 13.5 1.4 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.4 75.3 6.1 0.6 100 116 175

Male 21.3 3.0 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.5 1.1 58.5 11.7 0.9 100 133 652

Both sexes 17.7 2.2 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.8 66.3 9.1 0.8 100 249 827

Table 3.1.2 presents the distribution of households by type of dwelling and by main language spoken in the households.
Households that speak Zambezi, Kavango and Oshiwambo languages reported the highest proportion of households living in
traditional dwellings with 66.9, 61.4 and 40.5 percent respectively. Improvised housing was more common among households
where Nama/Damara, Herero and Oshiwambo languages are spoken with 32.4, 23.1 and 21.7 percent respectively. Modern
housing units, namely, detached, semi-detached and flats are mostly occupied by high proportions of households that speaks
Afrikaans, Setwana, German, Nama/ Damara, English, and other African languages.

3. Housing and Utilities

Table 3.1.3 Households by type of dwelling and main language spoken in the household

Main Language group

Type of dwelling, % Total
De

ta
ch

ed
h

ou
se

Se
m

i-d
et

ac
he

d
ho

us
e/

T
ow

n
ho

us
e

A
pa

rt
m

en
t

G
ue

st
fl

Pa
rt

c
om

m
er

ci
al

/
In

du
st

ria
l

bu
ild

in
g

M
ob

ile
h

om
e

(c
ar

av
an

/
te

nt
)

Si
ng

le
q

ua
rt

er
s

Tr
ad

iti
on

dw
el

lin
g

Im
pr

ov
is

ho
us

in
g

un
it

O
th

er
s

N
um

be
r

Khoisan 29.6 3.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 42.1 22.6 0.7 100 6 115

Zambezi languages 22.9 1.9 2.2 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.3 66.9 4.3 0.2 100 23 414

Herero languages 41.6 7.1 1.7 1.7 0.2 0.3 2.9 22.5 21.7 0.3 100 49 546

Kavango languages 16.0 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.3 2.2 61.4 14.0 2.9 100 50 307

Nama/Damara 47.8 7.0 2.6 1.3 0.2 0.5 1.8 5.4 32.4 1.0 100 63 208

Oshiwambo languages 19.7 5.3 1.9 3.1 0.9 0.2 4.6 40.5 23.1 0.6 100 280 225

Setswana 63.4 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.3 13.5 0.0 100 1 311

Afrikaans 68.5 10.0 8.9 4.7 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.1 6.1 0.0 100 40 334

German 54.4 29.6 12.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 2 099

English 48.9 12.2 14.6 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 6.1 0.0 100 7 815

Other European 32.3 2.9 38.1 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 5.5 100 3 054

Other African 60.4 6.8 9.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 10.7 1.9 100 6 032

Other 64.5 12.9 3.1 6.2 0.8 0.2 0.0 5.3 5.9 1.0 100 11 194

Total 30.6 5.8 2.9 2.9 0.5 0.3 3.1 32.9 20.2 0.8 100 544 655

Table 3.1.4 reveals that most of the households with orphans live in traditional dwellings (56.3 percent) compared to 28.5
percent of households without orphans. About 30 percent of households with orphans live in modern type of housing
compared to 44.4 percent of households without orphans. Among households whose composition constitute head and
spouse only about 47 percent live in modern type of dwellings and 27.7 percent, live in improvised dwelling units. The
majority of households whose composition constitute one child and no relatives live in improvised housing units (28.3
percent) compared to households with two or more children with non-relatives (17.2 percent).

Table 3.1.4 Households by type of dwelling, household composition and orphanhood

Ho
us

eh
ol

d
co

m
po

si
tio

n/
O

rp
ha

nh
oo

Type of dwelling, % Total

De
ta

ch
ed

h
ou

Se
m

i-d
et

ac
he

d
ho

us
e/

T
ow

n
ho

us
e

Ap
ar

tm
en

G
ue

st
fl

Pa
rt

c
om

m
er

ci
al

/
In

du
st

ria
l

bu
ild

in
g

M
ob

ile
h

om
e

(c
ar

av
an

/
te

nt
)

Si
ng

le
q

ua
rt

er
s

Tr
ad

iti
on

dw
el

lin
g

Im
pr

ov
is

ho
us

in
g

un
it

O
th

er
s

N
um

be
r

With only head or head and spouse 29.1 6.0 5.6 7.0 1.6 0.6 4.7 16.2 27.7 1.5 100 126 038

1 child, no relatives/ non-relative 31.2 6.4 4.9 3.6 0.3 0.1 4.6 19.7 28.3 0.9 100 51 116

2+ children, no relatives/ non-relatives 34.5 6.9 2.2 1.2 0.1 0.2 2.2 35 17.2 0.5 100 74 715

With relatives, no non-relatives 29.5 5.1 1.4 1.3 0.0 0.1 2.7 42.9 16.7 0.5 100 221 029

With non-relatives 31.9 6.2 2.4 1.9 1.0 0.3 1.5 38.6 15.1 1.2 100 71 758

Household does not have an orphan 31.6 6.1 3.4 3.3 0.6 0.3 3.5 28.5 21.7 0.9 100 458 058

Household has an orphan 24.9 4.1 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 1.1 56.3 12.2 0.3 100 86 596

Total 30.6 5.8 2.9 2.9 0.5 0.3 3.1 32.9 20.2 0.8 100 544 655

44
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 3.1.6 present information on type of dwelling units by main source of income. The information shows that households
that reported subsistence farming, old age pensions and drought relief/in-kind receipt and remittances/grants as their main
source of income live mostly in traditional dwellings, with 85.6, 69.7, 61.3 and 45.8 percent. On the other hand, about 65
percent of households that depend on commercial farming live in detached dwellings. A high proportion of households (30.3
percent) that rely on business income lives in improvised dwellings compared to 29.9 percent who lives in detached houses.
It is interesting to note that most of the households that reported salaries/wages live mainly in detached housing (modern)
units and improvised/shack housing units with 38.6 and 25.2 percent respectively.

Table 3.1.6. Households by type of dwelling and main source of income

Main source of income

Type of dwelling, % Total

De
ta

ch
ed

h
ou

Se
m

i-d
et

ac
he

d
/

to
w

n
ho

us
e

A
pa

rt
m

en
t

G
ue

st
fl

Pa
rt

c
om

m
er

ci
al

/
In

du
st

ria
l

M
ob

ile
h

om
e

(c
ar

av
an

/
te

nt
)

Si
ng

le
q

ua
rt

er
s

Tr
ad

iti
on

dw
el

lin
g

Im
pr

ov
is

ho
us

in
g

un
it

O
th

er
s

N
um

be
r

Salaries & wages 38.6 8.3 4.5 3.9 0.8 0.4 4.8 12.5 25.2 1.1 100 291 674

Old age Pension 20.0 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.9 69.7 7.5 0.0 100 59 988

Subsistence farming 9.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 85.6 3.5 0.0 100 58 003

Business income 29.9 4.9 1.1 3.4 0.5 0.4 1.8 27.0 30.3 0.7 100 49 493

Remittances/grants 24.2 3.2 2.5 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 45.8 17.9 0.7 100 52 390

Drought/in-kind receipts 12.4 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 1.0 61.3 22.4 0.7 100 14 747

Commercial farming 65.8 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 100 1 830

Others 35.9 9.1 4.7 1.2 0.0 0.4 3.6 27.8 13.9 3.4 100 16 529

Total 30.6 5.8 2.9 2.9 0.5 0.3 3.1 32.9 20.2 0.8 100 544 655

Percentile and decile groups are usually used to indicate the skewness of the distribution of the economic standards of the
households. In Table 3.1.7, households were classified by type of dwellings and percentile groups as well as decile groups,
based on the adjusted per capita income. The table shows that there is a negative relationship between income and some
dwelling types. As income increases, the proportion of traditional dwellings and improvised housing unit decreases. It can
also be observed that there is a positive relationship between income and detached and semi-detached town houses: as the
proportion of detached and semi-detached household increases with the increase in income.

3. Housing and Utilities

Table 3.1.7 Households by type of dwelling and percentile group after adjusted per capita income

Pe
rc

en
til

es
/

De
ci

le
s

Type of dwelling, % Total

De
ta

ch
ed

h
ou

Se
m

i-d
et

ac
he

d
/

to
w

n
ho

us
e

A
pa

rt
m

en
t

G
ue

st
fl

Pa
rt

c
om

m
er

ci
al

/
In

du
st

ria
l

M
ob

ile
h

om
e

(c
ar

av
an

/
te

nt
)

Si
ng

le
q

ua
rt

er
s

Tr
ad

iti
on

al
d

w
el

lin
g

Im
pr

ov
is

ed
h

ou
si

ng
u

ni
t

O
th

er
s

N
um

be
r

Percentiles

1-25 13.4 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.0 62.2 20.0 0.7 100 87 593

26-50 18.0 2.8 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.2 3.0 50.2 23.3 1.1 100 112 869

51-75 30.2 4.2 1.0 2.1 0.6 0.3 4.6 31.5 24.3 1.2 100 143 590

76-90 39.3 8.2 4.6 4.9 0.7 0.4 3.3 16.2 22.2 0.2 100 110 129

91-95 52.7 12.0 7.7 6.6 0.3 0.5 2.0 6.8 10.7 0.9 100 43 761

96-98 49.9 15.9 9.8 9.8 0.8 0.1 1.8 4.9 6.4 0.6 100 26 640

99-100 57.2 15.4 13.0 7.1 0.8 0.0 0.7 3.4 1.9 0.5 100 20 074

Total 30.6 5.8 2.9 2.9 0.5 0.3 3.1 32.9 20.2 0.8 100 544 655

Deciles

1 11.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 64.4 20.3 0.8 100 31 989

2 13.5 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.8 61.9 19.7 0.5 100 35 778

3 14.9 1.6 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 60.1 19.1 0.8 100 40 259

4 16.3 2.0 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.3 2.2 51.9 25.0 0.7 100 43 191

5 21.0 3.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 4.1 44.4 24.0 1.6 100 49 244

6 27.1 2.7 0.6 1.9 0.3 0.4 2.9 37.9 24.0 2.1 100 53 298

7 30.1 5.3 1.3 2.1 0.8 0.1 6.2 27.7 25.9 0.5 100 57 720

8 34.1 6.0 2.4 2.9 0.6 0.2 4.3 24.8 24.2 0.6 100 67 332

9 42.1 8.7 5.0 5.5 0.9 0.5 3.1 13.6 20.3 0.3 100 75 369

10 52.9 13.9 9.5 7.6 0.6 0.3 1.7 5.5 7.5 0.7 100 90 475

Table 3.1.8 gives the percentage distribution of persons by number of persons per room. The highest percentage of persons
falls in the categories of one (35.5 percent) and two (36.4 percent) persons per room. The percentage distribution decreases
with the increase in the number of persons per room. The same trend is further observed across urban/rural as well as across
the regional level.

46
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 3.1.8 Average number of persons per room by region and urban/rural areas

Region
Percent distribution of persons per room Total Households

1 2 3 4 5 6 >6
Not

stated
% Number

Namibia 35.5 36.4 15.8 6.6 2.8 1.1 1.8 0.0 100 544 655

Urban 36.2 35.6 16.7 6.7 2.7 1.0 1.2 0.0 100 294 827

Rural 34.6 37.3 14.7 6.6 3.0 1.3 2.5 0.0 100 249 827

!Karas 35.9 34.9 15.1 8.8 3.0 0.5 1.9 0.0 100 23 567

Erongo 39.9 34.4 14.5 7.5 1.7 0.8 1.2 0.0 100 58 454

Hardap 28.4 33.6 19.1 7.9 6.6 2.9 1.6 0.0 100 20 901

Kavango East 20.7 32.5 22.0 9.3 5.4 3.4 6.7 0.0 100 25 301

Kavango West 14.3 42.7 24.7 11.9 4.3 1.2 0.6 0.2 100 14 518

Khomas 37.5 37.3 16.0 6.0 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.0 100 112 305

Kunene 26.4 26.9 15.8 11.4 9.1 1.9 8.6 0.0 100 21 468

Ohangwena 39.0 42.3 14.5 3.5 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 100 48 487

Omaheke 34.5 25.4 15.7 11.8 5.9 3.2 3.1 0.3 100 19 639

Omusati 39.8 42.6 12.8 2.7 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.0 100 53 090

Oshana 44.6 39.6 11.1 3.2 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.0 100 45 331

Oshikoto 40.1 40.3 13.6 4.5 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 34.2 31.4 16.8 7.3 5.4 2.1 2.7 0.0 100 38 238

Zambezi 16.9 27.2 24.6 14.8 8.2 3.0 5.2 0.0 100 21 945

Table 3.1.9 present the distribution of the dwellings ownership titles by the type of dwelling. Land right certificate accounted
for a large proportion (72.7 percent) of traditional dwellings ownership, followed by leasehold certificate (61.5 percent). The
tittle deed accounted for a high proportion of detached and semi-detached dwellings with 64 and 12.6 percent respectively,
compared to other ownership titles.

Table 3.1.9 Distribution of dwellings ownership titles by type of dwelling

Ownership title

Type of dwelling, % Total

De
ta

ch
ed

h
ou

Se
m

i-d
et

ac
he

d
/

ow
n

ho
us

Ap
ar

tm
en

G
ue

st
fl

Pa
rt

co
m

m
er

ci
al

/
In

du
st

ria
l

M
ob

ile
h

om
e

(c
ar

av
an

/
te

nt
)

Si
ng

le
q

ua
rt

er
s

Tr
ad

iti
on

dw
el

lin
g

Im
pr

ov
is

ho
us

in
g

un
it

O
th

er
s

N
um

be
r

Title deed 64.0 12.6 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.0 1.7 11.0 8.2 0.3 100 92 161

Leasehold Certificate 23.2 5.2 0.5 0.3 1.2 0.1 0.2 61.5 7.6 0.2 100 23 977

Land right Certificate 13.4 2.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.0 72.7 9.2 0.6 100 67 604

Other 25.7 4.8 4.0 4.1 0.6 0.4 4.1 29.1 26.1 1.1 100 360 912

Total 30.6 5.8 2.9 2.9 0.5 0.3 3.1 32.9 20.2 0.8 100 544 655

3. Housing and Utilities

3.2Materials Used for Dwellings
Materials used for dwellings indicate the living conditions of households. This section provides information about the main
materials used for construction of the dwelling units occupied by households. When compared to the 2003/2004 and
2009/2010 NHIES, corrugated iron/zinc is still the most common material used for roofing in most dwellings in Namibia used
by 69 percent of the households. This is followed by thatch and grass with 9.4 percent as well as cement blocks/bricks/stone
used by 5.2 percent of the households. Thatch/grass is commonly used in rural areas (20 percent) compared to urban areas
(0.3 percent). At regional level, it can be observed that Erongo is the only region with a high proportion of dwellings (33.3%)
that uses asbestos as their main material for roofing. Wood and grass as the main material for roofing are commonly used in
the northern regions with Ohangwena region the highest with 19.3 percent.

Table 3.2.1 Households by main material used for roof and region and urban/rural areas

Re
gi

Type of roof material, % Total

C
em

en
t b

lo
ck

Br
ic

ks
/

St
on

Bu
rn

t b
ric

ks
/

Fa
ce

ic
ks

Co
rr

ug
at

ed
ir

on
/

Zi
nc

W
oo

d
en

p
ol

es
,

sti
ck

s &
g

ra
ss

Sti
ck

s,
m

ud
, c

la
y

an
d/

or
c

ow
-d

un
g

As
be

st
os

B
ric

k
til

Sl
at

Th
at

ch
, g

ra
ss

Pr
e-

ca
st

/
Pr

ef
ab

ric
at

O
th

N
on

N
ot

st
at

N
um

be
r

Namibia 5.2 0.4 69.0 6.5 0.9 4.3 0.3 0.1 9.4 0.3 1.9 1.7 0.0 100 544 655

Urban 7.2 0.5 77.6 2.2 0.1 7.6 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.5 3.1 0.1 0.0 100 294 827

Rural 3.0 0.3 58.8 11.6 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.1 0.4 3.6 0.0 100 249 827

!Karas 0.3 0.0 86.1 1.8 0.1 7.2 0.4 0.0 3.2 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 100 23 567

Erongo 16.6 0.7 22.4 9.3 0.2 33.3 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 15.0 0.2 0.0 100 58 454

Hardap 5.4 0.2 90.5 1.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 20 901

Kavango East 1.5 0.3 69.2 5.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 100 25 301

Kavango West 0.8 0.0 41.2 10.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 100 14 518

Khomas 4.6 0.4 91.9 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 100 112 305

Kunene 3.6 0.0 77.0 6.2 10.6 0.4 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 100 21 468

Ohangwena 3.1 0.4 49.9 19.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 26.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 100 48 487

Omaheke 3.3 0.2 93.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.3 100 19 639

Omusati 2.6 0.7 58.9 11.7 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 100 53 090

Oshana 3.2 0.9 78.2 6.5 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 100 45 331

Oshikoto 3.1 0.0 62.7 7.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.0 0.1 7.0 0.0 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 12.7 0.2 80.1 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.1 0.1 3.5 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 100 38 238

Zambezi 0.3 0.2 65.7 14.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 100 21 945

With respect to materials used for walls, the result presented in Table 3.2.2 shows that cement blocks/brick/stones was the
highest materials used for constructing walls, used in 42.7 percent of the households in Namibia. The number of dwellings
that use cement blocks/bricks/stones in rural areas in 2009/2010 and in 2015/2016 remained the same.

48
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

At regional level, household walls made from sticks, mud, clay/cow dung were common in Kavango West, Kavango East and
Kunene regions used in 66.4, 38.3 and 39.8 percent of the households. On the other hand, walls made of cement blocks/
bricks/stones were more prominent in urban canters of !Karas (63 percent), Hardap (63.1 percent) and Erongo (56.8 percent)
regions respectively.

Table 3.2.2 Households by main material used for wall and region and urban/rural areas

Re
gi

Type of wall material, % Total

C
em

en
t b

lo
ck

Br
ic

ks
/

St
on

Bu
rn

t b
ric

ks
/

Fa
ce

ic
ks

Co
rr

ug
at

ed
ir

on
/

Zi
nc

W
oo

de
n

po
le

sti
ck

s &
g

ra
ss

Sti
ck

s,
m

ud
, c

la
y

/
co

w
-d

un
g

As
be

st
os

Br
ic

k
til

Sl
at

Th
at

ch
, g

ra
ss

O
th

N
on

N
ot

st
at

N
um

be
r

Namibia 42.7 2.8 28.7 8.0 13.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 2.9 0.4 0.0 100 544 655

Urban 52.5 2.6 34.8 2.5 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 4.3 0.5 0.0 100 294 827

Rural 31.2 2.9 21.5 14.5 26.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.2 1.3 0.3 0.0 100 249 827

!Karas 63.0 1.1 26.2 2.9 3.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.5 0.0 0.0 100 23 567

Erongo 56.8 4.4 5.7 11.4 1.2 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 19.1 0.1 0.0 100 58 454

Hardap 63.1 0.6 34.5 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 100 20 901

Kavango East 18.3 2.5 23.5 11.3 38.3 1.3 0.0 0.1 2.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 100 25 301

Kavango West 16.5 2.6 6.0 4.6 66.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 100 14 518

Khomas 48.3 1.4 48.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 1.3 0.0 100 112 305

Kunene 34.0 1.3 21.7 0.9 39.8 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 100 21 468

Ohangwena 39.0 1.9 20.3 15.6 22.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 100 48 487

Omaheke 45.5 1.4 47.7 0.0 3.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 100 19 639

Omusati 31.9 8.6 26.1 23.0 8.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.0 100 53 090

Oshana 45.1 3.7 36.0 9.2 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.0 100 45 331

Oshikoto 33.9 1.7 29.1 18.5 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 51.9 2.1 33.1 1.2 5.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 1.7 3.0 0.1 0.0 100 38 238

Zambezi 17.1 0.8 0.8 1.7 77.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.7 0.1 0.0 100 21 945

Table 3.2.3 shows the results for the materials used for floors in Namibia. In 2009/2010 NHIES, most households (55.6
percent) reported concrete as their main material for floor. This is still the case in the 2015/2016 NHIES where 41.9 percent
of the households indicated concrete as their flooring material, followed by sand used by 30 percent of the households. In
rural areas, 38.1 percent of the households have concrete floors, while 14.3 percent have mud, clay or cow dung and only
2.4 percent of the households in rural areas use tiles. At regional level, concrete was found to be more common in !Karas,
Omaheke and Otjozondjupa used by 68.3, 62.6 and 61.2 percent of households. On the other hand, Zambezi, Kavango West
and Kunene regions reported high proportion of households that use mud, clay and cow dung as the main material used for
floor, used by 59.0, 56.4 and 20.1 percent of the households respectively.

3. Housing and Utilities

Table 3.2.3 Households by main material used for floor and region and urban/rural areas

Region

Type of floor material, % Total

Sand Concrete
Mud, clay /
cow dung

Wood Tiles Other Not stated % Number

Namibia 30.0 41.9 7.8 0.4 16.8 3.1 0.0 100 544 655

Urban 17.7 45.1 2.3 0.5 29.0 5.3 0.0 100 294 827

Rural 44.4 38.1 14.3 0.3 2.4 0.5 0.0 100 249 827

!Karas 13.1 68.3 0.3 1.6 14.0 2.7 0.0 100 23 567

Erongo 12.6 50.1 0.3 0.8 31.3 4.9 0.0 100 58 454

Hardap 20.1 57.8 0.0 0.3 21.2 0.5 0.0 100 20 901

Kavango East 35.2 29.1 27.9 0.5 5.3 2.0 0.0 100 25 301

Kavango West 19.6 21.4 56.4 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.2 100 14 518

Khomas 19.7 30.0 3.1 0.5 37.0 9.6 0.0 100 112 305

Kunene 26.5 44.9 20.1 1.0 6.9 0.7 0.0 100 21 468

Ohangwena 53.2 34.7 6.9 0.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 100 48 487

Omaheke 31.1 62.6 1.0 0.0 4.5 0.6 0.3 100 19 639

Omusati 51.0 42.7 2.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 100 53 090

Oshana 33.3 48.0 2.1 0.1 14.5 2.0 0.0 100 45 331

Oshikoto 58.5 35.0 1.2 0.4 4.8 0.2 0.0 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 23.4 61.2 0.8 0.5 13.2 0.9 0.0 100 38 238

Zambezi 8.2 24.0 59.0 0.1 7.6 1.0 0.0 100 21 945

3.3Type of Tenure
Table 3.3.1 provides information on tenure of housing units. Households were classified according to the type of ownership
of dwelling they occupied. Approximately 60 percent of households occupied housing units they owned with no mortgage
(Table 3.3.1). The proportion of households renting their dwellings in the past five years has increased from 13.8 percent to
22.2 percent in 2015/2016. In rural areas, 76.6 percent of households own their housing units with no mortgages compared
to 44.3 percent in urban areas. Just like in the previous survey (NHIES 2009/2010), the highest percentage for ownership
with mortgages was recorded in Khomas with 14 percent, followed by Hardap, Erongo and !Karas regions with 10.9, 7.9 and
7.3 percent respectively.

50
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 3.3.1 Households by type of tenure and region and urban/rural areas

Region
Type of Tenure, % Total Households

Owned with
no mortgage

Owned with
mortgage

Occupied free Rented Not stated % Number

Namibia 59.1 5.8 12.7 22.2 0.05 100.0 544 655

Urban 44.3 10.6 9.6 35.4 0.1 100.0 294 827

Rural 76.6 0.3 16.4 6.7 0.0 100.0 249 827

!Karas 41.5 7.3 28.2 23.1 0.0 100.0 23 567

Erongo 35.6 7.9 11.3 45.3 0.0 100.0 58 454

Hardap 54.2 10.9 20.3 14.6 0.0 100.0 20 901

Kavango east 88.4 1.0 3.9 6.7 0.0 100.0 25 301

Kavango west 90.6 0.5 5.3 3.4 0.2 100.0 14 518

Khomas 42.5 14.0 7.8 35.5 0.2 100.0 112 305

Kunene 42.1 3.3 40.4 14.2 0.0 100.0 21 468

Ohangwena 84.5 1.4 5.5 8.7 0.0 100.0 48 487

Omaheke 58.2 3.8 27.1 10.5 0.3 100.0 19 639

Omusati 81.2 0.6 9.1 9.1 0.0 100.0 53 090

Oshana 65.8 4.6 7.8 21.8 0.0 100.0 45 331

Oshikoto 74.7 1.6 11.5 12.2 0.0 100.0 41 411

Otjozondjupa 39.3 4.6 24.9 31.2 0.0 100.0 38 238

Zambezi 76.1 1.0 8.6 14.4 0.0 100.0 21 945

3.4Sources of Energy
Access to energy is also one of the indicators of socio-economic status of the household. This sub-section discusses the main
source of energy used by households for cooking, heating and lighting. As indicated in Table 3.4.1 the most common source
of energy for cooking in Namibia is firewood used by 48.6 percent of the households. The use of firewood is more prevalent
in rural areas (85.5 percent) compared to urban areas (17.3 percent). Table 3.4.1 further reveals that the distribution of
electricity as a source of energy for cooking is high in urban areas with 60.7 percent compared to 9.7 percent in rural areas.
About 16 percent of households in urban areas use gas as their source of energy for cooking compared to about 3 percent
in rural areas. Paraffin is a relatively important source of energy for cooking in Khomas and Oshana regions with 10.5 and 3.2
percent respectively. Animal dung is highly used in Oshana (3.4 percent) compared to other regions.

3. Housing and Utilities

Table 3.4.1 Households main source of energy for cooking by region and urban/rural areas

Region

Source of energy for cooking,% Total

Electricity
from

mains
Gas Paraffin

Fire
wood

Charcoal
/Coal

Animal
dung

Solar
energy

Other None % Number

Namibia 37.3 10.3 2.8 48.6 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 100.0 544 655

Urban 60.7 16.3 4.9 17.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 100.0 294 827

Rural 9.7 3.3 0.3 85.5 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 100.0 249 827

!Karas 48.2 30.0 0.3 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 100.0 23 567

Erongo 80.7 8.1 0.3 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 100.0 58 454

Hardap 59.5 5.0 0.4 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 100.0 20 901

Kavango East 13.4 4.9 0.5 80.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 100.0 25 301

Kavango West 6.8 0.9 0.0 92.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 14 518

Khomas 60.6 20.3 10.5 7.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 100.0 112 305

Kunene 22.0 4.2 0.0 73.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 21 468

Ohangwena 10.8 4.5 1.3 82.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 48 487

Omaheke 23.1 9.0 0.0 66.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 100.0 19 639

Omusati 9.7 2.6 0.9 86.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 53 090

Oshana 28.5 13.8 3.2 50.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 100.0 45 331

Oshikoto 15.4 8.2 0.5 75.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 41 411

Otjozondjupa 45.1 7.3 0.3 46.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 100.0 38 238

Zambezi 16.2 1.8 0.2 80.6 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 21 945

Electricity is the most common source of energy for lighting used by 47.8 percent of the households in Namibia (Table
3.4.2). Electricity for lighting is widely used in urban areas (71.9 percent) compared to rural areas (19.3 percent). The second
common source of energy for lighting is batteries used by 31.7 percent of the households in Namibia, followed by candles
with 11.2 percent of households. At regional level, Zambezi, Kavango East, Omaheke and Kavango West regions have high
proportion of households using candles for lighting with 28.6, 26.2, 24.2 and 20.2 percent respectively. Solar as a source of
energy for lighting is becoming popular with households in Omaheke region with 11.9 percent.

Table 3.4.2 Households by source of energy for lighting and region and urban/rural areas

Region
Source of energy for Lighting,% Total

Electricity Gas Paraffin
Wood/

Charcoal
Candles

Solar
energy

Other None Batteries % Number

Namibia 47.8 0.0 1.9 1.6 11.2 3.8 0.6 1.3 31.7 100.0 544 655

Urban 71.9 0.1 1.5 0.2 11.1 2.7 0.2 0.6 11.8 100.0 294 827

Rural 19.3 0.0 2.4 3.4 11.4 5.1 1.0 2.2 55.2 100.0 249 827

!Karas 77.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 11.6 4.8 0.2 0.0 4.8 100.0 23 567

52
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Region
Source of energy for Lighting,% Total

Electricity Gas Paraffin
Wood/

Charcoal
Candles

Solar
energy

Other None Batteries % Number

Erongo 83.6 0.0 1.9 0.2 8.2 2.3 0.0 0.6 3.2 100.0 58 454

Hardap 72.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 18.3 5.4 0.3 0.9 1.3 100.0 20 901

Kavango East 30.9 0.0 0.2 4.4 26.2 2.1 1.6 7.7 27.0 100.0 25 301

Kavango West 18.5 0.0 0.0 2.1 20.2 1.6 1.0 1.9 54.8 100.0 14 518

Khomas 67.6 0.1 2.8 0.1 14.2 3.8 0.3 0.5 10.5 100.0 112 305

Kunene 41.2 0.0 5.3 5.6 8.0 7.8 1.7 2.4 27.9 100.0 21 468

Ohangwena 16.7 0.0 0.6 2.2 4.0 2.3 0.8 1.1 72.3 100.0 48 487

Omaheke 40.5 0.0 8.9 0.6 24.2 11.9 1.3 1.4 11.1 100.0 19 639

Omusati 12.7 0.0 0.4 3.9 2.9 3.8 0.7 1.2 74.4 100.0 53 090

Oshana 35.3 0.2 0.5 2.2 3.5 3.4 0.3 0.6 54.1 100.0 45 331

Oshikoto 23.5 0.0 0.3 2.5 6.0 2.4 0.4 0.6 64.3 100.0 41 411

Otjozondjupa 67.7 0.0 4.8 1.8 10.4 5.0 1.0 2.5 6.9 100.0 38 238

Zambezi 37.7 0.0 0.3 0.2 28.6 2.4 0.5 1.7 28.6 100.0 21 945

Table 3.4.3 displays information about the source of energy for heating in Namibia. Electricity from the main was recorded
to be the most source of energy for heating in Namibia used by 30.6 percent of the households. It is further observed that
27 percent of households do not heat their dwellings. Furthermore, more than 60 percent of households in rural areas use
firewood as their main source of energy for heating and only 7.8 percent of households use electricity from the main as
their source of energy for heating. At the regional level, Kavango West, Zambezi, Ohangwena, Omusati and Oshikoto regions
recorded the highest proportion of households using firewood as a source of energy for heating with 92.3, 79.2, 71.1, 68.8
and 62.8 percent respectively. Regions like Kunene, !Karas, Omaheke, Otjozondjupa and Hardap were recorded to have the
highest proportion of households that do not heat their dwellings, with 69.4, 50.3, 40.4, 39.5 and 39.1 percent, respectively.

Table 3.4.3 Households by source of energy for heating and region and urban/rural areas

Region
Source of energy for Heating,% Total

Electricity
from mains

Gas Paraffin
Fire

wood
Charcoal /

Coal
Animal
dung

Solar
energy

Other None % Number

Namibia 30.6 3.0 1.1 37.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 27.0 100.0 544 655

Urban 49.9 4.5 1.9 11.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.3 31.4 100.0 294 827

Rural 7.8 1.1 0.3 67.4 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.1 21.8 100.0 249 827

!Karas 36.7 0.5 0.0 11.7 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 50.3 100.0 23 567

Erongo 77.7 4.7 0.2 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 8.3 100.0 58 454

Hardap 36.1 1.6 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 39.1 100.0 20 901

Kavango East 12.5 0.6 0.1 53.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 31.9 100.0 25 301

Kavango West 5.0 0.4 0.0 92.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 100.0 14 518

Khomas 47.0 5.1 3.9 7.3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.4 35.3 100.0 112 305

Kunene 5.7 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 69.4 100.0 21 468

3. Housing and Utilities

Region
Source of energy for Heating,% Total

Electricity
from mains

Gas Paraffin
Fire

wood
Charcoal /

Coal
Animal
dung

Solar
energy

Other None % Number

Ohangwena 11.1 0.7 0.1 71.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 16.8 100.0 48 487

Omaheke 20.7 2.3 0.0 35.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 40.4 100.0 19 639

Omusati 8.4 2.6 1.2 68.8 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.4 17.8 100.0 53 090

Oshana 27.5 8.0 1.8 41.5 0.0 3.3 0.2 0.3 17.6 100.0 45 331

Oshikoto 13.4 0.9 0.2 62.8 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.0 21.6 100.0 41 411

Otjozondjupa 34.1 1.3 0.2 23.8 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.3 39.5 100.0 38 238

Zambezi 10.6 1.1 0.1 79.2 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 7.8 100.0 21 945

According to Figure 3.4.1, NHIES 2009/2010 reported high proportion of households not using electricity or gas for cooking
(60.8 percent) compared to 52.4 percent of households reported in NHIES 2015/2016. The figure indicates that the
proportion of households that do not use either electricity nor gas as their source of energy for cooking in rural areas has
dropped with 3 percent between the two surveys while the proportion of households that do not use electricity and gas in
urban areas have slightly increased from 22.7 to 23.1 percent.

Figure 3.4.1 Proportion of households that are not using electricity or gas for cooking by urban/rural areas

3.5Main Source of Drinking Water
The source of drinking water is an indicator of whether the households have access to safe water for drinking. Table 3.5.1
indicates that at national level, 84.4 percent of households have indicated piped water as their main source of drinking
water, followed by boreholes or protected wells with 7.5 percent. The least source of water for drinking is stagnant water
with 0.8 percent. The table further indicates that most households with piped water are found in urban areas with 97.7
percent compared to 68.6 percent in rural areas. Kavango West, Kunene and Kavango East reported the lowest proportion
of households having access to piped water, with 60, 60.5 and 63.4 percent respectively. About 25.5 percent of households
in Kavango West use flowing water as their main source of drinking water, followed by Omusati and Zambezi each with 3.8
percent. The table also indicates that Khomas region has the highest percentage of households with access to piped water
with 97.5 percent, followed by Oshana with 96.5 percent then Erongo with 94 percent.

54
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 3.5.1 Main source of drinking water by region and urban/rural areas

Region
Source of drinking water,% Total

Piped water Boreholes/protected wells Stagnant water Flowing water Other source % Number

Namibia 84.4 7.5 0.8 2.1 5.2 100.0 544 655

Urban 97.7 0.6 0.0 0.2 1.4 100.0 294 827

Rural 68.6 15.7 1.7 4.4 9.5 100.0 249 827

!Karas 93.0 2.9 0.1 1.0 3.0 100.0 23 567

Erongo 94.0 3.8 0.2 0.0 2.0 100.0 58 454

Hardap 88.3 9.1 1.9 0.2 0.3 100.0 20 901

Kavango East 63.4 18.0 0.0 16.6 2.0 100.0 25 301

Kavango West 60.0 8.0 1.0 25.5 5.4 100.0 14 518

Khomas 97.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 100.0 112 305

Kunene 60.5 26.7 4.8 2.6 5.5 100.0 21 468

Ohangwena 72.1 13.6 2.7 0.0 11.6 100.0 48 487

Omaheke 86.1 5.5 0.1 0.0 8.3 100.0 19 639

Omusati 70.8 8.6 1.6 3.8 15.2 100.0 53 090

Oshana 96.5 1.1 0.3 0.3 1.8 100.0 45 331

Oshikoto 79.4 12.2 0.3 0.0 8.1 100.0 41 411

Otjozondjupa 91.2 7.0 0.3 0.0 1.5 100.0 38 238

Zambezi 73.5 16.2 0.0 3.8 6.5 100.0 21 945

Figure 3.5.1 Present distribution of households with access to safe water. Safe water comprised of households that have
access to piped water, water from boreholes and protected wells. In Namibia, 91 percent of the households have access
to safe water, while at regional level, regions such as Khomas, Oshana, Erongo, !Karas, Hardap and Otjozondjupa regions
reported the highest proportion (97 percent and above) of households with access to safe water. On the other hand, Kavango
West with 68 percent was the lowest region with households having access to safe water. In general, all regions have reported
more than half of their households having access to safe water for drinking.

3. Housing and Utilities

Figure 3.5.1 Proportions of Households with access to safe water by region

Figure 3.5.2 represents the proportion of households that do not have access to safe drinking water in Namibia. Access to
safe drinking water is an important social economic indicator. Therefore, greater refinement to reflect the large, continuing
gaps in access to safe drinking water among the world's poorest populations, and measures towards attainment of the
universal right to water are needed. The figure indicates that the proportion of households that use stagnant and flowing
water have decreased by 8.2 percent since 2009/2010. It was also observed that the proportion of households that use
stagnant and flowing water has drastically dropped in rural areas by 12.4 percent.

56
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Figure 3.5.2 Households with stagnant, flowing or other main source of drinking water

Table 3.5.2 presents information about households methods of purifying water for drinking. More than half of the household
population in Namibia, 55.2 percent ,have indicated relying on boiling as their purifying method for drinking water, followed
by bleach or chlorine and then water filters with 22.6 percent and 21.3 percent respectively. At regional level, more than 88
percent of households in Zambezi indicated using bleach or chlorine as their most purifying method for drinking water, while
Oshikoto and Omusati reported a high proportion of households that use the purifying method of let-it-stand-and-settle with
29.2 and 11.3, percent respectively.

Table 3.5.2 Households by methods of purifying water for drinking, region and urban/rural areas

Region

Methods of purifying water % Total

Bo
il

Bl
ea

ch
/

ch
lo

rin
e

St
ra

in
th

ro
ug

h
cl

ot
h

W
at

er
fi

lte
r (

ce
ra

m
ic

/s
an

d/
co

m
po

si
te

)

So
la

r d
is

in
fe

cti
on

Le
t i

t s
ta

nd
&

se
tt

U
se

a
sh

O
th

Do
n

t k
no

Ho
us

eh
ol

ds
tr

ea
tin

% Number

Namibia 55.2 22.6 2.1 21.3 0.5 4 0.8 2.3 0.6 35 067 6.4 544 655

!Karas 42.5 45.7 0.0 9.3 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 936 4.0 23 567

Erongo 70.7 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.4 0.0 3 940 6.7 58 454

3. Housing and Utilities

Region

Methods of purifying water % Total

Bo
il

Bl
ea

ch
/

ch
lo

rin
e

St
ra

in
th

ro
ug

h
cl

ot
h

W
at

er
fi

lte
r (

ce
ra

m
ic

/s
an

d/
co

m
po

si
te

)

So
la

r d
is

in
fe

cti
on

Le
t i

t s
ta

nd
&

se
tt

U
se

a
sh

O
th

Do
n

t k
no

Ho
us

eh
ol

ds
tr

ea
tin

% Number

Hardap 60.3 9.5 0.0 23.6 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 305 1.5 20 901

Kavango East 64.4 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 3.8 663 2.6 25 301

Kavango West 46.9 55.6 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 597 4.1 14 518

Khomas 62.3 3.1 0.0 36.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.8 0.0 16 128 14.4 112 305

Kunene 50.6 60.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 872 4.1 21 468

Ohangwena 35.0 66.1 1.4 4.2 0.0 6.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 3 159 6.5 48 487

Omaheke 83.9 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 514 2.6 19 639

Omusati 23.8 68.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 3 183 6.0 53 090

Oshana 50.6 44.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 539 1.2 45 331

Oshikoto 59.4 23.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0 3.4 2.5 1 895 4.6 41 411

Otjozondjupa 77.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 3.8 10.3 1 383 3.6 38 238

Zambezi 4.8 88.8 0.1 4.5 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 953 4.3 21 945

Table 3.5.3 presents information on households by type of toilet facilities. It is interesting to note that 44.7 percent of
households use flush toilets compare to 44.8 percent of households that use the bush or have no toilets. It can also be
observed that a large proportion (70.2 percent) of urban households use flush toilets, compared to 14.6 percent in rural
areas. The highest proportion (71.1 percent) number of households in rural areas use the bush or have no toilet facilities.
Similar observation is made at regional level where the majority of households in Kavango West, Zambezi, Omusati and
Ohangwena had no toilet facilities with 81.1, 78.2, 74.4 and 72.3 percent respectively. On the other hand, pit latrines are
more common in Oshana, Oshikoto and Omusati regions, with 28, 15.7 and 14.4 percent respectively.

Table 3.5.3 Households by toilet facility, region and urban/rural areas

Region
Toilet facility, % Total

Flush toilet Pit Latrine Bucket Bush/no toilet Others % Number

Namibia 44.7 9.8 0.3 44.8 0.4 100.0 544 655

Urban 70.2 6.2 0.3 22.5 0.7 100.0 294 827

Rural 14.6 13.9 0.3 71.1 0.1 100.0 249 827

!Karas 73.2 7.3 1.4 18.1 0.0 100.0 23 567

Erongo 86.5 3.3 0.3 9.8 0.2 100.0 58 454

Hardap 65.2 3.9 3.4 27.2 0.3 100.0 20 901

58
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Region
Toilet facility, % Total

Flush toilet Pit Latrine Bucket Bush/no toilet Others % Number

Kavango East 20.0 14.3 0.1 65.3 0.3 100.0 25 301

Kavango West 7.5 10.6 0.5 81.1 0.3 100.0 14 518

Khomas 70.6 4.0 0.1 23.8 1.5 100.0 112 305

Kunene 30.6 10.8 0.0 58.5 0.1 100.0 21 468

Ohangwena 14.3 13.3 0.0 72.3 0.0 100.0 48 487

Omaheke 36.8 0.7 0.0 61.4 1.0 100.0 19 639

Omusati 11.0 14.4 0.0 74.4 0.2 100.0 53 090

Oshana 33.9 28.0 0.0 38.0 0.1 100.0 45 331

Oshikoto 20.7 15.7 0.1 63.4 0.0 100.0 41 411

Otjozondjupa 60.2 4.5 0.1 35.1 0.0 100.0 38 238

Zambezi 14.9 6.9 0.0 78.2 0.0 100.0 21 945

Figure 3.5.3 presents the proportion of households that use bush or no toilet at national and urban and rural levels in
2009/2010 and 2015/2016. The figure shows that the percentage of households in Namibia that has no toilet facility has
dropped by 4.5 percent. However, households that has no toilet facilities in urban areas has increased by 9 percent.

Figure 3.5.3 Percentage of Households that use bush/no toilet by urban/rural areas.

3. Housing and Utilities

3.6Disposal of Child Stools
Table 3.5.4 presents the method used by households with children to dispose child stools. The majority of households
left children stools in the open (42.6 percent), followed by burying with 37.6 percent. The least methods reported were
throw-into-garbage and child use of toilet/latrine practised by 1.3 and 2.8 percent of the households respectively. Zambezi
recorded the highest proportion of households practicing the left in open method, followed by Kavango West with 89.8 and
84.3 percent. On the other hand, Erongo and Khomas region recorded the lowest proportion of households practicing this
method each with 6 percent.

Table 3.5.4 Households by method of child stool disposal, region and urban/rural areas.

Region
Method of child stool disposal, % Total

Child used
toilet/ latrine

Rinsed/ put into toilet/
latrine/ drain or ditch

Thrown into
garbage

Buried
Left in
open

Other Other % Number

Namibia 2.8 6.1 1.3 37.6 42.6 7.5 2.1 100 155 494

!Karas 7.6 11.7 0.0 67.3 7.1 4.8 1.4 100 5 633

Erongo 4.7 3.5 1.1 83.3 6.0 1.1 0.4 100 11 670

Hardap 5.2 1.5 2.2 68.9 18.0 3.0 1.2 100 5 604

Kavango East 0.5 8.9 1.7 17.1 68.2 1.8 1.7 100 9 602

Kavango West 1.1 2.3 0.1 2.4 84.3 7.9 1.8 100 6 815

Khomas 3.0 7.0 2.2 70.6 5.5 5.0 6.8 100 28 078

Kunene 4.5 8.9 2.2 19.3 40.4 23.4 1.2 100 7 213

Ohangwena 0.4 3.7 0.2 7.5 78.3 8.1 1.7 100 17 315

Omaheke 4.0 9.7 0.9 26.3 49.1 9.9 0.0 100 5 238

Omusati 1.0 6.8 0.0 14.3 65.3 12.0 0.6 100 15 275

Oshana 3.0 9.6 2.9 39.8 38.1 6.0 0.5 100 12 166

Oshikoto 1.6 5.4 1.4 20.6 52.4 16.7 1.9 100 12 539

Otjozondjupa 5.7 3.0 1.8 50.8 31.6 6.1 0.9 100 10 970

Zambezi 2.1 4.0 1.2 2.9 89.8 0.0 0.0 100 7 376

3.7Selected Indicators on Housing Condition
Table 3.5.5 presents the summarized selected indicators on housing conditions from households information tables presented
earlier. Indicators considered were improvised housing; cooking and lighting without electricity, gas or solar; bucket or bush/
no toilet and flowing or stagnant source of drinking water. It is evident from the table that a high percentage of these
indicators was found to be prominent in households with orphans. In particular, 73 and 64.4 percent of the households
with orphans cooks and lights without electricity, gas and solar compared to 48.3 and 45.3 percent of households without
orphans. Similarly, 58.3 percent make use of bucket and bush/no toilet as part their toilet facility as opposed to 42.6 percent
of household without orphans.

60
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 3.5.5 Households by selected indicators on housing condition, orphanhood and region and urban/rural
areas

Region, Urban/rural areas,
Orphanhood

Housing indicators, % Total

Improvised
housing

Cooking without
electricity, gas

or Solar

Lighting without
electricity, gas

or solar

Bucket or
bush/no

toilet

Flowing,
stagnant

water

Number of
Households

Namibia 20.2 52.2 48.4 45.1 2.9 544 655

Urban 29.6 23.0 25.3 22.8 0.3 294 827

Rural 9.1 86.8 75.6 71.4 6.1 249 827

Orphanhood

Households without orphans 21.7 48.3 45.3 42.6 2.4 458 058

Households with orphans 12.2 73.0 64.4 58.3 5.8 86 596

!Karas 18.0 21.1 17.9 19.5 1.1 23 567

Erongo 33.0 11.2 14.1 10.0 0.2 58 454

Hardap 25.2 35.3 22.5 30.5 2.2 20 901

Kavango East 4.4 81.7 67.0 65.4 16.6 25 301

Kavango West 3.0 92.2 79.7 81.6 26.6 14 518

Khomas 32.6 18.8 28.5 23.9 0.0 112 305

Kunene 16.2 73.8 50.9 58.5 7.3 21 468

Ohangwena 11.3 84.6 80.9 72.3 2.7 48 487

Omaheke 39.8 67.6 47.3 61.4 0.1 19 639

Omusati 5.6 87.6 83.5 74.4 5.4 53 090

Oshana 23.0 57.7 61.1 38.0 0.6 45 331

Oshikoto 10.5 76.4 74.1 63.5 0.3 41 411

Otjozondjupa 21.5 47.3 27.3 35.2 0.3 38 238

Zambezi 0.6 81.7 59.9 78.2 3.8 21 945

3. Housing and Utilities

4. Access to Services
The Survey collected information on household members access to various services and facilities. Access to education, work,
and healthcare are all important measures of quality of life. Such information informs policy makers on areas in Namibia
that have adequate infrastructure and services and those that need further improvement to better the life of Namibians.
Moreover, access to various amenities and facilities is a good indicator of the welfare of Namibian households.

This chapter covers the location of households in terms of distance to key private and public services, including drinking
water, health and educational facilities, public transport and banks. The welfare of households is measured partly by access
to various amenities and facilities. A key element of access is distance. Each household were asked about the walking distance
in minutes to these services (later converted into kilometres). The results show that in general most households in Namibia
have these services within a few minutes. However, as is the case throughout the survey national averages have a tendency
to mask differences between urban and rural areas, and between the 14 regions. The urbanised regions of Erongo and !Karas
stand out as regions where most households have relatively short distances to the various services. Conversely regions such
as Kavango West and Kunene and other rural regions have large proportions of households that have to travel long distances
to these services.

4.1Time to Drinking Water
Table 4.1.1 shows that in Namibia, over 65 percent of the households have access to their source of water for drinking inside
their property yards, while slightly over 9 per cent of households travel a distance of less than 5 minutes to and from their
main source of drinking water. On the other hand, 2.2 per cent of households travel an hour or more to and from their
main water source of drinking water. Similarly, 76.4 percent of urban households have access to drinking water in their yard
compared to 53.5 per cent of rural households, while only 4.5 percent of rural households travels for an hour or more to
their sources of drinking water. Interestingly there are still 0.3 percent of households in urban areas that travels an hour or
more to access drinking water.

At regional level, more than 80 percent of households in !Karas, Erongo and Hardap regions have access to drinking water
in their yard. In Kavango West, 11.9 percent of the households have to travel 60 minutes or more to and from their sources
of drinking water, while about 59 per cent of the households in Zambezi region travel up to 30 minutes to and from their
sources of drinking water.

Table 4.1.1 Households by time to drinking water, region and urban/rural areas

Region
Time taken in minutes to and from drinking water source

0 - 5 6 - 15 16 - 30 31 - 60 60 + Water inside yard Total Total number of households
Percent of households

Namibia 9.8 7.4 9.5 5.3 2.2 65.9 100 544 655

Urban 11.0 5.7 4.8 1.8 0.3 76.4 100 294 827
Rural 8.3 9.4 14.9 9.4 4.5 53.5 100 249 827

!Karas 6.2 7.6 4.6 0.7 0.3 80.6 100 23 567

Erongo 4.6 3.9 2.2 2.1 0.5 86.8 100 58 454

Hardap 4.8 3.4 4.4 0.7 0.8 85.8 100 20 901

Kavango East 6.0 8.2 19.1 13.7 6.6 46.5 100 25 301

62
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

4. Access to Services

Region
Time taken in minutes to and from drinking water source

0 - 5 6 - 15 16 - 30 31 - 60 60 + Water inside yard Total Total number of households
Percent of households

Kavango West 5.2 14.8 24.6 20.2 11.9 23.3 100 14 518

Khomas 19.1 6.1 4.9 1.0 0.4 68.5 100 112 305

Kunene 9.2 13.1 16.5 11.7 5.4 44.1 100 21 468

Ohangwena 7.4 7.5 14.5 12.3 4.9 53.3 100 48 487

Omaheke 8.7 5.3 12.2 5.6 1.9 66.4 100 19 639

Omusati 5.5 10.2 16.1 9.4 1.7 57.1 100 53 090

Oshana 9.2 5.8 5.2 0.9 0.0 78.9 100 45 331

Oshikoto 8.0 4.0 11.6 6.3 5.4 64.6 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 5.6 5.2 6.3 3.3 0.8 78.8 100 38 238

Zambezi 20.3 24.4 15.0 3.5 0.9 35.9 100 21 945

Table 4.1.2 shows the relationship between the level of household income and the distance to source of drinking water. It
is evident that the higher the income the closer the household to the source of drinking water. It is however interesting to
note that there are some low income households which travel less distance to the source of drinking water. This is confirms
by the 12 percent of the households from the lowest incomes, as represented by the 1-25 percentile group who travel only 5
minutes or less to and from the water source. With regard to high income households which are from the 99-100 percentile,
96 per cent of them have water inside their yards.

Table 4.1.2 Households by distance to drinking water sources and percentile group after adjusted per capita income

Percentiles/ deciles
Percentiles

Time taken in minutes to and from drinking water source Total
number of
households

0 - 5 6 - 15 16 - 30 31 - 60 60+ Water inside yard Total

Percent of households

1-25 12.2 13.2 17.9 10.7 4.8 41.1 100 87 593

26-50 13.0 9.8 13.9 8.3 3.2 51.8 100 112 869

51-75 12.2 8.2 8.7 4.4 1.9 64.6 100 143 590

76-90 7.9 4.4 5.0 2.7 0.9 79.1 100 110 129

91-95 2.2 1.1 4.0 1.0 0.8 90.9 100 43 761

96-98 1.7 0.9 1.7 0.2 0.2 95.2 100 26 640

99-100 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.5 0.1 96.7 100 20 074

Total 9.8 7.4 9.5 5.3 2.2 65.9 100 544 655

Deciles

1 14.2 16.4 20.2 12.7 4.4 32.1 100 31 989

2 11.0 11.9 16.8 8.7 5.8 45.8 100 35 778

3 11.8 10.7 15.9 9.8 4.3 47.5 100 40 259

4 11.9 10.5 14.2 8.6 3.6 51.2 100 43 191

5 14.2 8.8 12.8 7.9 2.2 54.1 100 49 244

6 14.4 9.6 9.6 5.8 2.2 58.5 100 53 298

7 11.6 7.6 7.6 3.5 2.0 67.7 100 57 720

8 9.1 6.8 7.8 3.9 1.2 71.3 100 67 332

9 7.7 3.3 4.3 2.1 0.8 81.8 100 75 369

10 1.7 1.2 2.5 0.6 0.5 93.5 100 90 475

4. Access to Services

4.2Distance to Health Facilities
Table 4.2.1 indicates that 33.1 per cent of households in Namibia travel less than one kilometre to the nearest hospital or
clinic while 32 per cent travel between two and five kilometres. On the other hand, 13.3 percent of households travel a
distance between 11 to 40 kilometres to the nearest health facility while 4.6 percent are more than 40 kilometers away from
the nearest health facility. Urban households travel shorter distances compare to those in rural areas.

Table 4.2.1 Households by distance to hospital/clinic, region and urban/rural areas

Region Distance to hospital/clinic (km)

Number of
households

0-1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-40 >40 Unknown
Not

stated
Total

Percent of households

Namibia 33.1 32.0 11.4 9.7 3.6 4.6 5.5 0.0 100 544 655

Urban 48.4 38.0 6.0 2.0 0.3 0.1 5.3 0.0 100 294 827

Rural 15.2 24.9 17.7 18.9 7.5 10.1 5.7 0.0 100 249 827

!Karas 49.9 31.0 4.4 2.6 2.5 9.3 0.3 0.0 100 23 567

Erongo 62.7 26.7 1.6 4.8 1.2 1.3 1.7 0.0 100 58 454

Hardap 52.3 24.1 3.2 8.8 5.1 6.5 0.1 0.0 100 20 901

Kavango East 33.7 35.2 8.2 1.5 3.3 1.6 16.5 0.0 100 25 301

Kavango West 20.2 20.5 21.7 20.9 5.2 1.7 9.6 0.2 100 14 518

Khomas 34.2 37.9 9.5 4.7 1.0 1.3 11.3 0.0 100 112 305

Kunene 29.0 15.3 5.8 19.9 6.0 19.3 4.6 0.0 100 21 468

Ohangwena 17.2 26.6 26.0 13.1 5.0 3.4 8.7 0.0 100 48 487

Omaheke 29.9 25.2 3.1 10.4 9.4 20.5 1.4 0.0 100 19 639

Omusati 16.7 38.3 16.3 20.9 3.7 2.7 1.5 0.0 100 53 090

Oshana 34.5 39.1 18.1 4.8 1.8 0.1 1.6 0.0 100 45 331

Oshikoto 12.5 36.6 15.5 15.5 6.3 5.2 8.4 0.0 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 39.9 25.6 4.4 7.8 8.1 14.1 0.2 0.0 100 38 238

Zambezi 27.1 35.7 17.6 17.3 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 100 21 945

4.3Distance to Banking Facilities
Table 4.3.1 shows that 19.8 percent of households in Namibia have access to banks within a distance of a kilometre, while 19.5
percent of the households travel more than 40 kilometres to the nearest bank. In urban areas, 34.8 percent of households
have access to banks within a kilometre compared to rural areas where 40.7 percent of the households travel more than
40 kilometres to the nearest bank. At regional level, 47.6 percent of households in Erongo travel within a kilometre to the
nearest banks while households in Kunene, Kavango West, Omaheke and Zambezi travels more than 40 km to a bank with
49.2, 46.5, 45.6 and 45.6 percent respectively.

64
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 4.3.1 Households by distance to banking facilities, region and urban/rural areas

Region

Distance to reach a bank (km)
Number of
households

0-1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-40 >40 Unknown Not stated % Total

Percent of households

Namibia 19.8 28.5 8.7 11.3 7.5 19.5 4.8 0.0 100 544 655

Urban 34.8 46.7 9.6 2.5 0.3 1.6 4.5 0.0 100 294 827

Rural 2.0 6.9 7.6 21.6 16.0 40.7 5.1 0.0 100 249 827

!Karas 32.3 38.2 4.6 1.4 1.3 21.9 0.3 0.0 100 23 567

Erongo 47.6 36.5 4.5 2.3 0.5 7.6 1.1 0.0 100 58 454

Hardap 26.1 37.3 1.9 4.7 1.9 26.6 1.6 0.0 100 20 901

Kavango East 8.8 23.4 12.0 3.7 7.9 27.1 17.1 0.0 100 25 301

Kavango West 3.3 2.5 2.5 21.8 22.5 46.5 0.6 0.2 100 14 518

Khomas 23.7 42.8 15.3 4.9 0.4 3.5 9.3 0.0 100 112 305

Kunene 21.6 14.2 0.8 3.1 5.5 49.2 5.7 0.0 100 21 468

Ohangwena 10.2 12.2 10.9 25.9 20.9 15.4 4.5 0.0 100 48 487

Omaheke 11.8 28.3 6.1 3.6 3.5 45.6 1.1 0.0 100 19 639

Omusati 6.3 9.6 11.2 33.7 16.9 21.8 0.3 0.0 100 53 090

Oshana 22.5 36.8 12.8 16.2 6.2 1.8 3.8 0.0 100 45 331

Oshikoto 3.9 20.2 4.2 18.3 15.8 27.0 10.6 0.0 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 21.9 34.0 4.3 2.3 3.1 34.4 0.0 0.0 100 38 238

Zambezi 9.6 21.9 4.0 6.4 12.1 45.6 0.4 0.0 100 21 945

4.4Distance to Public Transport
In Namibia, 65.8 percent of all households access public transportation within a distance of a kilometre, of which the
majority were found in urban areas (82.6 percent) compared to rural areas (45.9 percent). In addition, 17.2 percent of
households were accessing public transportation at a distance of between 2 and 5 kilometres, with only 3.1 percent of the
households access public transportation at a distance of more than 40 kilometres. At regional level, Erongo and Zambezi
regions have the highest proportions of households accessing public transportation at a distance of a kilometres or less with
89 and 87.9 percent. On the other hand, Hardap and Kunene regions have large proportions of households accessing public
transportation at a distance of 40 kilometres or more with 31.3 percent and 11.1 percent.

4. Access to Services

Table 4.4.1 Households by distance to public transport, region and urban/rural areas

Region

Distance to public transport (km)
Number of
households

0-1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-40 >40 Unknown Not stated Total

Percent of households

Namibia 65.8 17.2 4.2 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.7 0.0 100 544 655

Urban 82.6 11.5 0.8 0.2 0.1 1.6 3.3 0.0 100 294 827

Rural 45.9 23.9 8.3 6.2 6.4 5.0 4.3 0.0 100 249 827

!Karas 74.1 11.9 3.1 1.3 4.1 4.5 1.0 0.0 100 23 567

Erongo 89.0 5.2 1.1 2.2 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.0 100 58 454

Hardap 48.2 11.5 1.5 2.8 4.4 31.3 0.2 0.0 100 20 901

Kavango East 74.5 9.3 3.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 12.0 0.0 100 25 301

Kavango West 68.9 12.1 4.3 4.0 3.2 1.2 6.0 0.2 100 14 518

Khomas 78.9 11.3 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.8 6.9 0.0 100 112 305

Kunene 48.7 13.4 3.2 5.3 12.3 11.1 5.9 0.0 100 21 468

Ohangwena 46.0 24.8 14.0 6.2 2.4 1.1 5.3 0.0 100 48 487

Omaheke 50.1 19.3 5.0 5.9 12.5 6.4 0.8 0.0 100 19 639

Omusati 45.3 40.4 5.9 5.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.0 100 53 090

Oshana 73.9 17.8 4.5 1.2 0.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 100 45 331

Oshikoto 44.4 31.6 8.6 4.5 3.7 1.5 5.7 0.0 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 61.4 12.8 3.2 6.0 9.9 6.3 0.5 0.0 100 38 238

Zambezi 87.9 10.7 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 100 21 945

4.5Distance to Primary School
As observed in Table 4.5.1, 53 percent of households in Namibia reported travelling within a kilometre to the nearest primary
school, with 28.9 percent of households traveling between two to five kilometres to the nearest primary school. This result is
further reflected across the urban/rural divide, in which urban areas has the highest percentage (66.7 percent) of households
accessing primary school at a distance of a kilometre compared to rural areas (36.8 percent). It is further interesting to note
that only 2.3 percent of household covers a distance of more than 40 kilometers and above to reach the nearest primary
schools.

Furthermore, regions that have high proportion of households within a kilometre of the nearest primary school were Erongo,
Hardap, Oshana, and !Karas with 72.2, 67.4, 65.9 and 63.9 percent.

66
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 4.5.1 Households by distance to primary school, region and urban/rural areas

Region

Distance to primary school (km)
Number of
households

0-1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-40 >40 Unknown Not stated Total

Percent of households

Namibia 53.0 28.9 4.8 2.8 3.8 2.3 4.5 0.0 100 544 655

Urban 66.7 25.6 2.3 0.6 0.6 0.2 4.2 0.0 100 294 827

Rural 36.8 32.8 7.7 5.4 7.6 4.7 5.0 0.0 100 249 827

!Karas 63.9 19.5 4.3 1.7 4.0 6.5 0.1 0.0 100 23 567

Erongo 72.2 19.0 2.7 2.8 1.4 0.5 1.4 0.0 100 58 454

Hardap 67.4 9.3 3.2 6.4 8.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 100 20 901

Kavango East 44.7 30.9 6.7 1.6 1.0 1.4 13.7 0.0 100 25 301

Kavango West 59.0 24.9 3.0 0.6 1.7 1.1 9.5 0.2 100 14 518

Khomas 55.4 29.2 3.0 1.0 1.9 1.2 8.4 0.0 100 112 305

Kunene 44.9 13.0 8.1 9.0 14.1 5.9 5.0 0.0 100 21 468

Ohangwena 36.4 41.3 9.5 3.7 2.1 0.3 6.6 0.0 100 48 487

Omaheke 49.7 10.0 4.4 8.5 18.7 8.2 0.4 0.0 100 19 639

Omusati 37.7 50.4 6.8 2.1 1.5 0.2 1.3 0.0 100 53 090

Oshana 65.9 28.2 4.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 100 45 331

Oshikoto 33.8 44.3 5.7 2.8 2.8 0.8 9.8 0.0 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 54.7 14.9 2.8 4.6 12.4 10.5 0.2 0.0 100 38 238

Zambezi 59.7 32.1 4.7 2.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 100 21 945

4. Access to Services

5. Education
5.1Literacy
The survey also collected information on education and literacy. Table 5.1.1 provides information on the levels of literacy.
Literate people in this survey were defined as all people who could write and read in any language with understanding. This
question was asked of all persons six years and above. However, information is presented only for the population age 15
years and above. It is worth noting that no tests were administered to determine the literacy level of people, therefore the
information presented was based on answers given by household members during the interviews.

The result shown in Table 5.1.1 indicates that 87.4 percent of the population aged 15 years and above are literate. Furthermore,
the table reveals that literacy rate is high in urban areas with 94 percent compared to rural areas with 81 percent with no
big differences between female and male in both areas. Most regions have literacy rate above 80 percent except for Kunene,
Omaheke and Kavango East with 62.8, 71.8 and 77.8 percent respectively.

Table 5.1.1 Population 15 years and above by sex, literacy, region and urban/rural areas.

Region
Female Male Both sexes

Population
Literate Not literate Total Literate Not literate Total Literate Not literate Total

Namibia 87.1 12.9 100 87.8 12.2 100 87.4 12.6 100 1450 652

Urban 93.8 6.2 100 93.6 6.4 100 93.7 6.3 100 744 104

Rural 80.2 19.8 100 81.5 18.5 100 80.8 19.2 100 706 548

Karas 95.1 4.9 100 95.3 4.7 100 95.2 4.8 100 58 306

Erongo 96.1 3.9 100 93.0 7.0 100 94.4 5.6 100 126 363

Hardap 91.4 8.6 100 89.0 11.0 100 90.1 9.9 100 57 336

Kavango East 73.6 26.4 100 83.2 16.8 100 77.8 22.2 100 85 686

Kavango West 77.9 22.1 100 82.8 17.2 100 80.1 19.9 100 47 495

Khomas 96.0 4.0 100 94.9 5.1 100 95.5 4.5 100 286 288

Kunene 60.8 39.2 100 64.8 35.2 100 62.8 37.2 100 55 202

Ohangwena 85.3 14.7 100 87.4 12.6 100 86.2 13.8 100 143 447

Omaheke 72.3 27.7 100 71.4 28.6 100 71.8 28.2 100 44 862

Omusati 85.7 14.3 100 87.0 13.0 100 86.3 13.7 100 150 407

Oshana 92.6 7.4 100 90.8 9.2 100 91.8 8.2 100 123 174

Oshikoto 88.1 11.9 100 84.3 15.7 100 86.4 13.6 100 117 460

Otjozondjupa 80.5 19.5 100 82.5 17.5 100 81.6 18.4 100 95 278

Zambezi 82.7 17.3 100 89.3 10.7 100 85.9 14.1 100 59 348

Table 5.1.2 indicates literacy levels for the youth aged 15 to 24 years. Youth literacy rate is 94.4 percent, which has not
changed from 94.4 percent reported in 2009/2010. The table also reveals that at national level, there is no significant
difference between the levels of literacy for females (95.4 percent) and males (93.2 percent). Furthermore, youth in urban
areas are more literate with 97.2 percent compared to those in rural areas with 92.3 percent. All regions have recorded high
literacy rates of over 90 percent except for Otjozondjupa, Omaheke and Kunene which reported literate rates of 84.9, 84.5
and 74.1 percent.

68
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

5. Education

Table 5.1.2 Population aged 15-24 years by sex, literacy and region and urban/rural areas

Region Female Male Both sexes
Population

Literate Not literate Total Literate Not literate Total Literate Not literate Total

Namibia 95.4 4.6 100 93.2 6.8 100 94.4 5.6 100 474 948

Urban 97.4 2.6 100 96.8 3.2 100 97.2 2.8 100 202 578

Rural 93.8 6.2 100 90.8 9.2 100 92.3 7.7 100 272 370

!Karas 98.4 1.6 100 99.9 0.1 100 99.1 0.9 100 14 356

Erongo 96.1 3.9 100 97.8 2.2 100 96.9 3.1 100 26 827

Hardap 98.3 1.7 100 94.2 5.8 100 96.2 3.8 100 15 500

Kavango East 93.0 7.0 100 91.8 8.2 100 92.5 7.5 100 34 302

Kavango West 95.6 4.4 100 93.3 6.7 100 94.4 5.5 100 20 026

Khomas 98.8 1.2 100 97.9 2.1 100 98.4 1.6 100 73 121

Kunene 78.3 21.7 100 70.1 29.9 100 74.1 25.9 100 17 406

Ohangwena 96.0 4.0 100 95.7 4.3 100 95.8 4.2 100 64 102

Omaheke 88.6 11.4 100 80.9 19.1 100 84.5 15.5 100 12 982

Omusati 97.3 2.7 100 94.7 5.3 100 96.0 4.0 100 61 617

Oshana 98.1 1.9 100 94.9 5.1 100 96.6 3.4 100 42 305

Oshikoto 97.8 2.2 100 93.2 6.8 100 95.4 4.6 100 44 568

Otjozondjupa 85.6 14.4 100 84.3 15.7 100 84.9 15.1 100 26 426

Zambezi 94.4 5.6 100 93.8 6.2 100 94.1 5.9 100 21 410

5.2Mode of Transport to School
On modes of transport used to travel to school, an estimated 83.4 percent of the school going population indicated that they
walk to school, followed by 8 percent that travel by taxi (Table 5.1.3). The rest of the modes of transport are all used by less
than 5 percent of the school going population.

Table 5.1.3 Mode of traveling to school

Mode of Transport
Population

Number %

Walk 565 350 83.4

Bicycle 812 0.1

Motorbike 241 0.0

Bakkie 17 907 2.6

Sedan 29 334 4.3

Taxi 54 535 8.0

Minibus/ Bus 5 865 0.9

Riding horse/ donkey/ mule 45 0.0

Animal drawn vehicle 45 0.0

Other (Specify) 3 833 0.6

Total 677 967 100.0

5. Education

5.3Age at Enrolment in Primary School
Table 5.1.4 presents age at first enrolment in primary school by regions. The result shows that most of the children started
school at an early age of 6 or 7. The highest enrolment rate was at the age of 7 with 52.8 percent followed by those aged
6 with 37.4 percent. Zambezi region reported the highest percentages of those who enrolled at the age of 6 with 59.3
percent, followed by Khomas (43.3 percent) while the region with the lowest enrolment is Kunene with 21 percent. Those
who enrolled at age 7 years were mostly from Otjozondjupa with 65.7 percent while least were from Zambezi region with
31.8 percent.

Table 5.1.4 Age at first enrolment in primary by region

Region
Age

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-20 Total

Namibia 0.1 1.5 37.4 52.8 5.1 1.5 0.8 0.8 100.0

!Karas 0.0 1.0 38.3 58.6 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0

Erongo 0.5 0.4 36.3 58.9 3.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 100.0

Hardap 0.3 2.7 39.6 52.4 3.6 1.1 0.2 0.1 100.0

Kavango 0.2 1.2 39.5 43.1 8.2 3.1 2.5 2.2 100.0

Kavango 0.0 1.5 30.4 53.8 8.1 2.9 2.2 1.1 100.0

Khomas 0.2 3.2 43.3 49.0 2.8 0.8 0.4 0.3 100.0

Kunene 0.0 1.0 20.8 53.1 10.1 6.1 3.4 5.4 100.0

Ohangwena 0.0 0.5 37.5 55.0 4.4 1.1 0.7 0.7 100.0

Omaheke 0.0 1.3 26.3 55.5 10.9 3.9 1.1 1.0 100.0

Omusati 0.0 1.5 31.0 59.7 5.6 0.9 0.5 0.8 100.0

Oshana 0.0 0.7 39.9 55.4 2.4 1.2 0.0 0.3 100.0

Oshikoto 0.1 1.7 38.8 48.6 8.4 1.3 0.7 0.4 100.0

Otjozondjupa 0.0 0.6 25.8 65.7 4.2 2.0 0.9 0.9 100.0

Zambezi 0.1 2.6 59.3 31.8 4.3 1.0 0.4 0.5 100.0

5.4Cost of Education
It is widely accepted that expenditure on education is one of the important factors for sustainable development. In
Namibia, expenditure on education is incurred in two ways: individual and institutional. Individual expenditure refers to the
expenditure made by the students or their parents, also referred to as household expenditure on education. On the other
hand, institutional expenditure is referred to as government or non-government expenditure on education. In Namibia,
household expenditure on education is quite sizeable, even households from lower income groups spend considerable
amounts of money on acquiring education.

Table 5.1.6 shows that the cost of education in Namibia is mostly on tuition fees (N$1 136.40) compared to other school
expense categories. Households in Khomas region, which is the most populated region, spent more money on education
compared to other regions especially on tuition fees and transport with N$3333.0 and N$892.4 respectively. Oshana and
Erongo regions also spent large amounts of money on tuition fees, compared to other regions with N$1 185.2 and N$ 1
135.8 respectively.

70
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 5.1.6 Cost of education by expense category and region (average N$ per year)

Re
gi

Tu
iti

Pr
iv

at
e

(a
ca

de
m

ic
)

le
ss

on
s

Sc
ho

ol
u

ni
fo

Sc
ho

ol
fo

ot
w

ea
r

Sp
or

ts
u

ni
fo

rm
s

Ac
co

m
m

od
ati

on
s

Tr
an

sp
or

Sc
ho

ol
o

r u
ni

ve
rs

ity

bo
ok

s/
m

at
er

ia
ls

/
sc

ho
ol

b
ag

O
th

er
e

xp
en

se
s

To
ta

l N
$

Namibia 1 136.4 87.9 104.1 52.7 10.5 60.9 278.0 132.5 34.8 1 897.9

!Karas 1 135.8 11.2 128.3 56.3 19.2 12.5 62.0 83.8 40.1 1 549.1

Erongo 600.6 40.8 109.2 47.7 14.7 29.1 190.6 80.0 20.4 1 133.2

Hardap 565.9 21.6 122.2 59.8 24.2 40.9 85.1 149.8 143.9 1 213.5

Kavango East 300.7 15.2 129.3 73.7 4.5 23.4 25.7 94.3 23.5 690.3

Kavango West 230.3 70.8 156.1 72.3 2.6 9.4 22.5 169.9 29.4 763.4

Khomas 3 333.0 271.1 121.6 50.8 19.9 105.2 892.4 312.4 81.4 5 187.8

Kunene 360.4 10.3 61.7 37.7 4.9 40.5 42.3 30.8 12.2 600.8

Ohangwena 127.0 11.5 93.3 59.9 1.6 10.9 41.3 43.9 6.1 395.6

Omaheke 180.7 2.7 180.7 72.2 7.7 24.1 76.8 59.0 15.4 619.4

Omusati 234.8 74.0 88.2 56.5 1.0 59.7 42.0 56.9 7.8 621.0

Oshana 1 185.2 33.2 97.8 57.0 5.1 146.7 159.1 147.6 19.9 1 851.8

Oshikoto 285.9 69.9 68.1 44.2 2.9 95.5 86.5 47.6 3.9 704.6

Otjozondjupa 359.9 24.4 55.2 35.2 8.4 6.7 121.5 67.6 9.2 688.1

Zambezi 318.9 6.6 87.4 57.5 2.3 48.0 74.7 79.9 8.0 683.2

Households that received outside financial assistance for educational purposes accounts for 8.3 percent (Figure 5.2). The
majority did not receive any assistance and depends mostly on their own or other sources to finance their education.

Figure 5.1.6 Households receiving outside financial assistance for education

5. Education

6. Health
Health is one of the key indicators for quality of life. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined health in its broader
sense in its 1948 constitution as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence
of disease or infirmity. This definition has been subjected to controversy, in particular as lacking operational value, the
ambiguity in developing cohesive health strategies, and because of the problem created by use of the word "complete".
Other definitions have been proposed, among them a recent definition that correlates health and personal satisfaction.
Classification systems such as the WHO Family of International Classifications, including the International Classification of
Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), are commonly used to define
and measure the components of health.

The Health section is a new addition to the survey. Therefore, there will be no comparison with previous survey results.
Questions were asked about certain health conditions of individual members of the households. A selected number of most
reported chronic diseases are presented in the report. Where more than one type of disease was reported, only the main or
most severe one is presented.

6.1Type of Chronic Illness
Table 6.1.1 presents the types of chronic illness in the population. At national level high blood pressure was the most prevalent
disease in the population compared to other diseases with 6.1 percent of the population indicated having this condition.
Other chronic illnesses worth mentioning that affect the population were respiratory or asthma, joints inflammation, diabetes
and heart or cardiac conditions. Table 6.1.1 further shows that high blood pressure was slightly high in urban than rural areas.
Similarly, asthma was the second most common respiratory illness affecting 1 percent of the population.

At regional level, Omaheke recorded the highest percent of population with high blood pressure with 9.1 percent, followed
by Hardap and !Karas with 8.1 and 7.9 percent. On the other hand, Kavango East reported the least proportion of the
population with a chronic illness of high blood pressure.

72
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

6. Health

Table 6.1.1 Types of chronic illness in the population by region and urban/rural areas

Re
gi

Type of chronic illness

Di
ab

et
es

Hi
gh

b
lo

od
p

re
ss

ur
e

Jo
in

t i
nfl

am
m

ati
on

Ca
nc

Ca
rd

ia
c

/
He

ar
t

Ep
ile

ps
y

Re
sp

ira
to

ry
d

is
ea

se
(a

st
hm

et
c.

)

St
om

ac
h

ul
ce

Ch
ro

ni
c

ki
dn

ey
d

is
ea

An
ae

m
ia

Ch
ro

ni
c

m
en

ta
l/

p
sy

ch
ol

og
ic

ill
ne

O
th

Do
es

n
ot

h
av

e
a

ch
ro

ni
c

ill
ne

N
ot

st
at

To
ta

Po
pu

la
tio

Percentage

Namibia 0.8 6.1 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 88.2 0.0 100 2 280 716

Urban 1.3 6.4 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.4 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 87.6 0.1 100 1 068 625

Rural 0.4 5.8 1.1 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 88.6 0.0 100 1 212 091

!Karas 1.8 7.9 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 86.5 0.0 100 84 077

Erongo 1.6 7.7 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 86.2 0.0 100 175 853

Hardap 1.9 8.1 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.1 83.5 0.0 100 85 629

Kavango East 0.2 4.1 0.6 0.1 1.9 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.4 89.4 0.1 100 146 151

Kavango West 0.3 5.2 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.6 87.5 0.1 100 88 705

Khomas 1.0 6.4 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 87.5 0.1 100 400 191

Kunene 0.8 5.2 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.9 88.2 0.0 100 95 610

Ohangwena 0.4 4.7 1.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.1 91.3 0.0 100 253 348

Omaheke 1.5 9.1 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.5 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 84.3 0.2 100 74 040

Omusati 0.4 5.6 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.7 89.3 0.0 100 248 490

Oshana 0.5 5.2 1.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.6 90.1 0.1 100 186 634

Oshikoto 0.4 6.1 1.5 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 88.9 0.0 100 192 469

Otjozondjupa 1.2 7.4 1.2 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 85.9 0.0 100 152 343

Zambezi 0.9 5.0 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 88.9 0.0 100 97 176

Table 6.1.2 presents the types of chronic illnesses by age groups. The result shows that most illnesses are not limited to
certain age groups but do affect all ages in varying degrees. It is clear however that older age groups are more affected than
young groups. As observed in table 6.1.2, high blood pressure or hypertension is the most common illness that affects just
over 6 percent of the Namibian population. Looking at the result, one can safely say that chronic illnesses are age related,
whereby young ages are less affected compared to older ages, though not exclusively.

6. Health

Table 6.1.2 Types of chronic Illness by age groups

Ag
e

gr
ou

Type of chronic illness

Di
ab

et
es

Hi
gh

b
lo

od
p

re
ss

ur
e

Jo
in

t i
nfl

am
m

ati
on

Ca
nc

Ca
rd

ia
c

/
He

ar
t

Ep
ile

ps
y

Re
sp

ira
to

ry
d

is
ea

se
(a

st
hm

a,
e

tc
.)

St
om

ac
h

ul
ce

Ch
ro

ni
c

ki
dn

ey
d

is
ea

An
ae

m
ia

Ch
ro

ni
c

m
en

ta
l/

p
sy

ch
ol

og
ic

al
il

ln
es

O
th

Do
es

n
ot

h
av

e
a

ch
ro

ni
c

ill
ne

N
ot

st
at

To
ta

Po
pu

la
tio

Percentage

<1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 98.3 0.0 100 66 588

1-10 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 97.9 0.0 100 575 655

11-20 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 95.9 0.0 100 475 957

21-30 0.2 2.1 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 93.3 0.1 100 422 286

31-40 0.8 6.5 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.8 86.9 0.0 100 290 980

41-50 1.8 14.6 1.6 0.3 1.3 0.8 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.0 75.6 0.1 100 192 948

51-60 4.9 26.7 3.3 0.5 1.2 0.4 2.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.3 57.7 0.1 100 119 894

61-70 4.1 34.3 3.8 0.6 1.4 0.6 2.7 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.7 50.1 0.0 100 67 491

70+ 4.1 37.3 6.8 1.6 2.5 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.6 43.3 0.0 100 68 917

Total 0.8 6.1 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 88.2 0.0 100 2 280 716

74
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

6.2Disability
Types of disabilities are presented in table 6.1.3 whereby the result shows that most of the population with disability in
Namibia (8.6 percent) reported some difficulty seeing as compared to other disabilities. A similar distribution is observed
across the urban/rural set-up, with rural areas accounting for a slightly higher, 8.8 percent of the population compared to 8.4
percent of the population in urban areas.

Table 6.1.3 Types of disabilities by urban/rural areas

Area and Population
Disability, %

Seeing Hearing Walking
Remembering/
concentrating

Self-care Communicating

Namibia
2 280 716

No difficulty 91.5 96.1 95.4 96.7 98.4 98.8

Some difficulty 7.3 3.3 3.4 2.6 1.0 0.8

A lot of difficulty 1.1 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.3

Cannot do it 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2

Urban
1 068 625

No difficulty 91.6 97.1 96.7 96.7 98.8 99.0

Some difficulty 7.2 2.4 2.3 2.6 0.7 0.6

A lot of difficulty 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.2

Cannot do it 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2

Rural
1 212 091

No difficulty 91.4 95.2 94.4 96.7 98.1 98.6

Some difficulty 7.4 4.1 4.4 2.6 1.3 0.9

A lot of difficulty 1.1 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.3

Cannot do it 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2

Cannot do it 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

6. Health

7. Main Source of Income
One of the main objectives of this survey was to collect information on households income and determine the distribution of
economic resources amongst the Namibian population. Households were asked to state their 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.

Table 7.1.1 shows that 53.6 percent of the households in Namibia reported salaries and wages as their main source of
income, followed by pensions (pensions from employment and/or annuity fund and state old-age pension) with 11 percent
and subsistence farming with 10.6 percent.

In urban areas, 72 percent of the households reported salaries and wages as their main source of income, followed by
business income with 11.3 percent, compared to rural areas, where 31.8 percent of the households reported salaries and
wages as their main source of income, followed by subsistence farming with 22.4 percent.

At the regional level, salaries and wages dominates the main sources of income in most regions, with the exception of
Omusati and Ohangwena where large proportions of households reported subsistence farming as the main source of income,
with 38.5 and 22.7percent.

Table 7.1.1 Households by main source of income, region and urban/rural areas

Region

Main source of income, %

Salaries/
wages

Pension
Subsistence

farming
Business
income

Remittances/
Grants

Drought/
In-kind
receipts

Commercial
farming

Others Total
Number
of House

holds
Namibia 53.6 11.0 10.6 9.1 9.6 2.7 0.3 3.0 100 544 655

Urban 72.0 4.0 0.7 11.3 7.3 1.1 0.1 3.5 100 294 827
Rural 31.8 19.3 22.4 6.4 12.4 4.6 0.6 2.4 100 249 827

!Karas 79.0 8.9 1.0 2.0 4.9 0.7 1.9 1.6 100 23 567

Erongo 80.0 5.2 0.4 5.5 5.0 0.9 0.1 2.8 100 58 454

Hardap 70.5 8.3 1.8 2.7 11.2 0.8 1.1 3.5 100 20 901

Kavango East 40.7 13.8 12.2 10.8 9.3 5.1 0.0 8.1 100 25 301

Kavango West 29.9 18.2 19.2 11.5 13.6 3.9 0.0 3.7 100 14 518

Khomas 73.2 1.5 0.3 12.8 6.5 0.7 0.2 4.8 100 112 305

Kunene 44.0 11.6 18.8 6.5 9.0 7.4 0.3 2.4 100 21 468

Ohangwena 21.6 20.6 22.7 10.3 18.6 4.4 0.2 1.6 100 48 487

Omaheke 58.7 12.8 6.7 7.7 6.9 3.9 1.0 2.3 100 19 639

Omusati 24.7 18.1 38.5 3.6 8.0 4.5 0.6 2.1 100 53 090

Oshana 41.5 14.7 7.2 16.1 16.8 1.1 0.0 2.6 100 45 331

Oshikoto 35.3 18.8 21.9 6.6 12.6 3.8 0.0 1.0 100 41 411

Otjozondjupa 69.2 7.9 3.3 6.9 5.8 4.2 0.6 2.1 100 38 238

Zambezi 46.8 14.5 2.6 17.6 12.8 3.2 0.0 2.5 100 21 945

76
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

7. Main Source of Income

The majority of male headed households, 61.8 percent, reported salaries and wages as their main source of income compared
to 43 percent of female headed households. A further 14.2 percent of female-headed households also reported pensions as
their main source of income, followed by subsistence farming, 12.7 percent. Similarly, in urban areas, 77.9 percent of male-
headed households reported salaries and wages as their main source of income. On the other hand, in rural areas, 25.4
percent of female-headed household reported subsistence farming as their main source of income.

Table 7.1.2 Households by main source of income, urban/rural areas and sex of head of households

Area and
Sex of head

Main source of income, % Total

Salaries
& wages

Pension
Subsistence

farming
Business
income

Remittances/
grants

Drought
/In-kind
receipts

Commercial
farming

Others %
Number
of House

holds

Namibia

Female 43.0 14.2 12.7 9.3 14.4 2.9 0.1 3.3 100.0 239 816

Male 61.8 8.5 9.0 8.9 5.9 2.6 0.5 2.8 100.0 304 839

Both Sexes 53.6 11.0 10.6 9.1 9.6 2.7 0.3 3.0 100.0 544 655

Urban

Female 63.7 5.3 0.8 12.3 11.8 1.6 0.0 4.4 100.0 123 641

Male 77.9 3.0 0.5 10.6 4.0 0.8 0.1 2.9 100.0 171 186

Both Sexes 72.0 4.0 0.7 11.3 7.3 1.1 0.1 3.5 100.0 294 827

Rural

Female 21.0 23.7 25.4 6.1 17.0 4.3 0.2 2.2 100.0 116 175

Male 41.2 15.5 19.9 6.7 8.3 4.8 0.9 2.7 100.0 133 652

Both Sexes 31.8 19.3 22.4 6.4 12.4 4.6 0.6 2.4 100.0 249 827

Results of the households main source of income by main language presented in Table 7.1.3 shows a higher proportion of
households where English, Afrikaans and Nama/Damara are the main languages spoken reported salaries and wages as their
main source of income, with 78.9, 71.8 and 67.7 percent respectively. Households where Oshiwambo and Otjiherero are the
main language spoken reported subsistence farming as their main source of income with 15.4 and 13.1 percent respectively.

Table 7.1.3 Households by main source of income and main language spoken in the household

Main language

Main source of income, % Total
Salaries

&
wages

Pension
Subsistence

farming
Business
income

Remittances/
grants

Drought
/In-kind
receipts

Commercial
farming

Others %
Number
of House

holds
Khoisan 48.1 15.7 1.3 4.1 7.1 22.1 0.0 1.5 100 6 115

Zambezi languages 54.3 12.3 2.1 15.2 11.8 2.3 0.0 2.1 100 23 414

Otjiherero 54.9 9.5 13.1 6.8 8.3 3.7 0.2 3.3 100 49 546

Rukavango 49.0 12.3 11.8 9.2 8.6 3.9 0.0 5.2 100 50 307

Nama/Damara 67.7 10.4 2.0 4.0 10.0 2.8 0.3 2.9 100 63 208

Oshiwambo 46.8 12.4 15.4 10.1 10.6 2.4 0.2 2.1 100 280 225

Setswana 53.3 10.5 5.7 9.9 13.6 6.9 0.0 0.0 100 1 311

Afrikaans 71.8 7.2 0.3 7.7 5.0 0.3 1.7 6.1 100 40 334

German 48.1 11.1 0.0 16.2 5.4 0.0 1.9 17.3 100 2 099

7. Main Source of Income

Main language

Main source of income, % Total
Salaries

&
wages

Pension
Subsistence

farming
Business
income

Remittances/
grants

Drought
/In-kind
receipts

Commercial
farming

Others %
Number
of House

holds
English 78.9 1.4 0.0 8.6 3.7 0.0 1.1 6.3 100 7 815

Other European 40.0 2.3 0.0 13.4 42.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 100 3 054

Other African 69.4 3.5 1.0 17.1 2.6 1.8 1.9 2.7 100 6 032

Others 71.0 3.6 3.4 10.4 6.3 0.6 1.4 3.4 100 11 194

Total 53.6 11.0 10.6 9.1 9.6 2.7 0.3 3.0 100.0 544 655

The result on households main source of income by percentile group after adjusting for the per capita income in Table 7.1.4
shows that wages and salaries was the main source of income reported across the percentile groups. On the other hand,
22.4 percent of the households in the 1-25 percentile reported pension while 17.7 percent in the 26-50 percentile reported
subsistence farming as their main sources of income. Similar results are further reflected across the deciles grouping.

Table 7.1.4 Households by main source of income and percentile group after adjusted per capita income

Percentile
group/deciles

Main source of income, % Total

Salaries
& wages

Pension
Subsistence

farming
Business
income

Remittances/
grants

Drought
/In-kind
receipts

Commercial
farming

Others % Number

Percentiles
1-25 28.5 22.4 16.9 9.2 12.7 6.7 0.2 3.3 100 87 593

26-50 41.0 16.1 17.7 7.9 12.1 3.0 0.1 2.1 100 112 869

51-75 54.8 9.9 10.8 9.5 9.7 2.6 0.0 2.6 100 143 590

76-90 70.6 4.8 4.8 8.4 7.6 1.3 0.1 2.5 100 110 129

91-95 76.2 2.3 3.4 8.1 5.4 0.5 0.8 3.2 100 43 761

96-98 70.1 4.5 1.6 11.8 7.8 0.0 1.4 2.9 100 26 640

99-100 59.7 3.0 1.9 14.7 4.1 0.8 2.9 12.8 100 20 074

Total 53.6 11.0 10.6 9.1 9.6 2.7 0.3 3.0 100 544 655
Deciles
1 26.5 24.2 13.9 8.6 11.2 10.8 0.3 4.4 100 31 989

2 30.1 21.1 18.1 8.8 14.2 5.3 0.0 2.4 100 35 778

3 31.4 22.0 20.4 8.6 11.4 3.0 0.3 3.0 100 40 259

4 39.2 15.4 17.4 8.9 13.4 3.5 0.3 1.9 100 43 191

5 45.5 14.2 16.6 7.7 11.7 2.4 0.0 1.8 100 49 244

6 48.2 12.8 12.3 9.4 11.2 2.9 0.0 3.2 100 53 298

7 57.4 8.3 10.0 10.8 9.1 2.5 0.0 1.9 100 57 720

8 62.6 6.8 7.6 9.2 8.3 2.2 0.0 3.2 100 67 332

9 73.5 4.2 4.5 7.2 7.3 0.9 0.2 2.1 100 75 369

10 70.8 3.1 2.6 10.7 5.8 0.4 1.4 5.3 100 90 475

Table 7.5 shows that 31.9 percent of households with orphans reported salaries and wages as their main source of income,
pension was reported by 21.2 percent while subsistence farming was reported by 17.9 percent of the households with
orphans. At regional level, most of the households In Omusati region, 48.7 percent of households with orphans reported
subsistence farming as the main source of income, followed by Kunene region with 27.2 per cent.

78
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 7.5 Households with orphans by main source of income, region and urban/rural areas

Region

Main source of income, % Total

Salaries
&

wages
Pension

Subsistence
farming

Business
income

Remittances/
grants

Drought/
In-kind
receipts

Commercial
farming

Others %

Number
of

House
holds

Namibia 31.9 21.2 17.9 8.2 15.2 2.5 0.1 2.9 100.0 86 596

!Karas 70.5 20.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 100.0 2 255

Erongo 71.9 6.5 0.0 12.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 3.9 100.0 4 096

Hardap 61.6 11.7 0.7 1.8 19.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 100.0 3 032

Kavango East 27.0 16.0 18.1 7.7 17.6 5.7 0.0 8.0 100.0 6 846

Kavango West 25.2 20.1 18.2 13.7 15.1 2.7 0.0 4.9 100.0 4 210

Khomas 68.5 1.9 2.3 13.7 8.3 1.2 0.0 4.2 100.0 9 159

Kunene 25.2 15.4 27.2 9.3 20.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 3 586

Ohangwena 12.1 31.9 21.5 6.7 24.7 2.0 0.4 0.7 100.0 13 752

Omaheke 54.7 20.2 6.0 11.7 4.5 2.0 0.0 1.0 100.0 2 369

Omusati 9.2 28.1 48.7 1.2 9.4 3.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 11 753

Oshana 22.6 26.8 10.2 12.4 22.0 1.2 0.0 4.8 100.0 7 212

Oshikoto 17.8 30.3 25.3 6.6 15.7 2.3 0.0 2.0 100.0 9 945

Otjozondjupa 58.3 10.3 1.0 10.8 13.0 3.7 0.0 2.9 100.0 4 762

Zambezi 26.3 28.6 4.4 13.8 12.9 7.2 0.0 6.8 100.0 3 621

7. Main Source of Income

8. Household Indebtedness
Household debt can be defined in several ways, based on what types of debt are included. According to the 1993 System
of National Accounts, household debt is defined as all liabilities that require payment or payments of interest or principal
by household to the creditor at a date or dates in the future. Consequently, all debt instruments are liabilities, but some
liabilities such as shares, equity and financial derivatives are not considered as debt.

For this analysis, common household debt types include bonds, hire purchases on vehicles, hire purchases on household
furniture and appliances, hire purchases from retail outlets, bank loans, overdraft and credit card; cash loans from friends
and relatives in and outside Namibia, outstanding fines, and others loans from other sources.

Respondents were asked if they had any outstanding debts and Table 8.1.1 shows that 23.0 percent of households (125,425)
owed outstanding balances in one form of debt or another. There were more reported households with debts in urban areas
with 29.9 percent than in rural areas with 14.9 percent. Regions with more households with debts include Kavango West with
41.8 percent followed by Hardap, Otjozondjupa and !Karas with 41.5 percent, 34.0 percent and 33.3 percent respectively.

Table 8.1.1 Households by debt/outstanding loans, region and urban/rural areas

Region
Households with outstanding debt/loan

Total number of Households
Number %

Namibia 125 425 23.0 544 655

Urban 88 136 29.9 294 827

Rural 37 289 14.9 249 827

!Karas 7 855 33.3 23 567

Erongo 15 486 26.5 58 454

Hardap 8 682 41.5 20 901

Kavango East 6 785 26.8 25 301

Kavango West 6,066 41.8 14 518

Khomas 35 975 32.0 112 305

Kunene 6 743 31.4 21 468

Ohangwena 4 227 8.7 48 487

Omaheke 3 690 18.8 19 639

Omusati 1 356 2.6 53 090

Oshana 5 465 12.1 45 331

Oshikoto 5 176 12.5 41 411

Otjozondjupa 13 015 34.0 38 238

Zambezi 4 905 22.4 21 945

80
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

8. Household Indebtedness

8.1Types of Debt
Figure 8.1.1 shows the most common types of debt owed by households. Cash loans from sources in Namibia was the most
prevalent debt owed by 28.7 percent of households (35,975), followed by car loan debts owed by 12.3 percent of households
and furniture & appliances owed by 6.9 percent of the households.

Figure 8.1.1 Distribution of indebted households by type of debt

Figure 8.1.2 presents the contribution of household debts to the total households debts in Namibia by types of debt.
It is evident from the figure that cash loan debts from sources in Namibia contributed 6.6 percent of the total indebted
households (125, 425), followed by car loan debts with 2.8 percent of households and furniture & appliances with 1.6
percent of all indebted households.

Figure 8.1.2 Component (%) of household debt

8. Household Indebtedness

9. Ownership of and access to
assets

This chapter presents survey results related to households ownership of and access to assets. The results on ownership of
and access to assets revealed disparities between urban and rural areas, regions, sex of the head of households, levels of
household income, and educational attainment of the head of the household.

9.1Ownership of and Access to Selected Assets
Table 9.1.1 shows ownership and access to selected items such as motor vehicles, bicycle, refrigerators, freezers, sewing/
knitting machines, radio, telephone (landline), TV, cell phone, donkey/ox cart, plough and tractor, among others. It can be
observed that at national level, 93.3 percent of the households reported owning a cell phone, 30.9 percent reported having
access to a motor vehicle and 86 percent did not have access to a telephone (landline). Cell phone is common in both urban
and rural areas where they are owned by 97.2 and 88.9 percent of the households. Access to radio recorded only 25.9 and 21.1
percent in urban and rural areas respectively.

Furthermore, households in urban areas reported a higher share of TV set ownership with 63.8 percent compared to only 17.4
percent of households in rural areas. It is worth noting that 31.4 percent of households in rural areas owned a plough and 35.1
percent reported having access to a motor vehicle.

The regions of Ohangwena and Oshana reported the highest proportions of households owning a radio, 63.9 percent and 61.1
percent, while Erongo, !Karas and Hardap had the highest proportions of households owning a TV with 70.4, 67.5 and 63.7
percent respectively. About 82 percent of households in Omusati and 68.0 percent in Oshikoto region had no access to a TV.

Table 9.1.1 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets, region and urban/rural areas

Region
Owner
ship /
Access

Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/k
ni

tti
ng

ac
hi

Ra
di

Te
le

ph
on

Te
le

vi
si

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
nk

ey
c

ar
t/

O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Namibia Owns 15.9 10.8 37.8 17.8 7.8 45.6 4.9 42.5 93.3 6.0 15.7 0.6

544 655 Has access 30.9 10.0 10.3 18.9 11.0 23.7 9.1 11.8 2.5 9.1 11.3 16.2

No access 53.2 79.3 51.9 63.3 81.2 30.7 86.0 45.7 4.2 84.9 73.1 83.2

Urban Owns 23.8 11.7 59.4 25.5 8.5 37.8 8.2 63.8 97.2 1.8 2.4 0.2

294 827 Has access 27.3 8.7 10.2 24.2 9.4 25.9 12.3 10.3 0.9 4.7 4.8 5.3

No access 49.0 79.6 30.4 50.3 82.2 36.3 79.4 25.9 1.9 93.5 92.8 94.5

Rural Owns 6.6 9.7 12.4 8.7 7.1 54.7 1.0 17.4 88.9 10.9 31.4 1.0

249 827 Has access 35.1 11.5 10.5 12.7 12.9 21.1 5.2 13.5 4.3 14.2 18.9 29.0

No access 58.3 78.9 77.2 78.6 80.1 24.2 93.8 69.1 6.8 74.9 49.8 70.0

82
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

9. Ownership of and access to assets

Region
Owner
ship /
Access

Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/k
ni

tti
ng

ac
hi

Ra
di

Te
le

ph
on

Te
le

vi
si

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
nk

ey
c

ar
t/

O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

!Karas Owns 17.3 10.2 62.3 28.7 8.0 32.4 12.5 67.5 97.1 6.5 1.2 0.8

23 567 Has access 36.1 12.6 10.6 23.2 10.1 32.5 11.9 9.7 1.5 6.4 3.4 7.0

No access 46.6 77.2 27.1 48.1 81.9 35.2 75.6 22.8 1.4 87.0 95.4 92.2

Erongo Owns 20.8 14.2 65.3 27.8 7.9 37.3 6.4 70.4 96.8 5.4 4.7 0.4

58 454 Has access 24.5 4.7 7.9 27.8 4.0 24.4 5.1 6.5 1.2 4.5 1.8 1.8

No access 54.7 81.1 26.9 44.4 88.0 38.3 88.5 23.1 1.9 90.1 93.6 97.8

Hardap Owns 17.7 19.8 58.6 33.8 14.0 36.8 11.1 63.7 91.5 13.7 0.7 1.3

20 901 Has access 35.9 6.1 9.4 26.7 3.3 38.2 13.5 7.1 3.1 5.5 0.6 1.4

No access 46.4 74.1 32.0 39.5 82.7 25.0 75.3 29.2 5.4 80.8 98.8 97.3

Kavango East Owns 5.0 4.9 23.9 6.9 3.1 39.0 1.8 28.8 80.8 0.8 16.2 0.1

25 301 Has access 28.8 20.5 16.5 21.4 13.3 30.9 14.9 27.1 8.5 22.9 32.7 9.4

No access 66.3 74.6 59.6 71.7 83.6 30.2 83.3 44.1 10.8 76.3 51.1 90.5

Kavango West Owns 2.1 6.1 11.5 7.6 3.7 49.6 0.4 16.8 86.0 7.2 43.0 0.0

14 518 Has access 32.1 10.2 7.3 8.1 18.2 39.3 3.5 28.1 10.1 31.2 42.6 19.2

No access 65.9 83.8 81.2 84.4 78.1 11.1 96.1 55.2 3.9 61.7 14.4 80.8

Khomas Owns 31.3 11.2 58.6 24.4 8.9 35.6 10.8 61.0 97.3 0.8 0.8 0.2

112 305 Has access 21.7 8.0 9.1 19.8 8.2 23.5 13.7 10.0 0.7 4.6 4.1 5.0

No access 47.0 80.8 32.3 55.8 82.9 40.9 75.5 29.0 2.0 94.6 95.2 94.8

Kunene Owns 6.7 8.2 28.0 13.9 12.0 34.5 2.7 31.6 84.2 12.5 6.7 0.1

21 468 Has access 18.7 3.6 2.5 5.5 3.6 24.2 3.4 6.4 2.4 9.3 6.6 2.7

No access 74.7 88.2 69.4 80.6 84.5 41.3 93.9 62.0 13.4 78.2 86.7 97.2

Ohangwena Owns 6.4 9.2 12.9 12.0 6.7 63.9 0.2 16.8 94.1 1.1 38.6 0.6

48 487 Has access 63.0 21.2 19.1 22.6 35.4 23.6 7.6 22.7 4.0 4.7 27.0 41.2

No access 30.5 69.6 68.0 65.4 57.9 12.6 92.2 60.5 1.9 94.2 34.4 58.2

Omaheke Owns 8.4 6.0 27.2 13.3 11.8 46.2 5.2 37.2 86.1 12.6 1.9 1.0

19 639 Has access 15.4 5.6 14.9 21.2 3.0 20.2 12.3 13.3 3.6 13.1 3.5 5.5

No access 76.2 88.4 57.9 65.5 85.2 33.6 82.5 49.5 10.4 74.3 94.6 93.5

Omusati Owns 7.8 13.1 9.3 5.7 6.0 56.1 0.0 11.7 92.8 11.5 44.4 1.1

53 090 Has access 31.1 10.3 6.6 4.4 15.4 16.2 4.2 5.9 2.1 13.8 12.0 33.3

No access 61.1 76.6 84.1 89.9 78.6 27.8 95.8 82.4 5.0 74.7 43.7 65.6

Oshana Owns 19.1 10.7 25.2 17.3 7.0 61.1 1.7 32.9 97.7 4.6 10.5 0.6

45 331 Has access 46.3 8.6 10.3 15.8 13.0 17.9 7.7 11.8 0.8 5.2 8.7 29.6

No access 34.7 80.7 64.6 66.9 80.0 21.0 90.6 55.4 1.5 90.2 80.8 69.8

9. Ownership of and access to assets

Region
Owner
ship /
Access

Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/k
ni

tti
ng

ac
hi

Ra
di

Te
le

ph
on

Te
le

vi
si

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
nk

ey
c

ar
t/

O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Oshikoto Owns 8.1 4.5 19.2 9.0 5.2 59.6 1.0 21.1 93.9 11.2 39.3 0.4

41 411 Has access 24.9 6.9 11.8 26.0 5.4 20.2 7.7 10.9 2.4 15.6 14.3 37.3

No access 67.0 88.7 69.0 65.0 89.4 20.2 91.2 68.0 3.7 73.2 46.4 62.3

Otjozondjupa Owns 15.4 14.7 50.6 20.8 12.4 38.5 5.4 58.0 93.1 6.0 1.6 1.4

38 238 Has access 13.6 6.3 7.2 17.6 6.8 20.9 8.9 7.2 1.8 8.7 6.2 9.3

No access 71.0 79.1 42.2 61.6 80.8 40.7 85.7 34.8 5.1 85.2 92.2 89.3

Zambezi Owns 7.9 10.9 27.4 11.5 1.9 44.3 0.7 39.3 86.1 9.5 23.6 0.5

21 945 Has access 49.3 22.0 15.1 16.4 8.1 25.7 8.5 17.2 4.9 10.7 30.2 12.5

No access 42.8 67.2 57.6 72.1 89.9 30.0 90.8 43.5 8.9 79.8 46.2 87.0

The proportion of male-headed households owning or having access to assets was generally higher than that of female-
headed households, accept for owning sewing/knitting machines, cell phone, donkey/ox cart and plough. Table 9.1.2 indicates
that 46.7 percent of male-headed households own a radio compared to 44.1 percent of female-headed households. For
ownership of plough, 14.6 percent of male-headed households owned a plough compared to 14.6 percent of female-headed
households. The proportion of households that owned a cell phone for female-headed and male-headed households were
almost equal, with 93.6 percent and 93.1 percent respectively.

Table 9.1.2 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets, sex of head of household and urban/rural areas

Ar
ea

a
nd

S
ex

o
f

He
ad

o
f H

ou
se

ho
ld

O
w

ne
rs

hi
p

/A
cc

es
s Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/k
ni

tti
ng

ac
hi

Ra
di

Te
le

ph
on

Te
le

vi
si

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
nk

ey
/

O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Namibia

Female Owns 9.3 7.1 35.2 15.1 9.2 44.1 4.0 39.2 93.6 4.7 17.0 0.3

239 671 Has access 34.2 9.4 10.7 19.3 12.5 24.0 7.5 12.3 2.5 8.7 12.7 18.4

No access 56.5 83.5 54.1 65.6 78.3 31.8 88.5 48.6 3.9 86.6 70.3 81.3

Male Owns 21.1 13.7 39.9 19.9 6.8 46.7 5.6 45.2 93.1 7.0 14.6 0.8

304 781 Has access 28.3 10.4 10.0 18.6 9.8 23.4 10.3 11.4 2.5 9.4 10.2 14.4

No access 50.7 76.0 50.1 61.5 83.5 29.9 84.1 43.5 4.4 83.6 75.2 84.8

Both sexes Owns 15.9 10.8 37.8 17.8 7.8 45.6 4.9 42.5 93.3 6.0 15.7 0.6

544 655 Has access 30.9 10.0 10.3 18.9 11.0 23.7 9.1 11.8 2.5 9.1 11.3 16.2

No access 53.2 79.3 51.9 63.3 81.2 30.7 86.0 45.7 4.2 84.9 73.1 83.2

84
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Ar
ea

a
nd

S
ex

o
f

He
ad

o
f H

ou
se

ho
ld

O
w

ne
rs

hi
p

/A
cc

es
s Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/k
ni

tti
ng

ac
hi

Ra
di

Te
le

ph
on

Te
le

vi
si

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
nk

ey
/

O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Urban

Female Owns 14.7 7.4 58.4 22.4 11.2 36.6 7.4 63.0 96.4 1.6 1.5 0.1

123 641 Has access 29.6 7.1 11.4 25.9 9.4 25.9 11.3 11.6 1.2 4.2 4.8 5.5

No access 55.7 85.5 30.2 51.7 79.3 37.5 81.4 25.4 2.4 94.3 93.7 94.4

Male Owns 30.3 14.8 60.0 27.7 6.5 38.7 8.8 64.5 97.7 2.0 2.9 0.3

171 128 Has access 25.6 9.9 9.4 22.9 9.4 25.9 13.1 9.4 0.8 5.1 4.9 5.2

No access 44.1 75.3 30.6 49.4 84.2 35.4 78.0 26.2 1.6 92.9 92.2 94.5

Both sexes Owns 23.8 11.7 59.4 25.5 8.5 37.8 8.2 63.8 97.2 1.8 2.4 0.2

294 769 Has access 27.3 8.7 10.2 24.2 9.4 25.9 12.3 10.3 0.9 4.7 4.8 5.3

No access 49.0 79.6 30.4 50.3 82.2 36.3 79.4 25.9 1.9 93.5 92.8 94.5

Rural

Female Owns 3.6 6.7 10.4 7.4 7.0 52.2 0.4 13.8 90.7 8.0 33.5 0.5

116 030 Has access 39.1 11.9 10.1 12.2 15.8 22.0 3.5 13.0 3.8 13.5 21.1 32.3

No access 57.3 81.4 79.5 80.4 77.2 25.8 96.1 73.2 5.5 78.5 45.5 67.3

Male Owns 9.2 12.2 14.1 9.8 7.1 56.9 1.5 20.5 87.3 13.4 29.5 1.5

133 652 Has access 31.7 11.1 10.8 13.1 10.3 20.3 6.7 13.9 4.7 14.9 17.0 26.2

No access 59.2 76.7 75.1 77.1 82.5 22.8 91.8 65.6 8.0 71.7 53.5 72.3

Both sexes Owns 6.6 9.7 12.4 8.7 7.1 54.7 1.0 17.4 88.9 10.9 31.4 1.0

249 683 Has access 35.1 11.5 10.5 12.7 12.9 21.1 5.2 13.5 4.3 14.2 18.9 29.0

No access 58.3 78.9 77.2 78.6 80.1 24.2 93.8 69.1 6.8 74.9 49.8 70.0

Table 9.1.3 indicates differences of ownership of and access to assets across the main languages spoken in the households.
Households where the main language spoken is German reported 100 percent ownership of refrigerator, 87.7 percent
ownership of TV and 100 percent ownership of cell phone respectively. On the other hand, among the households where
the main language spoken is Khoisan the corresponding percentages were 6.9, 15.2 and 55.3 percent respectively.

Table 9.1.3 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets and main language spoken in households

M
ai

n
la

ng
ua

sp
ok

O
w

ne
rs

hi
p

/A
cc

es
s Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/
kn

itti
ng

ac
hi

Ra
di

Te
le

vi
si

Te
le

ph
on

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
n

ke
y

/O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Khoisan Owns 1.0 5.5 6.9 3.1 0.0 30.7 15.2 0.0 55.3 3.3 0.0 0.0

6 115 Has access 16.4 4.9 7.5 8.9 2.1 26.1 10.1 6.8 13.1 18.1 9.7 11.1

No access 82.7 89.6 85.6 88.0 97.9 43.2 74.8 93.2 31.5 78.6 90.3 89.0

9. Ownership of and access to assets

M
ai

n
la

ng
ua

sp
ok

O
w

ne
rs

hi
p

/A
cc

es
s Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/
kn

itti
ng

ac
hi

Ra
di

Te
le

vi
si

Te
le

ph
on

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
n

ke
y

/O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Zambezi languages Owns 12.4 11.1 35.1 11.4 1.6 42.2 46.6 1.2 89.4 8.2 22.2 0.2

23 414 Has access 45.0 19.7 13.7 19.3 8.1 27.1 14.7 9.9 3.7 8.3 26.7 12.7

No access 42.5 69.2 51.2 69.3 90.3 30.7 38.7 88.9 6.8 83.5 51.1 87.1

Otjiherero Owns 9.2 5.9 38.8 15.7 16.7 36.4 44.0 3.6 89.8 10.5 4.4 0.4

49 546 Has access 22.8 5.0 7.4 16.8 7.0 26.6 9.1 7.7 2.8 11.3 6.0 4.9

No access 68.0 89.2 53.8 67.5 76.3 37.0 46.9 88.7 7.4 78.2 89.6 94.7

Rukavango Owns 4.9 5.5 20.7 7.8 2.8 39.5 28.2 1.7 86.4 2.4 20.5 0.1

50 307 Has access 27.7 16.9 13.3 17.4 12.4 32.4 24.1 9.7 7.2 21.7 30.4 12.6

No access 67.4 77.5 66.0 74.8 84.8 28.0 47.7 88.5 6.4 76.0 49.1 87.3

Nama/Damara Owns 11.7 11.2 48.7 21.2 10.9 37.8 60.5 3.8 90.5 12.2 0.4 0.1

63 208 Has access 25.6 5.2 9.1 17.9 4.2 25.7 7.2 9.5 3.1 7.0 1.6 4.6

No access 62.7 83.6 42.2 60.9 84.8 36.5 32.3 86.6 6.4 80.7 98.0 95.4

Oshiwambo Owns 12.6 9.4 27.5 13.8 5.4 52.5 30.6 1.5 96.2 5.0 23.7 0.6

280 225 Has access 35.3 10.9 11.7 19.0 14.7 19.9 12.8 7.5 1.5 8.2 12.0 25.0

No access 52.1 79.6 60.8 67.2 79.9 27.6 56.7 91.0 2.3 86.7 64.3 74.4

Setswana Owns 7.9 6.2 51.2 12.4 5.1 58.8 56.5 10.3 88.6 14.3 0.0 0.0

1 311 Has access 31.1 2.0 10.1 20.9 7.9 12.9 7.1 23.1 0.0 10.0 3.3 6.3

No access 60.9 91.8 38.7 66.7 87.0 28.3 36.4 66.6 11.4 75.7 96.7 93.8

Afrikaans Owns 44.4 23.1 87.4 47.2 18.1 37.3 85.7 24.8 97.0 3.5 0.6 1.3

40 334 Has access 23.5 4.3 3.8 23.1 5.4 34.7 4.3 15.3 0.9 3.7 2.3 2.6

No access 32.1 72.6 8.8 29.7 76.5 28.0 10.0 59.9 2.1 92.8 97.1 96.2

German Owns 76.0 43.6 100.0 57.8 41.2 82.0 87.7 72.1 100.0 0.0 1.4 6.0

2 099 Has access 6.6 2.8 0.0 22.3 3.2 10.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 2.3 2.8 3.6

No access 17.5 53.5 0.0 19.9 55.6 8.0 10.9 26.5 0.0 97.7 95.7 90.4

English Owns 65.7 23.9 86.2 36.8 10.0 35.3 85.6 25.7 98.2 1.3 0.5 1.9

7 815 Has access 17.1 7.6 5.1 32.8 4.4 27.4 5.5 15.9 1.3 2.7 3.1 5.1

No access 17.3 68.5 8.6 30.3 85.6 37.3 9.0 58.4 0.6 96.0 96.5 93.0

Other European Owns 32.7 6.7 76.9 13.9 0.6 12.8 75.8 5.5 94.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

3 054 Has access 31.2 4.0 8.1 20.4 1.4 5.8 5.8 8.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 5.6

No access 36.1 89.3 15.0 65.7 98.0 81.4 18.4 85.6 3.5 100.0 100.0 94.4

Other African Owns 41.0 23.3 69.2 32.1 13.5 41.6 75.9 14.4 93.8 4.4 3.0 1.7

6 032 Has access 19.7 9.1 8.0 23.8 6.5 12.7 3.3 12.3 0.4 6.3 1.9 3.0

No access 39.3 67.6 22.8 44.1 79.9 45.7 20.8 73.3 5.8 89.3 95.1 95.3

Other Owns 49.7 23.9 76.0 40.8 5.5 39.8 81.4 22.1 96.8 2.1 3.8 2.7

11 194 Has access 24.4 12.0 7.8 15.5 9.4 18.2 4.2 20.1 0.8 2.7 2.5 7.0

No access 25.9 64.1 16.2 43.7 85.1 42.0 14.4 57.2 2.5 94.7 93.7 90.4

86
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

M
ai

n
la

ng
ua

sp
ok

O
w

ne
rs

hi
p

/A
cc

es
s Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/
kn

itti
ng

ac
hi

Ra
di

Te
le

vi
si

Te
le

ph
on

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
n

ke
y

/O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Namibia Owns 15.9 10.8 37.8 17.8 7.8 45.6 42.5 4.9 93.3 6.0 15.7 0.6

544 655 Has access 30.9 10.0 10.3 18.9 11.0 23.7 11.8 9.1 2.5 9.1 11.3 16.2

No access 53.2 79.3 51.9 63.3 81.2 30.7 45.7 86.0 4.2 84.9 73.1 83.2

Table 9.1.4 indicates ownership or access to selected assets by household composition and orphan-hood. Generally,
ownership of a cell phone, TV and radio was more common in all households irrespective of household composition and
orphan-hood status compared to other assets.

Table 9.1.4 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets, household composition and orphan-hood

Ho
us

eh
ol

d
Co

m
po

si
tio

O
w

ne
rs

hi
p

/A
cc

es
s

Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g/

k
ni

tti
ng

m
ac

hi
ne

Ra
di

Te
le

vi
si

Te
le

ph
on

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
n

ke
y/

O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

With only head or head and spouse Owns 14.6 6.7 39.2 14.7 4.7 40.8 41.4 4.9 90.0 4.5 6.2 0.8

126 038 Has access 30.3 8.8 12.8 23.8 8.6 24.8 12.3 10.5 3.9 7.7 7.4 10.7

No access 55.1 84.4 48.1 61.5 86.7 34.3 46.4 84.6 6.1 87.8 86.4 88.6

With 1 child, no relatives/ non-

relative
Owns 20.4 10.1 45.1 18.2 7.8 40.0 50.8 5.7 94.1 3.0 6.4 0.5

51 116 Has access 28.5 7.7 12.4 24.4 11.5 26.1 11.6 12.7 2.1 9.1 10.8 12.1

No access 51.1 82.2 42.5 57.4 80.7 33.9 37.6 81.5 3.8 87.8 82.8 87.4

With 2+ children, no relatives/ non-

relative
Owns 20.1 17.3 43.9 24.8 6.7 41.6 49.6 7.4 92.1 4.9 13.1 0.4

74 715 Has access 29.5 9.5 6.9 15.3 10.8 27.5 10.1 9.1 3.1 9.2 13.9 11.2

No access 50.3 73.2 49.3 60.0 82.5 31.0 40.3 83.5 4.9 85.9 73.0 88.4

With relatives, no non-relatives Owns 13.2 10.1 34.1 16.2 9.4 48.7 39.9 4.0 94.5 7.1 20.9 0.4

221 029 Has access 32.9 11.3 9.3 16.3 12.1 23.0 12.2 7.6 2.1 10.1 13.1 20.6

No access 54.0 78.6 56.6 67.4 78.5 28.4 47.9 88.3 3.4 82.7 66.0 79.0

With non-relatives Owns 19.0 13.5 35.3 20.3 9.5 52.5 39.3 4.6 96.4 8.4 25.2 0.9

71 758 Has access 28.7 9.9 11.4 18.1 11.8 18.3 11.4 8.3 0.9 8.2 10.1 20.5

No access 52.4 76.6 53.3 61.5 78.7 29.1 49.3 87.1 2.8 83.3 64.7 78.7

9. Ownership of and access to assets

Ho
us

eh
ol

d
Co

m
po

si
tio

O
w

ne
rs

hi
p

/A
cc

es
s

Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g/

k
ni

tti
ng

m
ac

hi
ne

Ra
di

Te
le

vi
si

Te
le

ph
on

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
n

ke
y/

O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Namibia Owns 15.9 10.8 37.8 17.8 7.8 45.6 42.5 4.9 93.3 6.0 15.7 0.6

544 655 Has access 30.9 10.0 10.3 18.9 11.0 23.7 11.8 9.1 2.5 9.1 11.3 16.2

No access 53.2 79.3 51.9 63.3 81.2 30.7 45.7 86.0 4.2 84.9 73.1 83.2

Household does not have an
orphan

Owns 16.8 10.8 39.7 18.2 7.5 44.2 44.2 5.3 93.3 5.5 13.0 0.6

458 058 Has access 30.0 9.5 10.3 19.6 10.3 24.3 11.4 9.6 2.5 8.6 10.3 14.2

No access 53.2 79.7 50.1 62.2 82.3 31.5 44.4 85.1 4.3 85.9 76.6 85.3

Household has an orphan Owns 11.0 10.6 28.1 15.5 9.7 52.8 33.5 3.0 93.8 8.4 29.5 0.5

86 596 Has access 35.5 12.5 10.7 15.4 14.7 20.3 13.9 6.4 2.4 11.7 16.2 27.0

No access 53.5 76.9 61.2 69.2 75.6 26.9 52.6 90.5 3.8 79.7 54.4 72.5

Table 9.1.5 indicates that households which reported the main source of income as commercial farming had the highest
proportions owning assets except, radio, donkey/ox cart and plough. On the other hand, households whose main source of
income is drought/in-kind receipts had the lowest proportions of ownership of all assets. As shown in Table 9.1.5, cell phone
is owned by most households regardless of their source of income.

Table 9.1.5 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets and main source of income

M
ai

n
So

ur
ce

o
f I

nc
om

O
w

ne
rs

hi
p

/
Ac

ce
ss

Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/
kn

itti
ng

m
ac

hi
ne

Ra
di

Te
le

vi
si

Te
le

ph
on

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
nk

ey
/

O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Salaries & wages Owns 20.8 11.8 51.6 22.6 6.8 39.1 57.7 5.7 96.1 3.3 5.0 0.4

291 674 Has access 28.5 9.1 11.0 23.4 9.7 26.3 10.7 13.0 1.4 7.0 8.0 9.5

No access 50.7 79.2 37.4 54.0 83.5 34.6 31.6 81.3 2.5 89.7 87.0 90.1

Pension Owns 6.8 8.3 16.7 8.8 10.9 63.8 19.2 3.9 86.9 12.2 35.9 0.5

59 988 Has access 38.7 11.9 7.7 11.3 14.6 17.2 12.4 4.4 5.0 9.9 14.6 31.9

No access 54.5 79.8 75.5 79.9 74.6 19.1 68.5 91.7 8.2 77.9 49.6 67.6

88
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

M
ai

n
So

ur
ce

o
f I

nc
om

O
w

ne
rs

hi
p

/
Ac

ce
ss

Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/
kn

itti
ng

m
ac

hi
ne

Ra
di

Te
le

vi
si

Te
le

ph
on

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
nk

ey
/

O
x

ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Subsistence farming Owns 4.6 11.4 4.9 4.9 8.1 60.6 6.8 0.4 91.0 15.4 53.3 0.3

58 003 Has access 27.6 11.6 6.2 6.0 12.6 16.4 9.6 3.0 3.5 18.3 17.2 31.6

No access 67.9 77.0 88.9 89.2 79.3 22.9 83.5 96.6 5.5 66.3 29.5 68.1

Business income Owns 23.7 13.1 40.1 22.8 9.5 47.0 46.6 5.3 96.3 4.5 11.1 0.8

49 493 Has access 30.6 10.8 11.7 21.1 9.8 21.9 13.6 8.3 1.6 7.5 10.1 13.4

No access 45.7 76.1 48.2 56.2 80.7 31.2 39.8 86.4 2.1 88.0 78.8 85.8

Remittances/ grants Owns 6.5 6.2 25.3 10.9 6.1 45.7 27.1 1.9 92.4 5.1 18.6 0.8

52 390 Has access 40.5 11.7 13.6 19.4 15.2 25.6 16.5 3.7 3.2 9.7 16.3 23.0

No access 53.0 82.1 61.1 69.7 78.7 28.7 56.4 94.4 4.4 85.2 65.1 76.3

Drought/ in-kind receipts Owns 0.7 5.9 5.0 1.8 1.4 31.0 9.3 0.0 68.9 6.6 11.4 0.0

14 747 Has access 25.7 5.0 8.7 8.3 9.4 30.2 13.0 1.5 9.7 11.2 21.8 11.5

No access 73.6 89.1 86.3 89.9 89.2 38.8 77.7 98.5 21.3 82.2 66.9 88.5

Commercial farming Owns 24.8 20.2 77.2 78.4 40.0 42.7 77.5 48.7 97.3 8.5 12.1 34.8

1 830 Has access 27.6 8.8 0.0 2.2 0.8 20.0 5.1 5.1 0.0 11.7 6.3 22.7

No access 47.6 71.0 22.8 19.4 59.2 37.3 17.3 46.2 2.7 79.8 81.6 42.5

Others Owns 21.8 10.0 44.5 25.3 15.4 49.2 47.4 18.3 92.2 4.3 6.6 1.1

16 529 Has access 30.0 9.7 11.3 16.0 7.5 21.4 15.6 4.6 3.4 10.9 15.5 13.0

No access 48.2 80.3 44.3 58.8 77.1 29.3 37.1 75.9 4.4 83.6 77.9 86.0

Total Owns 15.9 10.8 37.8 17.8 7.8 45.6 42.5 4.9 93.3 6.0 15.7 0.6

544 655 Has access 30.9 10.0 10.3 18.9 11.0 23.7 11.8 9.1 2.5 9.1 11.3 16.2

No access 53.2 79.3 51.9 63.3 81.2 30.7 45.7 86.0 4.2 84.9 73.1 83.2

The proportions of households owning assets increased with the increase in income of households as reflected in Table 9.1.6,
except for donkey/ox cart and plough.

9. Ownership of and access to assets

Table 9.1.6 Households by ownership of/access to selected assets, after adjusted per capita income

Pe
rc

en
til

es
/

de
ci

le
s

O
w

ne
rs

hi
p

/A
cc

es
s

Selected Assets, %
M

ot
or

v
eh

ic
le

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/k
ni

tti
ng

ac
hi

Ra
di

Te
le

vi
si

Te
le

ph
on

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
nk

ey
/

O
x

Ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Percentiles

1-25 Owns 2.2 7.2 8.5 3.6 4.7 45.5 12.9 0.4 85.1 8.4 21.9 0.0

87 593 Has access 30.3 10.7 8.6 8.1 9.7 22.2 14.8 3.8 5.3 12.5 19.9 17.8

No access 67.5 82.1 82.9 88.3 85.5 32.3 72.3 95.8 9.7 79.0 58.2 82.3

26-50 Owns 4.6 8.8 17.2 9.3 6.7 50.2 22.7 0.6 91.9 7.8 24.2 0.2

112 869 Has access 34.2 12.1 11.0 14.9 12.6 21.1 13.5 5.2 3.3 11.2 12.9 21.8

No access 61.2 79.1 71.8 75.9 80.7 28.7 63.8 94.2 4.8 81.0 62.9 78.0

51-75 Owns 9.7 9.3 32.9 14.7 7.5 46.6 39.0 2.0 93.6 6.3 16.0 0.6

143 590 Has access 34.1 10.5 12.3 20.2 12.3 23.6 13.4 8.0 2.4 9.2 11.4 17.4

No access 56.3 80.2 54.8 65.2 80.2 29.9 47.7 89.9 4.0 84.5 72.6 82.0

76-90 Owns 20.7 10.6 54.3 23.2 7.8 42.4 59.0 4.7 97.2 4.4 9.7 0.5

110 129 Has access 30.9 8.9 11.6 27.8 10.1 25.8 10.5 12.4 1.2 7.3 7.4 13.8

No access 48.4 80.5 34.2 48.9 82.1 31.7 30.5 82.9 1.7 88.2 82.9 85.7

91-95 Owns 38.5 16.2 75.9 34.6 8.8 40.1 77.5 12.4 98.2 2.9 5.9 0.7

43 761 Has access 25.0 6.6 7.5 20.4 9.4 25.7 6.9 16.5 0.5 5.6 5.6 8.8

No access 36.6 77.2 16.6 45.0 81.8 34.2 15.6 71.1 1.2 91.5 88.4 90.4

96-98 Owns 46.6 19.2 83.0 41.6 15.1 44.1 85.0 23.3 98.1 3.2 4.8 1.9

26 640 Has access 24.4 7.4 5.2 25.4 8.8 26.1 4.1 18.8 0.2 6.2 6.9 8.7

No access 29.0 73.4 11.8 33.0 76.2 29.8 11.0 57.9 1.7 90.5 88.3 89.4

99-100 Owns 66.7 25.5 83.9 51.8 17.5 44.0 85.2 30.1 97.8 2.1 5.8 3.6

20 074 Has access 13.3 7.3 6.3 19.0 9.2 26.3 5.4 14.4 1.2 2.4 2.8 8.5

No access 19.9 67.2 9.8 29.2 73.3 29.8 9.5 55.5 1.0 95.5 91.5 87.9

Deciles

Decile 1 Owns 1.1 6.1 4.1 2.3 4.0 41.1 8.1 0.1 79.5 7.4 14.4 0.0

31 989 Has access 25.0 10.6 10.0 7.4 7.0 22.0 18.5 4.2 6.8 12.4 22.0 12.6

No access 73.9 83.3 85.9 90.4 89.0 36.9 73.5 95.4 13.8 80.0 63.6 87.5

Decile 2 Owns 3.0 8.0 9.4 4.3 4.9 46.9 14.5 0.5 88.0 9.6 25.6 0.0

35 778 Has access 32.8 10.8 7.6 7.3 10.6 21.1 12.9 4.1 4.2 12.3 18.9 19.9

No access 64.2 81.3 83.0 88.4 84.5 32.1 72.6 95.4 7.8 78.1 55.5 80.2

Decile 3 Owns 3.5 8.6 12.6 5.6 5.1 52.5 16.9 0.4 89.9 8.8 28.8 0.0

40 259 Has access 32.7 9.2 9.6 12.0 12.2 22.3 12.9 2.9 3.7 13.5 16.1 22.7

No access 63.9 82.2 77.8 82.4 82.7 25.2 70.2 96.7 6.4 77.7 55.1 77.3

90
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Pe
rc

en
til

es
/

de
ci

le
s

O
w

ne
rs

hi
p

/A
cc

es
s

Selected Assets, %

M
ot

or
v

eh
ic

Bi
cy

cl
e

Re
fr

ig
er

at
or

Fr
ee

ze
r

Se
w

in
g

/k
ni

tti
ng

ac
hi

Ra
di

Te
le

vi
si

Te
le

ph
on

Ce
llp

ho
ne

Do
nk

ey
/

O
x

Ca
rt

Pl
ou

Tr
ac

to
r

Decile 4 Owns 4.0 8.5 17.2 8.2 6.4 50.5 24.1 0.8 92.2 8.3 25.8 0.4

43 191 Has access 35.4 14.3 11.8 14.9 13.5 19.6 13.7 4.8 3.4 10.4 12.9 20.2

No access 60.6 77.1 71.0 76.9 80.2 29.9 62.3 94.4 4.4 81.3 61.3 79.4

Decile 5 Owns 5.3 8.8 19.7 11.3 8.0 48.0 24.4 0.5 92.0 6.5 20.3 0.2

49 244 Has access 34.4 11.9 10.1 15.5 12.1 22.9 13.4 6.3 3.5 10.7 12.5 22.6

No access 60.3 79.3 70.2 73.2 79.9 29.1 62.3 93.1 4.6 82.7 67.3 77.3

Decile 6 Owns 7.0 8.7 25.8 11.6 6.6 45.4 33.1 1.1 92.6 7.0 18.2 0.7

53 298 Has access 32.5 11.2 11.4 17.6 11.4 23.4 12.8 5.6 2.8 10.0 12.8 19.9

No access 60.5 80.1 62.8 70.7 82.0 31.2 54.1 93.3 4.7 83.0 69.0 79.5

Decile 7 Owns 10.5 9.5 35.4 14.2 9.0 49.3 40.2 1.9 93.8 5.7 15.3 0.5

57 720 Has access 35.7 10.1 13.3 23.1 14.2 21.5 14.1 9.0 2.1 8.0 10.1 14.7

No access 53.8 80.4 51.4 62.7 76.8 29.2 45.7 89.0 4.0 86.1 74.6 84.8

Decile 8 Owns 14.4 10.4 43.7 20.3 6.4 43.2 49.6 2.8 96.0 4.8 12.0 0.3

67 332 Has access 32.9 9.4 11.5 23.9 10.8 27.4 11.0 10.7 1.7 9.1 11.3 16.9

No access 52.7 80.2 44.9 55.8 82.7 29.5 39.3 86.4 2.3 86.1 76.8 82.8

Decile 9 Owns 22.8 10.4 57.5 24.6 8.4 42.4 61.9 6.1 97.3 4.8 9.5 0.6

75 369 Has access 30.4 9.0 12.0 27.5 9.7 25.1 11.1 12.8 1.1 6.9 5.7 13.0

No access 46.8 80.6 30.5 47.9 81.9 32.5 27.0 81.2 1.6 88.3 84.9 86.4

Decile 10 Owns 47.1 19.2 79.8 40.5 12.6 42.1 81.4 19.5 98.1 2.8 5.6 1.7

90 475 Has access 22.2 7.0 6.6 21.6 9.2 26.0 5.8 16.7 0.6 5.1 5.4 8.7

No access 30.6 73.9 13.7 37.9 78.3 31.9 12.9 63.8 1.3 92.1 89.1 89.6

Figure 9.1.1 shows the proportion of households that owned a radio had increased from 65 percent in 1993/1994, to 71
percent in 2003/2004 and to 72 percent in 2009/2010, however dropped to 42 percent in 2015/2016. Over the period
2009/2010 to 2015/2016, the proportion of households that owned a telephone (landline) had dropped tremendously, from
56 percent to 4.9 percent as shown by Figure 9.1.2, while the proportion of households owning motor vehicles had declined
between 1993/1994 and 2015/2016 from 20 percent to 16 percent (Figure 9.1.3).

9. Ownership of and access to assets

Figure 9.1.1 Percentage of households that own a radio by region and urban/rural, 1993/1994, 2003/2004-2009/2010,
2015-2016

Figure 9.1.2 Percentage of households that own a telephone by region and urban/rural, 1993/1994, 2003/2004,
2009/2010, 2015/2016

92
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Figure 9.1.3 Percentage of households that own a motor vehicle by region and urban/rural, 1993/1994, 2003/2004-
2009/2010, 2015-2016

9. Ownership of and access to assets

10. Annual Consumption
This chapter reports on the key results from the NHIES relating to the consumption of households. These results provide a
picture of the living standard of households as expressed in patterns of consumption. The results show general increases in
the levels of consumption of Namibian households over the past five years with some differences. For instance, urban areas
have notably higher consumption pattern compared to rural areas. Similarly, male-headed households generally have higher
consumption compared to female-headed households. Moreover, there are sizeable differences in levels of consumption
when it comes to the main language spoken in the household. The level of consumption of the poorest households has
improved over the period, indicating a slight closing of the gap between the poorest and the richest households, resulting in
the reduction of inequality in income distribution. Notwithstanding these improvements, inequality in income distribution in
Namibia remains among the highest in the world.

Definitions of consumption
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 members 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.

Use 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 equal 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 than A to F. The number of households in
equal 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.

94
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

10. Annual Consumption

10.1Annual Consumption
Annual consumption in this report is described using the total household consumption, average household consumption
and the consumption per capita indicators presented in Namibia Dollars (N$). Some important household characteristics are
used as the background information to disaggregate the results. In all tables, households and population in percentage are
included for ease of reference along with household size.

Table 10.1.1 shows that the estimated total consumption in the Namibian households over the survey period was about
N$64 849 million or N$64 billion. The average annual consumption and the per capita consumption were found to be N$119
065 and N$28 434 respectively. Contribution of the urban households towards the total consumption was roughly double
that of the rural households. There were large differences between the urban and rural areas showing the wide disparities
that still exists. Average consumption of urban households (N$150 692) was almost double while the consumption per capita
was more than double those of rural households respectively.

At regional level, the highest per capita consumption was in the Khomas region followed by Erongo and the lowest was
observed in Kavango West and Kavango East regions. Kavango West, Kavango East and Zambezi regions had about half the
national average of consumption per capita while only about one fifth that of Khomas region. Although Kunene, Ohangwena,
Omaheke, Omusati, Oshikoto and Otjozondjupa regions had a higher consumption per capita compared to Kavango West
and Kavango East regions, they were still below the national average and had only about one fourth of the Khomas region.

Table 10.1.1 Annual consumption by region and urban/rural areas

Region
Households Population

Average
Household size

Total Consumption
Average household

consumption
Consumption

per capita

% % Million N$ % N$ N$

Namibia 100 100 4.2 64 849 100 119 065 28 434

Urban 54.1 46.9 3.6 44 428 68.5 150 692 41 575

Rural 45.9 53.1 4.9 20 421 31.5 81 742 16 848

!Karas 4.3 3.7 3.6 2 754 4.2 116 875 32 760

Erongo 10.7 7.7 3.0 7 518 11.6 128 617 42 752

Hardap 3.8 3.8 4.1 3 055 4.7 146 157 35 675

Kavango East 4.6 6.4 5.8 1 767 2.7 69 844 12 091

Kavango West 2.7 3.9 6.1 1 065 1.6 73 358 12 006

Khomas 20.6 17.5 3.6 23 534 36.3 209 555 58 807

Kunene 3.9 4.2 4.5 1 344 2.1 62 612 14 059

Ohangwena 8.9 11.1 5.2 4 581 7.1 94 482 18 082

Omaheke 3.6 3.2 3.8 1 554 2.4 79 140 20 992

Omusati 9.7 10.9 4.7 3 599 5.5 67 792 14 484

Oshana 8.3 8.2 4.1 5 327 8.2 117 508 28 541

Oshikoto 7.6 8.4 4.6 3 725 5.7 89 944 19 352

Otjozondjupa 7.0 6.7 4.0 3 816 5.9 99 805 25 051

Zambezi 4.0 4.3 4.4 1 209 1.9 55 112 12 446

10. Annual Consumption

Figure 10.1.1 clearly shows the share of the households and their contributions towards the total consumption for each of
the regions. The households in Khomas region contributed a much larger component to the total consumption compared
to all other regions and the consumption share was also much larger than the share of the households. Erongo and Hardap
were the only other regions where the consumption share exceeded the population share but with a lesser extent compared
to Khomas region. Most of the other regions had much larger share of households but smaller contributions towards the
total consumption, except !Karas and Oshana regions with an almost equal consumption share and population share.

Figure 10.1.1 Annual household consumption by region

Total consumption of the male-headed households in Namibia is about 63 percent, which was almost double the contribution
of the female-headed households. A similar pattern could be observed in urban areas with 66.2 percent for the male-headed
households against 33.8 percent for female-headed households. Average household consumption and the consumption per
capita of the female-headed households in urban areas were also lower than the male-headed households, N$121 456 and
N$32 251 compared to N$171 807 and N$48 775, respectively.

Table 10.1.2 Annual consumption by urban/rural areas and sex of head of household

Urban/Rural
Sex of head

Households Population
Average

Household size
Total Consumption

Average household
consumption

Consumption
per capita

% % Million N$ % N$ N$

Namibia

Female 44.0 47.2 4.5 23 824 36.7 99 343 22 119

Male 56.0 52.8 3.9 41 025 63.3 134 580 34 085

Both sexes 100 100 4.2 64 849 100 119 065 28 434

96
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Urban/Rural
Sex of head

Households Population
Average

Household size
Total Consumption

Average household
consumption

Consumption
per capita

% % Million N$ % N$ N$

Urban

Female 41.9 43.6 3.8 15 017 33.8 121 456 32 251

Male 58.1 56.4 3.5 29 411 66.2 171 807 48 775

Both sexes 100 100 3.6 44 428 100 150 692 41 575

Rural

Female 46.5 50.4 5.3 8 807 43.1 75 808 14 403

Male 53.5 49.6 4.5 11 614 56.9 86 899 19 337

Both sexes 100 100 4.9 20 421 100 81 742 16 848

There was very high variation in the household consumption by the main language spoken in the household. Per capita
consumption of the households where the main Language spoken is Rukavango and Khoisan were the lowest with N$13
274 and N$7 088, respectively. Households where the main language spoken were German and English reported the highest
consumption per capita of N$199 330 and N$133 256, respectively. Households where German was the main language spoken
had a consumption per capita which is 28 times higher than that of Khoisan-spoken households and about 8 times higher than
the Oshiwambo-spoken households.

The population share of the households where German is the main language spoken was 0.2 percent while for Rukavango or
Khoisan households was 11.8 and 1.5 percent, respectively. Households where the main language spoken is Oshiwambo had
the highest population share of 50.8 percent and a consumption per capita of N$23 626, which was still below the national
average.

Table 10.1.3 Annual consumption by main language spoken in the household

Main language
spoken

Households Population
Average

Household size
Total Consumption

Average household
consumption

Consumption
per capita

% % Million N$ % N$ N$

Khoisan 1.1 1.5 5.6 242 0.4 39 606 7 088

Zambezi languages 4.3 4.2 4.1 1 590 2.5 67 928 16 489

Otjiherero 9.1 8.9 4.1 5 016 7.7 101 231 24 827

Rukavango 9.2 11.8 5.4 3 573 5.5 71 021 13 274

Nama/Damara 11.6 12 4.3 5 938 9.2 93 948 21 661

Oshiwambo 51.5 50.8 4.1 27 369 42.2 97 669 23 626

Setswana 0.2 0.2 2.7 126 0.2 96 116 35 966

Afrikaans 7.4 6.3 3.6 10 422 16.1 258 406 72 017

German 0.4 0.2 2.4 1 014 1.6 483 059 199 330

English 1.4 1.1 3.1 3 204 4.9 409 955 133 256

Other European 0.6 0.4 3.0 826 1.3 270 465 89 087

Other African 1.1 0.7 2.8 1 316 2 218 232 79 018

Others 2.1 1.9 3.8 4 212 6.5 376 276 97 793

Total 100 100 4.2 64 849 100 119 065 28 434

10. Annual Consumption

Households that reported commercial farming as the main source of income had the highest average household consumption
and consumption per capita of N$478 749 and N$132 016 (Table 10.1.4), respectively. Furthermore, households where the
subsistence farming is the main source of income had a low per capita consumption of N$13 836. The population share of
the commercial farming households was very low, (0.3 percent) and they also had a low average household size of 3.6, while
those for the subsistence farming households were 14.2 percent and 5.6 percent, respectively. The households who reported
salaries and wages as their main source of income had the highest population share of 45.1 percent and contributes 59.4
percent towards total consumption with a consumption per capita of N$37 399.

Households whose main source of income is business activities (non-farming) and others had a higher consumption per capita
than the national average. The households who reported any of the remaining categories as their main source of income
had low consumption per capita than the national average of N$28 434. Among this group the highest population share of
15.4 percent was observed for the households with pension as the main source of income but having a low consumption per
capita of N$14 990.

Table 10.1.4 Annual consumption by main source of income

Main source of
income

Households Population
Average

Household size
Total Consumption

Average household
consumption

Consumption
per capita

% % Million N$ % N$ N$

Salaries & wages 53.6 45.1 3.5 38 499 59.4 131 993 37 399

Pension 11.0 15.4 5.9 5 282 8.1 88 045 14 990

Subsistence farming 10.6 14.2 5.6 4 492 6.9 77 447 13 836

Business income 9.1 9.4 4.3 7 767 12 156 930 36 141

Remittances/grants 9.6 10.1 4.4 4 655 7.2 88 850 20 180

Drought/in-kind

receipts
2.7 2.6 4.1 653 1 44 280 10 885

Commercial farming 0.3 0.3 3.6 876 1.4 478 749 132 016

Others 3.0 2.7 3.8 2 626 4 158 854 42 298

Total 100 100 4.2 64 849 100 119 065 28 434

Households are classified into percentile groups and deciles based on the adjusted per capita income (APCI) as indicated in
Table 10.1.5. 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 revealed the disparities that exist among the Namibian households with regard
to the distribution of household consumption, which is skewed to the right. The 25 percent of the households in the first
percentile group 1-25 which had on the average 6 to 7 persons, contributed 3.7 percent to the total consumption. The 2
percent of the households in the last percentile group had only 2 to 3 persons in the household and their contribution to
the total consumption is 22.7 percent, which was more than six times the first group even though the population share
of the first group was about 16 percent. The average household consumption of the first percentile group was N$27 301
compared to the N$733 245 of the last group which was about 26 times larger. Disparity becomes even more evident when
consumption per capita is considered when N$4 194 of the first group is compared against the N$322 808 of the second
group which was about 75 times higher.

Deciles also revealed a similar picture where the 10th decile has a per capita consumption of N$142 637 compared to the
N$2 566 of the first decile which was about 55 times higher.

98
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 10.1.5 Annual consumption by percentile group and deciles after adjusted per capita income

Percentile
group/deciles

Households Population
Average

Household size
Total Consumption

Average household
consumption

Consumption
per capita

% % Million N$ % N$ N$

Percentiles

1-25 25.0 16.1 6.5 2 391 3.7 27 301 4 194

26-50 25.0 20.7 5.1 5 436 8.4 48 160 9 533

51-75 25.0 26.4 4.0 10 847 16.7 75 540 19 017

76-90 15.0 20.2 3.1 13 646 21 123 911 39 912

91-95 5.0 8.0 2.6 8 863 13.7 202 523 77 670

96-98 3.0 4.9 2.6 8 948 13.8 335 875 130 903

99-100 2.0 3.7 2.3 14 719 22.7 733 245 322 808

Total 100 100 4.2 64 849 100 119 065 28 434

Deciles

1 10 5.9 7.1 585 0.9 18 299 2 566

2 10 6.6 6.4 1 087 1.7 30 377 4 766

3 10 7.4 5.7 1 530 2.4 38 013 6 704

4 10 7.9 5.3 2 030 3.1 46 995 8 891

5 10 9.0 4.6 2 595 4 52 693 11 397

6 10 9.8 4.3 3 379 5.2 63 403 14 801

7 10 10.6 4.0 4 555 7 78 910 19 959

8 10 12.4 3.4 6 371 9.8 94 622 27 978

9 10 13.8 3.0 10 188 15.7 135 176 44 673

10 10 16.6 2.5 32 529 50.2 359 540 142 637

Figure 10.1.2 presents a comparison of monthly per capita consumption since 2003/2004 and it shows that the monthly per
capita consumption had increased over the years, from N$900 in 2003/2004 to N$2 213 in 2015/2016.

Figure 10.1.2 Monthly per capita consumption (N$), 2003/2004 to 2015/2016

2003/2004 2009/2010 2015/2016

10. Annual Consumption

11. Distribution of annual
consumption

Tables in this chapter are about distribution of consumption of selected consumption groups. Food consumption ratio and
type of transaction show relationships with various household characteristics such as household composition, orphan-hood
and income.

11.1Consumption Groups
Table 11.1.1 shows that households in Namibia spent 36.3 percent of their total expenditure on food and beverages (including
alcoholic beverages and tobacco), 31.8 percent on housing, 7.5 percent on transport and communication and 10.8 percent
of consumption on other goods and services. The category other includes recreation, culture, accommodation services
and miscellaneous goods and services. As it was demonstrated during the NHIES 2003/04 and NHIES 2009/2010 surveys
data, Education and Health continued to make up a very small proportion of total household consumption with 2.6 percent
and 1.6 percent respectively, while the proportion of consumption on clothing and footwear reported was 4.2 percent.

It was also observed that urban households continued to spend a smaller proportion of their consumption on food and
beverages (26.9 percent) than rural households (56.6 percent). Nevertheless, urban households tend to spend a large
proportion of their consumption on housing (35.4 percent), a trend observed in 2003/04 and 2009/2010.

The higher proportion of food consumption, between 48 percent and 64 percent, was observed in Omusati, Kavango West,
Ohangwena, Oshikoto, Kunene and Oshana regions. High proportion of consumption on housing, between 37 percent and
39 percent were observed in the regions of Erongo, Hardap and Khomas.

Table 11.1.1 Annual consumption by consumption group, region and urban/rural areas

Region
Urban/Rural

Annual consumption, % Total household
consumption

Average household
consumption

Fo
od

a
nd

ve
ra

ge
s

Ho
us

in
g

Cl
ot

hi
ng

a
nd

ot
w

ea
r

He
al

Ed
uc

ati
on

Fu
rn

is
hi

ng
a

eq
ui

pm
en

Tr
an

sp
or

t a
nd

m
m

un
ic

ati
on

O
th

To
ta

Million N$ N$

Namibia 36.3 31.8 4.2 1.6 2.6 5.3 7.5 10.8 100 64 849 119 065

Urban 26.9 35.4 4.8 2.0 3.2 5.7 8.9 13.0 100 44 428 150 692

Rural 56.6 23.9 2.8 0.9 1.2 4.3 4.6 5.8 100 20 421 81 742

!Karas 31.5 28.5 3.2 1.9 2.4 5.9 9.8 16.9 100 2 754 116 875

Erongo 23.1 38.6 5.3 1.8 1.8 6.1 10.5 12.8 100 7 518 128 616

Hardap 26.3 38.7 3.8 1.3 1.3 5.9 9.9 12.7 100 3 055 146 157

Kavango East 42.3 27.3 3.8 1.0 2.1 6.4 6.1 10.9 100 1 767 69 844

Kavango West 57.0 21.3 3.4 1.2 1.5 4.9 5.2 5.5 100 1 065 73 358

Khomas 25.5 36.9 4.5 2.5 4.1 5.5 8.0 13.0 100 23 534 209 555

100
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

11. Distribution of annual consumption

Region
Urban/Rural

Annual consumption, % Total household
consumption

Average household
consumption

Fo
od

a
nd

ve
ra

ge
s

Ho
us

in
g

Cl
ot

hi
ng

a
nd

ot
w

ea
r

He
al

Ed
uc

ati
on

Fu
rn

is
hi

ng
a

eq
ui

pm
en

Tr
an

sp
or

t a
nd

m
m

un
ic

ati
on

O
th

To
ta

Million N$ N$

Kunene 50.5 24.4 4.0 1.4 2.2 5.7 4.6 7.1 100 1 344 62 612

Ohangwena 56.0 25.9 3.8 0.8 0.9 3.8 4.7 4.2 100 4 581 94 482

Omaheke 46.7 24.6 4.3 1.3 1.7 4.7 9.2 7.3 100 1 554 79 140

Omusati 63.5 21.6 3.2 0.5 1.8 4.1 1.6 3.8 100 3 599 67 792

Oshana 47.9 23.5 4.3 0.6 2.1 3.9 8.8 8.8 100 5 327 117 508

Oshikoto 53.5 28.0 2.4 0.6 1.2 3.8 3.9 6.5 100 3 725 89 944

Otjozondjupa 38.4 28.5 3.7 1.7 1.6 5.5 7.1 13.6 100 3 816 99 805

Zambezi 41.5 22.9 5.7 1.0 1.9 10.8 9.7 6.5 100 1 209 55 112

Table 11.1.2 presents the distribution of annual consumption by area and sex of the head of the household. The result
indicates that consumption on food and beverages was higher in female-headed households than in male-headed households
with 41 percent of the total annual consumption compared to 33.6 percent in male-headed households. The distribution of
consumption on housing, clothing/footwear, health, education and furnishing did not differ much between female-headed
and male-headed households. However, for male-headed households, 8.6 percent of the annual consumption is spent on
transport/communication and 11.3 percent on other items, compared to 5.7 percent and 9.9 percent respectively for female-
headed households. This difference in consumption pattern was reflected in both urban and rural households, except for
consumption on housing in urban areas, where a higher proportion was observed among female-headed households with
36.1 percent.

Table 11.1.2 Annual consumption by consumption group, urban/rural areas and sex of head of household

U
rb

an
/R

ur
al

S
ex

o
f

he
ad

Annual consumption, % Total household
consumption

Average household
consumption

Fo
od

a
nd

ve
ra

ge
s

Ho
us

in
g

Cl
ot

hi
ng

a
nd

ot
w

ea
r

He
al

Ed
uc

ati
on

Fu
rn

is
hi

ng
a

eq
ui

pm
en

Tr
an

sp
or

t a
nd

m
m

un
ic

ati
on

O
th

To
ta

Million N$ N$

Namibia
Female 41.0 30.5 3.9 1.3 2.9 4.7 5.7 9.9 100 23 824 99 343
Male 33.6 32.5 4.3 1.8 2.3 5.6 8.6 11.3 100 41 025 134 580
Total 36.3 31.8 4.2 1.6 2.6 5.3 7.5 10.8 100 64 849 119 065
Urban
Female 27.5 36.1 4.6 1.7 4.0 5.4 7.7 12.9 100 15 017 121 456

Male 26.7 35.0 4.9 2.2 2.8 5.9 9.5 13.1 100 29 411 171 807

Total 26.9 35.4 4.8 2.0 3.2 5.7 8.9 13.0 100 44 428 150 692

Rural
Female 64.0 20.9 2.7 0.6 1.2 3.6 2.4 4.6 100 8 807 75 808

Male 51.0 26.1 2.8 1.1 1.1 4.9 6.3 6.7 100 11 614 86 899

Total 56.6 23.9 2.8 0.9 1.2 4.3 4.6 5.8 100 20 421 81 742

101

11. Distribution of annual consumption

Table 11.1.3 shows major differences among households speaking different main languages. The Khoisan-speaking
households had the lowest annual average household consumption of N$39 606 and the highest proportion spent on
food and beverages (73.6 percent). German-speaking households and households speaking English had the highest annual
average household consumption of N$483 059 and N$409 955 respectively. They also had the lowest spending on food and
beverages with English-speaking households spending 13.6 percent while German-speaking households spent 20.3 percent.

Households where the main languages spoken were Khoisan, Rukavango, Zambezi languages or Oshiwambo languages, had
a lower proportion of consumption on housing, 13.2 percent, 24.3 percent, 25 percent and 27.4 percent respectively.

Table 11.1.3 Annual consumption by consumption group and main language spoken in the household

M
ai

n
la

ng
ua

ge
sp

ok
en

Annual consumption, %

Total
household

consumption

Average
household

consumption

Fo
od

a
nd

b
ev

er
ag

Ho
us

in
g

Cl
ot

hi
ng

a
nd

fo
ot

w
ea

He
al

Ed
uc

ati
on

Fu
rn

is
hi

ng
a

nd
e

qu
ip

m
en

Tr
an

sp
or

t a
nd

c
om

m
un

ic
ati

O
th

To
ta

Million N$ N$

Khoisan 73.6 13.2 2.9 0.4 0.4 2.1 3.7 4.1 100 242 39 606

Zambezi languages 37.9 25.0 6.1 1.3 2.7 9.4 8.2 9.4 100 1 590 67 928

Otjiherero 41.5 30.7 3.9 1.1 2.6 4.2 6.7 9.3 100 5 016 101 231

Rukavango 46.6 24.3 3.8 1.0 2.0 5.3 6.5 10.4 100 3 573 71 021

Nama/Damara 40.3 30.6 4.5 1.0 2.2 4.3 5.8 11.2 100 5 938 93 948

Oshiwambo 45.0 27.4 4.4 0.9 2.4 4.2 7.2 8.5 100 27 369 97 669

Setswana 29.4 42.1 4.8 0.8 4.0 4.0 3.2 12.7 100 126 96 116

Afrikaans 24.2 38.5 3.5 1.8 2.6 7.3 8.2 13.8 100 10 422 258 406

German 20.3 41.3 1.8 5.0 3.9 4.6 9.5 13.4 100 1 014 483 059

English 13.6 32.8 4.8 7.1 2.4 5.1 13.9 20.3 100 3 204 409 955

Other European 18.3 35.0 8.2 2.2 5.7 16.6 2.9 11.0 100 826 270 465

Other African 18.8 39.3 3.7 4.6 4.0 7.4 8.9 13.2 100 1 316 218 232

Others 16.0 50.4 3.1 2.4 2.9 5.6 7.8 11.8 100 4 212 376 276

Total 36.3 31.8 4.2 1.6 2.6 5.3 7.5 10.8 100 64 849 119 065

Households that reported drought/in-kind receipts, pension and subsistence farming as their main source of income had
the highest proportion of consumption on food and beverages (69.1, 64.1, and 63.9 percent). Similarly, Commercial farmers
spend about 27 percent of their consumption on food and beverages.

102
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 11.1.4 Annual consumption by consumption group and main source of income

M
ai

n
so

ur
ce

o
f

in
co

m
e

Annual consumption, % Total
household

consumption

Aver age
household

consumption

Fo
od

a
nd

ve
ra

ge
s

Ho
us

in
g

Cl
ot

hi
ng

a
nd

ot
w

ea
r

He
al

Ed
uc

ati
on

Fu
rn

is
hi

ng
a

eq
ui

pm
en

Tr
an

sp
or

t a
nd

m
m

un
ic

ati
on

O
th

To
ta

Million N$ N$

Salaries & wages 30.0 31.8 5.1 2.0 2.9 5.9 9.1 13.3 100 38 499 131 993

Pension 64.1 22.8 1.8 1.0 1.2 3.1 2.7 3.3 100 5 282 88 045

Subsistence farming 63.9 23.1 2.4 0.6 1.0 3.4 2.7 2.9 100 4 492 77 447

Business income 30.4 37.5 3.7 1.3 2.5 6.3 7.8 10.5 100 7 767 156 930

Remittances/grants 45.5 29.6 3.7 0.7 3.9 3.6 4.8 8.2 100 4 655 88 850

Drought/in-kind receipts 69.1 18.4 2.6 0.5 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.8 100 653 44 280

Commercial farming 27.6 31.5 0.6 1.7 1.0 8.9 14.0 14.6 100 876 478 749

Others 21.2 55.0 2.4 2.1 1.3 3.7 5.9 8.3 100 2 626 158 854

Total 36.3 31.8 4.2 1.6 2.6 5.3 7.5 10.8 100 64 849 119 065

The percentile groups showed a skewed distribution of average household consumption whereby the last two percent of
households reported an average household consumption of N$733 245 compared to N$27 301 reported by the first quarter.
The share of housing consumption was highest in the last two percent of households compared to other consumption items.
The decile grouping showed a clear increasing trend on furnishing/equipment, transport and communication and other
consumption, increasing from the first to the last decile as average household consumption increased. Food/beverages
consumption on the other hand, decreased with an increase in the average household consumption.

Table 11.1.5 Annual consumption by consumption group and percentile group after adjusted per capita income

Pe
rc

en
til

e
gr

ou
p/

ci
le

Annual consumption, % Total household
consumption

Average household
consumption

Fo
od

a
nd

b
ev

er
ag

Ho
us

in
g

Cl
ot

hi
ng

a
nd

ot
w

ea
r

He
al

Ed
uc

ati
on

Fu
rn

is
hi

ng
a

eq
ui

pm
en

Tr
an

sp
or

t a
nd

m
m

un
ic

ati
on

O
th

To
ta

Million N$ N$

Percentiles

1-25 57.1 22.4 3.8 0.7 2.4 4.1 3.5 6.0 100 2 391 27 301

26-50 55.2 23.1 4.2 0.6 1.8 4.4 3.6 6.9 100 5 436 48 160

51-75 47.7 26.0 4.1 1.0 2.8 4.9 4.6 9.0 100 10 847 75 540

76-90 36.8 31.8 5.1 1.3 2.9 5.5 5.7 11.0 100 13 646 123 911

91-95 30.2 33.4 5.1 1.9 3.8 5.8 7.0 12.9 100 8 863 202 523

96-98 25.3 36.8 4.3 1.4 2.9 5.7 10.8 12.8 100 8 948 335 875

99-100 27.4 36.7 2.8 3.0 1.4 5.2 11.9 11.6 100 14 719 733 245

Total 36.3 31.8 4.2 1.6 2.6 5.3 7.5 10.8 100 64 849 119 065

103

11. Distribution of annual consumption

Pe
rc

en
til

e
gr

ou
p/

ci
le

Annual consumption, % Total household
consumption

Average household
consumption

Fo
od

a
nd

b
ev

er
ag

Ho
us

in
g

Cl
ot

hi
ng

a
nd

ot
w

ea
r

He
al

Ed
uc

ati
on

Fu
rn

is
hi

ng
a

eq
ui

pm
en

Tr
an

sp
or

t a
nd

m
m

un
ic

ati
on

O
th

To
ta

Million N$ N$

Deciles

1 55.7 23.4 3.6 0.7 2.7 4.6 3.6 5.6 100 585 18 299

2 56.2 22.7 4.0 0.7 2.8 4.0 3.3 6.2 100 1 087 30 377

3 58.6 20.9 4.0 0.6 2.0 4.4 3.5 6.1 100 1 530 38 013

4 56.5 22.0 3.9 0.7 1.8 4.1 3.9 7.0 100 2 030 46 995

5 53.6 24.7 4.4 0.6 1.6 4.5 3.5 7.1 100 2 595 52 693

6 52.5 24.5 3.8 0.9 2.2 4.3 4.1 7.8 100 3 379 63 403

7 46.8 26.0 4.1 1.1 2.5 5.3 5.0 9.2 100 4 555 78 910

8 42.3 28.8 4.5 0.9 3.3 5.3 4.8 10.0 100 6 371 94 622

9 35.2 32.5 5.3 1.4 3.0 5.5 5.9 11.3 100 10 188 135 176

10 27.6 35.8 3.8 2.3 2.5 5.5 10.3 12.3 100 32 529 359 540

11.2Poverty and Inequality
In 2003/2004 Namibia 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. 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. It is also used for exploring and re-evaluating determinants of poverty and ultimately guiding
policy interventions aimed at eradicating poverty as stipulated in the National Development Plans, Vision 2030, the Harambe
Prosperity Plan, the Africa Agenda 2063 and in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

11.2.1 Poverty lines
In this chapter poverty is defined as the number of people who are unable to command sufficient resources to satisfy basic
needs. They are counted as the total number of people living below a specified minimum level of income or below a national
poverty line. Table 11.2.1 shows the estimated poverty lines for 2015/2016.

The table further shows the computed poverty lines for 2015/2016 periods using a similar methods used in 2003/2004 and
2009/2010. The poverty lines (both the lower and upper bound) are calculated as the amount below which persons are
classified as severely poor or simply as poor. The figures are adjusted for inflation effects. The food poverty line estimate for
2015/2016 is N$ 293.1, with the lower bound poverty line estimated at N$ 389.3 and the upper bound poverty line at N$
520.8.

Table 11.2.1 Namibias poverty lines (current ND/adult/month), 2003/04-2015/2016

Poverty lines
2003/2004

N$
2009/2010

N$
2015/2016

FPL (Food poverty line) 127.15 204.05 293.1

LBPL (Lower bound poverty line) 184.56 277.54 389.3

UBPL (Upper bound poverty line) 262.45 377.96 520.8

104
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

The upper bound poverty line identifies persons that are considered to be poor while the lower bound poverty line
identifies persons that are food poor since their total consumption expenditures are insufficient to meet their daily calorific
requirement. For instance any person who was not able to spend at least N$389.30 per month on basic necessities was
considered severely poor. A person who was not able to spend at least N$520.80 per month on basic needs was considered
to be poor.

Table 11.2.2 summarizes a selection of the main findings of the poverty estimates. Most of the estimates suggested that
poverty has further decreased during the last five years. In total 6.1 percent of the population (139 124 persons) in the
country could not afford to buy the minimum (2 100 kcal) calories per day. The table also revealed that 10.7 percent of the
population (244 037 persons) were still below the lower bound poverty line while 17.4 percent of the population (396,845)
were still below the upper bound poverty line.

Table 11.2.2 Selected inequality and poverty estimates, 2003/04-2015/2016

2003/04 2009/2010 2015/2016 diff. (%) diff. (%) diff. (%)

1 2 3 (2) - (1) (3)- (2) (3) - (1)

Population 1 817 251 2 066 398 2 280 716 13.7 10.4 25.5

FOOD POVERTY LINE

Headcount ratio (%) 11.0 7.2 6.1 -34.3 -15.8 -44.6

LOWER POVERTY LINE

Headcount ratio (%) 21.8 15.4 10.7 -29.3 -30.7 -51.0

UPPER POVERTY LINE

Headcount ratio (%) 37.5 28.8 17.4 -23.4 -39.5 -53.7

Table 11.2.3 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, 17.4 percent of the population
in Namibia were considered poor using the upper bound poverty line (N520.8). This indicated a decline in poverty levels
since 2009/2010.

Table 11.2.3 Incidence, depth and severity of poverty by category of poor persons, 2015/2016

Incidence (P0) Depth (P1) Severity (P2)

Poor 17.4% 6.0% 2.9

Severely poor 10.7% 3.4% 1.5

On average those poor people were just 6.0 percent below the poverty line, meaning that they were N$31.2 on average
below the upper bound poverty line. In other words, they needed just N$31.2 each to be removed from poverty.

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 measure can be particularly useful in tracking developments for the poorest over time and comparing severe
deprivation across groups. About 10.7 percent of the population were severely poor or food poor as measured by the lower
bound poverty line of N$389.3. On average, severely poor people were just 3.4 percent below the severe poverty line. This
measurement of the depth of severe poverty says that an average of N$13.2 additional consumption expenditure per person
would be needed to lift severely poor Namibians out of severe poverty (that is, 3.4 percent times N$389.3).

105

11. Distribution of annual consumption

Figure 11.2.1 shows the incidence of poverty by sex of the head of household. The incidence of poverty in female-headed
households is higher with 19.2 percent compared to the male-headed households with 15.8 percent. The female-headed
households also have a larger incidence of severely poor with 11.7 percent compared to 9.9 percent for male-headed
households. Comparisons with the 2009/2010 survey show that poverty levels have fallen from 22.4 to 19.2 percent for
female-headed households and from 17.6 to 15.8 percent for male-headed households, respectively. The incidence of
severely poor households has only slightly increased from 11.1 to 11.7 percent for female-headed households and from
8.5 to 9.9 percent for male-headed households. The statistics shows that despite the overall reductions in the incidence of
poverty, the incidence of severely poor households, slightly increased and still remains disproportionately higher in female
headed households.

Figure 11.2.1 Incidence of Poverty by Sex of head of household

Figure 11.2.2 indicates that the poor are disproportionately located in rural areas. About 25.1 percent of rural households
are poor, compared to 8.6 percent for urban households. The incidence of severely poor households is also higher among
rural households, where 15.9 percent of the households were found to be severely poor compared to 4.8 percent in urban
areas. When compared to the 2009/2010 NHIES, the number of severely poor people in rural areas has increased from 13.56
percent to 15.9 percent.

Figure 11.2.2 Incidence of Poverty by Urban and Rural Areas

106
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Figure 11.2.3 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 Kunene,
Kavango East, Zambezi and Omaheke regions. These regions have poverty levels above the national average of 17.4 percent.
Lower levels of poverty are observed in Khomas, Erongo and !Karas regions.

Similarly, the distribution of severely poor households across the country is highly concentrated in Kunene, Kavango East,
Zambezi and Omaheke regions. These regions have severely poverty rate above the national average of 10.7%. Lower levels
of severely poor are found in Khomas and Erongo regions.

Figure 11.2.3 Distribution of Poverty by Regions

11.3The GINI-Coefficient
The GINI coefficient for Namibia over the three years survey periods is represented in figure 11.3.1 below for 2003/2004,
2009/2010 and 2015/2016 and is 0.60, 0.58 and 0.56 respectively. The GINI coefficient is calculated on the adjusted per
capita income for every single household member. Thus, it shows that inequality in the distribution of income has decreased
albeit incrementally. Despite this decline however, the level of inequality in Namibia remains among the highest in the world.

Figure 11.3.1 Lorenz diagram for income distribution among the population in Namibia

107

11. Distribution of annual consumption

Appendix 1: Detailed Tables
Table 1 Annual consumption by urban/rural areas and region

Region
Households Population

Average
Household

size
Total Consumption

Average
household

consumption

Consumption per
capita

% % Million N$ % N$ N$

!Karas

Urban 58.5 68.5 4.2 1 729 62.8 125 449 30 014

Rural 41.5 31.5 2.7 1 026 37.3 104 801 38 735

Total 100 100 3.6 2 754 100 116 875 32 760

Erongo

Urban 89.9 89.7 3.0 7 115 94.6 135 340 45 105

Rural 10.1 10.3 3.1 403 5.4 68 502 22 250

Total 100 100 3.0 7 518 100 128 616 42 752

Hardap

Urban 70.1 78.5 4.6 2 167 70.9 147 951 32 235

Rural 29.9 21.5 2.9 888 29.1 141 958 48 230

Total 100 100 4.1 3 055 100 146 157 35 675

Kavango East

Urban 46.1 40.4 5.1 1 032 58.4 88 421 17 474

Rural 53.9 59.6 6.4 735 41.6 53 933 8 440

Total 100 100 5.8 1 767 100 69 844 12 091

Kavango West

Urban 7.2 5.7 4.8 93 8.7 89 011 18 419

Rural 92.8 94.3 6.2 972 91.3 72 147 11 620

Total 100 100 6.1 1 065 100 73 358 12 006

Khomas

Urban 96.2 96.1 3.6 23 022 97.8 213 040 59 869

Rural 3.8 3.9 3.7 512 2.2 120 766 32 719

Total 100 100 3.6 23 534 100 209 555 58 807

Kunene

Urban 41.9 42.3 4.5 636 47.3 70 795 15 720

Rural 58.1 57.7 4.4 708 52.7 56 718 12 838

Total 100 100 4.5 1 344 100 62 612 14 059

Ohangwena

Urban 18.0 9.7 2.8 777 17.0 88 927 31 630

Rural 82.0 90.3 5.8 3 804 83.0 95 704 16 627

Total 100 100 5.2 4 581 100 94 482 18 082

108
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Region
Households Population

Average
Household

size
Total Consumption

Average
household

consumption

Consumption per
capita

% % Million N$ % N$ N$

Omaheke

Urban 46.8 49.4 4.0 796 51.2 86 586 21 777

Rural 53.2 50.6 3.6 758 48.8 72 588 20 226

Total 100 100 3.8 1 554 100 79 140 20 992

Omusati

Urban 9.3 4.7 2.3 329 9.1 66 406 28 274

Rural 90.7 95.3 4.9 3 270 90.9 67 934 13 806

Total 100 100 4.7 3 599 100 67 792 14 484

Oshana

Urban 54.5 42.9 3.2 2 891 54.3 117 083 36 141

Rural 45.5 57.1 5.2 2 436 45.7 118 017 22 840

Total 100 100 4.1 5 327 100 117 508 28 541

Oshikoto

Urban 17.6 11.7 3.1 722 19.4 99 331 32 172

Rural 82.5 88.3 5.0 3 003 80.6 87 946 17 660

Total 100 100 4.6 3 725 100 89 944 19 352

Otjozondjupa

Urban 58.0 60.7 4.2 2 464 64.6 111 063 26 658

Rural 42.0 39.3 3.7 1 352 35.4 84 244 22 572

Total 100 100 4.0 3 816 100 99 805 25 051

Zambezi

Urban 32.0 30.2 4.2 655 54.2 93 190 22 336

Rural 68.0 69.8 4.5 555 45.9 37 178 8 174

Total 100 100 4.4 1 209 100 55 112 12 446

Namibia

Urban 54.1 46.9 3.6 44 428 68.5 150 692 41 575

Rural 45.9 53.1 4.9 20 421 31.5 81 742 16 848

Total 100 100 4.2 64 849 100 119 065 28 434

109

Appendix 1: Detailed Tables

Table 2 Annual consumption by group and urban/rural areas

Re
gi

on
U

rb
an

/R
ur

al Annual consumption, %
Total

household
consumption

Average
household

consumption

Fo
od

a
nd

ve
ra

ge
s

Ho
us

in
g

Cl
ot

hi
ng

a
nd

ot
w

ea
r

He
al

Ed
uc

ati
on

Fu
rn

is
hi

ng
a

eq
ui

pm
en

Tr
an

sp
or

t a
nd

m
m

un
ic

ati
on

O
th

To
ta

Million N$ N$

!Karas

Urban 31.7 31.1 3.3 1.6 2.5 4.9 7.6 17.2 100 1 729 125 449

Rural 31.2 24.0 2.9 2.2 2.3 7.5 13.5 16.4 100 1 026 104 801

Total 31.5 28.5 3.2 1.9 2.4 5.9 9.8 16.9 100 2 754 116 875

Erongo

Urban 22.6 38.7 5.4 1.7 1.9 6.0 10.8 12.8 100 7 115 135 340

Rural 32.3 36.2 4.5 2.5 0.7 6.0 5.0 12.7 100 403 68 502

Total 23.1 38.6 5.3 1.8 1.8 6.1 10.5 12.8 100 7 518 128 616

Hardap

Urban 23.5 36.7 4.5 1.4 1.6 6.6 11.1 14.5 100 2 167 147 951

Rural 32.8 43.6 2.1 1.4 0.6 4.4 6.8 8.3 100 888 141 958

Total 26.3 38.7 3.8 1.3 1.3 5.9 9.9 12.7 100 3 055 146 157

Kavango East

Urban 31.6 32.2 4.7 1.0 2.5 7.2 7.8 13.2 100 1 032 88 421

Rural 57.4 20.5 2.7 1.0 1.5 5.3 3.7 7.9 100 735 53 933

Total 42.3 27.3 3.8 1.0 2.1 6.4 6.1 10.9 100 1 767 69 844

Kavango West

Urban 28.0 31.2 6.5 1.1 2.2 7.5 11.8 10.8 100 93 89 011

Rural 59.8 20.4 3.1 1.2 1.4 4.6 4.5 5.0 100 972 72 147

Total 57.0 21.3 3.4 1.2 1.5 4.9 5.2 5.5 100 1 065 73 358

Khomas

Urban 25.1 36.9 4.5 2.5 4.2 5.5 8.2 13.1 100 23 022 213 040

Rural 41.4 38.9 1.6 0.4 0.2 3.9 2.5 11.1 100 512 120 766

Total 25.5 36.9 4.5 2.5 4.1 5.5 8.0 13.0 100 23 534 209 555

Kunene

Urban 32.9 28.8 5.0 2.4 4.1 7.2 6.8 12.9 100 636 70 795

Rural 66.2 20.5 3.1 0.6 0.6 4.1 2.7 2.0 100 708 56 718

Total 50.5 24.4 4.0 1.4 2.2 5.7 4.6 7.1 100 1 344 62 612

Ohangwena

Urban 43.9 26.4 6.8 1.8 0.4 6.0 5.4 9.1 100 777 88 927

Rural 58.5 25.7 3.1 0.6 1.0 3.3 4.5 3.2 100 3 804 95 704

Total 56.0 25.9 3.8 0.8 0.9 3.8 4.7 4.2 100 4 581 94 482

110
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Re
gi

on
U

rb
an

/R
ur

al Annual consumption, %
Total

household
consumption

Average
household

consumption

Fo
od

a
nd

ve
ra

ge
s

Ho
us

in
g

Cl
ot

hi
ng

a
nd

ot
w

ea
r

He
al

Ed
uc

ati
on

Fu
rn

is
hi

ng
a

eq
ui

pm
en

Tr
an

sp
or

t a
nd

m
m

un
ic

ati
on

O
th

To
ta

Million N$ N$

Omaheke

Urban 31.8 30.2 6.2 1.4 3.0 6.3 10.7 10.6 100 796 86 586

Rural 62.4 18.9 2.4 1.2 0.4 3.2 7.7 4.0 100 758 72 588

Total 46.7 24.6 4.3 1.3 1.7 4.7 9.2 7.3 100 1 554 79 140

Omusati

Urban 42.9 29.5 5.8 0.3 3.3 5.5 4.0 9.1 100 329 66 406

Rural 65.5 20.9 3.0 0.5 1.6 3.9 1.3 3.3 100 3 270 67 934

Total 63.5 21.6 3.2 0.5 1.8 4.1 1.6 3.8 100 3 599 67 792

Oshana

Urban 32.5 28.9 5.8 0.8 2.8 4.6 12.4 12.1 100 2 891 117 083

Rural 66.2 17.2 2.5 0.5 1.2 3.0 4.4 4.9 100 2 436 118 017

Total 47.9 23.5 4.3 0.6 2.1 3.9 8.8 8.8 100 5 327 117 508

Oshikoto

Urban 35.3 33.1 5.4 1.1 1.7 5.4 5.4 12.6 100 722 99 331

Rural 57.8 26.8 1.7 0.5 1.1 3.5 3.6 5.0 100 3 003 87 946

Total 53.5 28.0 2.4 0.6 1.2 3.8 3.9 6.5 100 3 725 89 944

Otjozondjupa

Urban 33.6 31.8 4.3 1.5 2.2 5.3 7.0 14.3 100 2 464 111 063

Rural 47.1 22.3 2.5 1.9 0.7 5.8 7.5 12.3 100 1 352 84 244

Total 38.4 28.5 3.7 1.7 1.6 5.5 7.1 13.6 100 3 816 99 805

Zambezi

Urban 29.9 31.3 5.2 1.1 2.4 9.3 12.2 8.7 100 655 93 190

Rural 55.3 13.0 6.5 0.9 1.3 12.4 6.7 4.0 100 555 37 178

Total 41.5 22.9 5.7 1.0 1.9 10.8 9.7 6.5 100 1 209 55 112

Namibia

Urban 26.9 35.4 4.8 2.0 3.2 5.7 8.9 13.0 100 44 428 150 692

Rural 56.6 23.9 2.8 0.9 1.2 4.3 4.6 5.8 100 20 421 81 742

Total 36.3 31.8 4.2 1.6 2.6 5.3 7.5 10.8 100 64 849 119 065

111

Appendix 1: Detailed Tables

Table 3 Households by ownership of and access of assets

Assets Owns Has Access Has no access Total

Motor car, station wagon 15.9 30.9 53.2 100

Buses & Mini-buses 0.7 29.9 69.4 100

Bakkies and 4-wheel drives 11.4 35.9 52.6 100

Motor cycle/scooter 1.0 3.4 95.6 100

Bicycle 10.8 10.0 79.3 100

Electric stove 35.4 5.8 58.7 100

Gas or paraffin stove 23.0 4.6 72.4 100

Microwave oven 25.2 6.0 68.8 100

Refrigerator 37.8 10.3 51.8 100

Freezer 17.8 18.9 63.3 100

Washing machine 18.6 5.2 76.2 100

Sewing/knitting machine 7.8 11.0 81.2 100

Radio 45.6 23.7 30.7 100

Stereo/HiFi/tape recorder 14.3 6.5 79.2 100

Television 42.5 11.8 45.7 100

Internet aerial/dish 15.0 8.2 76.7 100

Video cassette recorder/DVD 18.9 6.2 74.9 100

Telephone handset/receiver 4.9 9.1 86.0 100

Cell telephone 93.3 2.5 4.2 100

Computer-laptop or desktop 18.7 9.2 72.1 100

Tablet-ipad, etc 4.4 4.7 90.9 100

Camera 10.3 20.5 69.2 100

Generator 3.8 6.4 89.8 100

Living room furniture set 30.6 5.5 63.8 100

Bedroom furniture set 57.8 3.8 38.5 100

Dining room/kitchen furniture 25.4 7.4 67.2 100

Donkey cart/Ox Cart 6.0 9.1 84.9 100

Plough 15.6 11.3 73.1 100

Tractor 0.6 16.2 83.2 100

Wheelbarrow 21.2 15.5 63.3 100

Grinding mill 0.7 17.4 82.0 100

112
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Assets Owns Has Access Has no access Total

Motor boat 0.1 1.8 98.1 100

Canoe/boat 1.0 4.3 94.7 100

Tents with/without chairs & tables 7.5 8.6 83.9 100

Wheelchair electric or not 0.5 1.9 97.6 100

113

Appendix 1: Detailed Tables

Appendix 2: The Sample Weights
Weighting is a process of accounting for the selection probabilities and non-response in a sample survey. The inverse of
these selection probabilities adjusted for non-response is called the design (base) weight. For the calculation of income and
consumption per capita aggregates, weights calibration was required to get the required population and households weights
for the calculation of per capita indicators. Assistance was sought from experts from the World Bank as there was no internal
expertise to do weight calibration as required.

2.1 The Design/Base Weight
Population figures were estimated by raising sample figures using design weights. Design weights were calculated based on
the probabilities of selection at each stage. The first stage weights were calculated using the sample selection information
from the sampling frame and the second stage weights were calculated based on the sample selection information of the
household listing.

The first stage probability of selection p1 was calculated using the following equation:

p1 =
Mhi * nh

(2)

where;
Mhi = Number of households in PSU (i) in stratum h (PSU size)
Mh = Total number of households in stratum h (stratum size)
nh = Number of PSUs selected from the stratum h

The second stage probability of selection p2 was calculated using the following equation:

p2 =
mhi

Mhi

(3)

Where;
mhi = Number of households in the sample from the i

th PSU in stratum h
Mhi = Number of households in the i

th PSU in stratum h according to survey listing

Therefore, the Inverse Sampling Rate (ISR) which is the design weights was calculated as follows:

* = *
mhi

Mhi
ISR =

p2 Mhi * nh

Mh (4)

2.2 The Design Weight Adjustment
2.2.1 Adjustment for Segmented PSU
For the PSUs that were segmented during listing stage, additional probability of selection was introduced. Let t be the
number of households in the selected segment and T the total number of households in a segmented PSU, then equation 2
above can be adjusted to account for segments selection as follows:

* T
t

p1
adj =

Mhi * nh (5)

114
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

2.2.2 Adjustment for Household Non-Response
Unit non-response can be accounted for during surveys by applying non response adjustment factor to weights. An
adjustment is usually made to the design weight on the assumption that the characteristics of the responding units are
similar to those of the non-responding units. The household non-response was carried out for the NIDS 2016 by getting the
selection probability of households (p2) using the responding households instead of expected households. Therefore, mhi in
equation 3 was replaced by the number of responding households within each PSU and hence equation 3 becomes:

p2
r =

mhi
r

Mhi

(6)

where;
mhi

r = Number of responding households in the sample from the ith PSU in stratum h

Therefore, the design weights was calculated by incorporating equation 5 and equation 6 to form the following equation:

* = *
t

T
ISRadj =

p1
adj

p2
r Mhi * nh

Mh
*

mhi
r

Mhi( ) (7)
2.3 Weight Calibration
This section presents in brief the applied calibration approach, and the associated quality metrics. Using calibration for the
adjustment of survey weights is a widely used approach in statistical agencies. It is used for two purposes:

i. To adjust for non-response
ii. To increase estimator efficiency.

In particular the adjustment of non-response can be done in a much more efficient way, than individual cell or cluster level
adjustments. The weights will be adjusted in a way that the overall deviation from the original weights is minimized. Individuals
from underrepresented groups will experience an increase in their weights, individuals from overrepresented groups will receive
a decrease in their weights, however this is done under the constraints of minimizing the overall difference. The latter is also
the major difference between other approaches of non-response adjustment, which do not take into account the total changes.

However many statistical software packages only implement the most basic type of calibration, namely post-stratification. The
R based REGENESEES 1.9 (Zardetto, 2017) package however offers a wide range of calibration approaches, and was also applied
to the underlying case.

The following requirements were used in the adjustment of the weights (calibration process)

a. National 5 year age sex distribution

b. National urban 5 year age sex distribution

c. National rural 5 year age sex distribution

d. Regional 10 year age sex distribution

In addition, it is required that weights are held constant for all members of the same household.

There are several approaches to address the required adjustment of the weights (i.e. to formulate the calibration model),
however after checking the resulting quality metrics, two approaches have been selected.

115

Appendix 2: The Sample Weights

The first approach is a 2 stage calibration, with calibration of the weights to the age/sex distribution by domain (regions) at
the first stage and urban/rural/national at the second stage, and the second approach is a single stage adjustment to the
same totals, but not at the domain level. Whereas the former results in a lower deviation of the calibrated weights from the
original ones, the latter has a better representation of the underlying totals, but at the price of a larger deviation from the
original weights. In particular in the individual analysis of certain small sub-populations (i.e female population of 85+ in the
Zambezi region), this deviations may be relevant.

As a result, four sets of weights were produced, file ind2s.csv (variable: HH_WEIGHT.cal.cal, trimmed and the variable HH_
WEIGHT.cal, untrimmed) for the two stage design and ind1s.csv (variables: HH_WEIGHT.cal, untrimmed and HH_WEIGHT.
cal.cal, trimmed) for the single stage.

Quality Checks for the Calibrated Weights
The presented quality checks below are only part of a large number of checks. To test the efficiency of the resulting calibrated
weights it is important to also look on their impact on the Design Effect (DEFF) as well as the Standard Error. These results
are not presented here.

Population Totals

Table 1: National Population

Total
Original data 1 977 910
Single stage calibration 2 280 627
Two stage calibration 2 280 716

Table 2: Population by Region

Region Original Single Stage Two Stage
!Karas 61 326 84 077 81 180
Erongo 147 442 175 853 173 568
Hardap 62 848 85 629 80 308
Kavango East 142 739 146 151 141 895
Kavango West 79 026 88 705 96 758
Khomas 326 447 400 102 398 379
Kunene 64 595 95 610 93 114
Ohangwena 230 994 253 348 268 799
Omaheke 58 036 74 040 68 959
Omusati 239 786 248 490 256 186
Oshana 167 957 186 634 179 110
Oshikoto 186 862 192 469 198 880
Otjozondjupa 131 375 152 343 142 422
Zambezi 78 477 97 176 101 156

116
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Table 3: Population by Age Group

Original Single Stage Two Stage
X0.4 286 654 317 503 317 503
X5.9 249 519 274 401 274 401
X10.14 204 959 238 160 238 160
X15.19 195 019 243 482 243 482
X20.24 193 345 231 466 231 466
X25.29 159 946 202 828 202 828
X30.34 135 591 163 689 163 689
X35.39 120 009 136 985 136 985
X40.44 97 589 112 821 112 821
X45.49 77 297 88 195 88 195
X50.54 63 520 71 893 71 893
X55.59 53 022 53 922 53 922
X60.64 40 004 41 878 41 878
X65.69 29 703 34 576 34 576
X70.74 21 507 24 718 24 718
X75.79 18 959 17 148 17 148
X80.84 31 267 26 962 27 051

Graphical Analysis of Weights
In the following, the presentation the frequency will be shown as well as the spatial distribution of the weights and the effect
of the calibration is highlighted.

Frequency Distribution
i. Original Weights

The initial unadjusted weights cover a range from around 6 to 179, with a mean of around 48, as shown in the following
figure.

Minimum: 6.05 Mean: 47.57 Maximum: 179.72

117

Appendix 2: The Sample Weights

ii. 1 Stage Adjustment

For the untrimmed weights we receive a range from approximately 1 to 479, and a slightly increased mean - in comparison
of the original weights of around 56.

Minimum: 1.06 Mean: 54.85 Maximum: 489

If trimming is applied to the same weights, they can be trimmed to a range of 2 to 400, and an almost unchanged mean of
around 56.

Minimum: 2 Mean 54.85 Maximum: 400

118
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

iii. 2 Stage Adjustment

In the 2 stage adjustment only the final stage is presented, not the interim stage. The range of the 2 stage adjustment
is larger, and the mean is overall the same, however as calibration has been done partitioned by domain, within domain
variation is better. (Frequency distribution graphs for this process is not presented in this report)

2.4 Final Sample Weight
Even though all weights behave fairly well as shown in the sections above, the untrimmed weights (HH_WEIGHT.cal) based
on the one stage calibration are the ones recommended for usage. The trimmed one of the same file could be the second
choice, however the effect of trimming is not always clear, and in the worst case can even introduce bias, thought this is quite
unlikely in this case, as only moderate trimming has been applied. Therefore the weight used for analysis is HH_WEIGHT.cal
based on the two stage calibration untrimmed weights.

119

Appendix 2: The Sample Weights

Appendix 3: Estimation
3.1 Quality of the Survey Estimates
Estimates from sample data differ from figures that would have been obtained from a complete enumeration of all
households using the same instruments. Results are subjected to both sampling and non-sampling errors. Non-sampling
errors include biases from inaccurate reporting, processing and measurements as well as error from non-response and
incomplete reporting. Unfortunately Non-sampling error cannot be readily measured. However the extent possible each
type of error can be minimized through the procedures used for data collection, editing, quality control and non-response
adjustment. This section will then present the measure of precision that can used to measure the sampling errors of the
estimates.

The following measures of precision was calculated for 2015/2016 NHIES key indicators:

(a) Standard error
The sampling error of a particular statistics is measured in terms of the standard error of that statistics which is the

square root of the variance. The standard error is the standard deviation of the statistics which measures the variability
in the estimates around the expected value. The standard error given in this report were estimated using the Taylor
series Linearization method in Stata 12.1 program.

(b) Confidence Interval
The interval within which a population parameter is likely to be found, determined by sample data and a chosen

confidence level (1-± [± refers to the level of significance]). At standard level, a significance level ±=0.05 resulting in a
95% Confidence Interval is used. The 95% Confidence Interval for the sample statistic b is expressed as:

CI(b) = b ± (1.96 x sê(b) (8)

The confidence interval gives a range where the population parameter lies. A wider confidence intervals implies that
there is too much variability in the statistics to estimate the population parameter while a narrower interval indicates
less variability, signifying a desirable outcome.

(c) Design effects
The NHIES 2015/2016 was based on a complex design that involve stratification and clustering. Additionally, the

weighting involves a non-linear adjustments (non-response and post stratification adjustments). Therefore it is very
crucial that these aspects of the complex design are accounted for in the variance estimation. The design effects (DEFF)
compares the variance of the estimates from the sample design that was actually implemented to the variance of the
estimates that would have been obtained from Simple Random Sampling (SRS) design with the same sample size.

deff =
sampling variance of a complex sample design

sampling variance of simple random sample design

Design Effect is another way to evaluate the efficiency of the sample design and the procedure used to develop the
survey estimates. Deff 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. A DEFF value greater than 1 means sampling errors have increased due
to complex survey design compared to the SRS. If the design effect is less than one, this indicates that the sample design
leads to estimates with smaller variance than under an SRS design, therefore it is more efficient.

120
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

(d) Coefficient of variation
The Coefficients of Variation (CV) of the sample statistics, is given by:

CV(b) =
sê(b)

(9)

The coefficient of variation is based on the Standard Error (SE), which is a function of the sample variation and sample
size. The Coefficient of variation is the ratio of the standard error of the survey estimates to the value of the estimates
itself. The coefficient of variation is a measure of spread that describes the amount of variability relative to the estimates.

Figure below illustrates a model that is generally used to determine the reliability of survey estimates, based on the

coefficient of variation for the estimates.

Figure 1 Level of the Coefficient of Variation for the Survey Estimates
CV level Interpretation

a. 0.0% - 1.0%
b. 1.1% - 5.0%
c. 5.1% - 15.0%

d. 15.1% - 25.5%

e. 25.6% +

Estimates are reliable

Estimates can be used
with Caution

Estimates are
unreliable

121

Appendix 3: Estimation

Appendix 4: Sampling Errors
4.1.1. Sampling Error for Average Household Size

Area Mean
Standard

Error

95% Confidence Interval Observation
Coefficient
of Variation

Design
EffectLower

Confidence Limit
Upper

Confidence Limit
Unweighted Weighted

%
Namibia 4.2 0.048 4.09 4.28 10 090 544 655 1.14 2.49
Urban 3.6 0.054 3.52 3.73 4 555 294 827 1.48 2.31
Rural 4.9 0.080 4.69 5.01 5 535 249 827 1.65 2.65
!Karas 3.6 0.170 3.23 3.90 559 23 567 4.78 2.15
Erongo 3.0 0.092 2.83 3.19 828 58 454 3.06 2.20
Hardap 4.1 0.179 3.74 4.45 561 20 901 4.38 1.89
Kavango East 5.8 0.242 5.30 6.25 554 25 301 4.18 2.25
Kavango West 6.1 0.210 5.70 6.52 568 14 518 3.44 1.00
Khomas 3.6 0.105 3.36 3.77 1 084 112 305 2.94 3.50
Kunene 4.5 0.254 3.96 4.95 570 21 468 5.69 2.73
Ohangwena 5.2 0.178 4.88 5.57 854 48 487 3.40 2.29
Omaheke 3.8 0.281 3.22 4.32 557 19 639 7.46 3.55
Omusati 4.7 0.226 4.24 5.12 854 53 090 4.82 4.43
Oshana 4.1 0.130 3.86 4.37 846 45 331 3.16 1.58
Oshikoto 4.6 0.172 4.31 4.98 852 41 411 3.69 2.05
Otjozondjupa 4.0 0.185 3.62 4.35 837 38 238 4.64 2.37
Zambezi 4.4 0.179 4.08 4.78 566 21 945 4.05 2.02

4.1.2. Sampling Errors for Total Household Consumption

Area

Total
Household

consumption

Standard
Error

95% Confidence Interval Observation Coefficient
of

Variation
Design
Effect

Lower
Confidence Limit

Upper
Confidence Limit Unweighted Weighted

(In Millions) (In millions) (In Millions) (In millions) %
Namibia 64 849.33 2 596.66 59 752.58 69 946.08 10 090 544 655 4.00 4.75

Urban 44 428.02 2 458.40 39 602.65 49 253.38 4 555 294 827 5.53 5.42
Rural 20 421.32 836.02 18 780.37 22 062.26 5 535 249 827 4.09 1.44

!Karas 2 754.36 350.71 2 065.98 3 442.74 559 23 567 12.73 2.21
Erongo 7 518.12 758.24 6 029.84 9 006.39 828 58 454 10.09 3.83
Hardap 3 054.77 374.23 2 320.23 3 789.32 561 20 901 12.25 1.32
Kavango East 1 767.13 180.87 1 412.12 2 122.14 554 25 301 10.24 1.77
Kavango West 1 064.98 100.02 868.66 1 261.31 568 14 518 9.39 1.04
Khomas 23 534.16 2 238.30 19 140.81 27 927.51 1 084 112 305 9.51 5.6
Kunene 1 344.13 272.64 808.99 1 879.28 570 21 468 20.28 2.92
Ohangwena 4 581.13 299.71 3 992.85 5 169.41 854 48 487 6.54 1.73
Omaheke 1 554.23 300.08 965.23 2 143.24 557 19 639 19.31 1.56
Omusati 3 599.08 264.89 3 079.15 4 119.02 854 53 090 7.36 2.24
Oshana 5 326.75 558.86 4 229.82 6 423.68 846 45 331 10.49 1.54
Oshikoto 3 724.69 332.55 3 071.95 4 377.43 852 41 411 8.93 2.04
Otjozondjupa 3 816.33 304.03 3 219.58 4 413.07 837 38 238 7.97 0.93
Zambezi 1 209.46 110.69 992.19 1 426.73 566 21 945 9.15 1.5

122
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

4.1.3. Sampling Error for Average Household Consumption

Area
Average

House hold
Consumption

Standard
Error

95% Confidence Interval Observation
Coefficient
of Variation

Design
Effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

%
Namibia 119 065.00 4 714.74 109 810.90 128 319.10 10 090 544 655 3.96 4.64

Urban 150 691.60 8 328.52 134 344.30 167 038.80 4 555 294 827 5.53 6.35
Rural 81 741.72 3 196.84 75 466.94 88 016.50 5 535 249 827 3.91 1.46

!Karas 116 875.20 13 715.36 89 954.57 143 795.70 559 23 567 11.74 2.68
Erongo 128 616.50 12 591.12 103 902.50 153 330.40 828 58 454 9.79 5.23
Hardap 146 156.80 16 306.31 114 150.70 178 162.90 561 20 901 11.16 1.40
Kavango East 69 843.59 6 957.25 56 187.86 83 499.31 554 25 301 9.96 2.54
Kavango West 73 357.84 5 173.15 63 203.95 83 511.73 568 14 518 7.05 1.02
Khomas 209 554.90 20 363.44 169 585.40 249 524.30 1 084 112 305 9.72 7.65
Kunene 62 612.12 11 613.25 39 817.58 85 406.67 570 21 468 18.55 2.95
Ohangwena 94 482.30 5 593.07 83 504.19 105 460.40 854 48 487 5.92 2.40
Omaheke 79 140.26 15 114.19 49 474.05 108 806.50 557 19 639 19.10 1.72
Omusati 67 791.53 4 694.38 58 577.37 77 005.70 854 53 090 6.92 3.20
Oshana 117 508.30 11 062.85 95 794.10 139 222.60 846 45 331 9.41 1.47
Oshikoto 89 943.65 7 731.92 74 767.40 105 119.90 852 41 411 8.60 2.74
Otjozondjupa 99 804.74 8 329.81 83 454.94 116 154.50 837 38 238 8.35 1.27
Zambezi 55 112.15 4 135.86 46 994.26 63 230.05 566 21 945 7.50 1.75

4.1.4. Sampling Errors for Per Capita Consumption

Area
Per Capita

Consumption
Standard

Error

95% Confidence Interval Observation
Coefficient
of Variation

Design
Effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

%
Namibia 28 433.76 1 148.52 26 179.44 30 688.08 10 090 544 655 4.04 4.35
Urban 41 574.94 2 333.91 36 993.93 46 155.94 4 555 294 827 5.61 5.85
Rural 16 848.01 682.94 15 507.53 18 188.48 5 535 249 827 4.05 1.51
!Karas 32 760.00 3 958.73 24 989.79 40 530.21 559 23 567 12.08 2.55
Erongo 42 752.28 4 358.19 34 198.01 51 306.55 828 58 454 10.19 5.18
Hardap 35 674.51 4 721.37 26 407.38 44 941.64 561 20 901 13.23 1.79
KavangoEast 12 091.13 1 330.53 9 479.55 14 702.71 554 25 301 11.00 2.65
KavangoWest 12 005.91 855.21 10 327.30 13 684.53 568 14 518 7.12 1.01
Khomas 58 807.31 5 857.99 47 309.22 70 305.40 1 084 112 305 9.96 7.23
Kunene 14 058.51 2 432.79 9 283.43 18 833.60 570 21 468 17.30 2.50
Ohangwena 18 082.35 1 152.91 15 819.41 20 345.29 854 48 487 6.38 2.59
Omaheke 20 991.81 4 465.85 12 226.22 29 757.41 557 19 639 21.27 2.17
Omusati 14 483.82 965.63 12 588.48 16 379.16 854 53 090 6.67 2.75
Oshana 28 541.16 2 735.25 23 172.40 33 909.92 846 45 331 9.58 1.44
Oshikoto 19 352.16 1 590.45 16 230.41 22 473.91 852 41 411 8.22 2.41
Otjozondjupa 25 050.88 2 561.59 20 022.97 30 078.79 837 38 238 10.23 1.65
Zambezi 12 446.08 1 054.86 10 375.59 14 516.57 566 21 945 8.48 2.18

123

Appendix 4: Sampling Errors

4.1.5. Sampling Error for Annual Total Household Consumption by Sex of Head

Area

Total
Households

Consumption

Standard
Error

95% Confidence interval Observation
Coefficient

of
Variation

Design
Effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

(In millions) (In millions) (In millions) (In millions) %
Namibia
Female 23 824.00 1 050.14 21 762.78 25 885.21 4 616 239 816 4.41 2.63
Male 41 025.33 2 158.67 36 788.28 45 262.39 5 474 304 839 5.26 3.9
Urban
Female 15 016.96 929.90 13 188.59 16 845.34 2 037 123 641 6.19 3.3
Male 29 411.05 2 059.84 25 360.98 33 461.12 2 518 171 186 7.00 3.97
Rural
Female 8 807.033 487.93 7 848.16 9 765.90 2 579 116 175 5.54 1.43
Male 11 614.28 645.70 10 345.35 12 883.21 2 956 133 652 5.56 1.77

4.1.6. Sampling Error for Annual Average Household Consumption by Sex of Head

Area

Average
Households

consumption

Standard
error

95% Confidence Interval Observation
Coefficient

of
Variation

Design
effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

%
Namibia
Female 99 342.82 3 983.97 91 523.07 107 162.60 4 616 239 816 4.01 2.62
Male 134 580.40 6 829.43 121 175.60 147 985.30 5 474 304 839 5.07 4.08
Urban
Female 121 456.10 6 850.64 107 986.30 134 925.90 2 037 123 641 5.64 4.44
Male 171 807.20 11 649.95 148 900.90 194 713.40 2 518 171 186 6.78 5.11
Rural
Female 75 808.38 3 758.00 68 423.19 83 193.57 2 579 116 175 4.96 1.06
Male 86 899.17 4 498.70 78 058.36 95 739.98 2 956 133 652 5.18 1.41

4.1.7. Sampling Error for Annual Per Capita Consumption by Sex of Head

Area
Per Capita

Consumption
Standard

Error

95% Confidence Interval Observation
Coefficient

of
Variation

Design
Effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

%
Namibia
Female 22 118.81 930.53 20 292.36 23 945.25 4 616 239 816 4.21 2.55
Male 34 084.85 1 754.56 30 641.00 37 528.71 5 474 304 839 5.15 3.81
Urban
Female 32 250.83 1 962.97 28 391.22 36 110.44 2 037 123 641 6.09 4.17
Male 48 774.97 3 317.22 42 252.62 55 297.33 2 518 171 186 6.80 4.75
Rural
Female 14 403.24 704.85 13 018.07 15 788.41 2 579 116 175 4.89 1.01
Male 19 336.87 1 057.91 17 257.88 21 415.86 2 956 133 652 5.47 1.51

124
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

4.1.8. Sampling Error for Annual Total Household Consumption by APCI Percentiles and Deciles

Percentile
group/ deciles

Total
Consumption

Standard error
95% Confidence Interval

Coefficient of
Variation

Design effectLower
Confidence Limit

Upper
Confidence Limit

%
Percentiles
1-25 2 391 101 2 193 2 590 4.23 2.34
26-50 5 436 191 5 060 5 811 3.52 2.23
51-75 10 847 379 10 103 11 590 3.49 2.7
76-90 13 646 606 12 456 14 836 4.44 2.89
91-95 8 863 700 7 489 10 236 7.89 3.71
96-98 8 948 805 7 368 10 527 8.99 2.73
99-100 14 719 1 983 10 827 18 611 13.47 3.29
Deciles
1 585 38 511 660 6.47 1.99
2 1 087 66 958 1 216 6.04 1.92
3 1 530 80 1 372 1 688 5.26 1.72
4 2 030 113 1 809 2 251 5.54 1.93
5 2 595 128 2 343 2 847 4.95 1.73
6 3 379 172 3 041 3 718 5.10 1.99
7 4 555 216 4 132 4 978 4.73 1.76
8 6 371 333 5 717 7 025 5.23 2.41
9 10 188 521 9 165 11 212 5.12 2.58
10 32 529 2 631 27 366 37 692 8.09 4.62

4.1.9. Sampling Error for Annual Average Household Consumption by APCI Percentiles and Deciles

Percentile
Group/ Deciles

Average
Consumption

Standard Error

95% Confidence Interval
Coefficient of

Variation
Design EffectLower

Confidence
Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Percentiles
1-25 27 301 618 26 088 28 514 2.26 2.07
26-50 48 160 901 46 392 49 927 1.87 1.99
51-75 75 540 1 590 72 420 78 660 2.10 2.53
76-90 123 911 3 367 117 303 130 519 2.72 2.54
91-95 202 523 8 122 186 582 218 464 4.01 2.95
96-98 335 875 15 887 304 692 367 058 4.73 2.17
99-100 733 245 54 484 626 304 840 186 7.43 1.88
Deciles
1 18 299 472 17 373 19 226 2.58 1.29
2 30 377 971 28 471 32 283 3.20 2.08
3 38 013 895 36 257 39 768 2.35 1.51
4 46 995 1 378 44 291 49 699 2.93 1.95
5 52 693 1 375 49 994 55 391 2.61 1.63
6 63 403 1 801 59 867 66 939 2.84 2.04
7 78 910 2 123 74 742 83 078 2.69 1.67
8 94 622 2 930 88 870 100 373 3.10 2.22
9 135 176 4 222 126 889 143 462 3.12 2.44
10 359 540 17 988 324 233 394 846 5.00 2.73

125

Appendix 4: Sampling Errors

4.1.10. Sampling Error for Annual Per Capita Consumption by APCI Percentiles and Deciles

Percentile Group/
Deciles

Per Capita
Consumption

Standard Error
95% Confidence interval

Coefficient of
Variation

Design EffectLower Confidence
Limit

Upper
Confidence Limit

Percentiles
1-25 4 194 69 4 059 4 329 1.64 2.32
26-50 9 533 64 9 407 9 659 0.67 1.56
51-75 19 017 152 18 719 19 315 0.80 1.87
76-90 39 912 431 39 067 40 758 1.08 1.94
91-95 77 670 1 086 75 538 79 801 1.40 1.83
96-98 130 903 3 166 124 689 137 117 2.42 2.13
99-100 322 808 22 246 279 144 366 472 6.89 1.85
Deciles
1 2 566 52 2 464 2 668 2.03 2.14
2 4 766 38 4 691 4 841 0.80 1.65
3 6 704 33 6 639 6 770 0.50 1.15
4 8 891 58 8 777 9 006 0.65 1.53
5 11 397 75 11 249 11 545 0.66 1.66
6 14 801 98 14 608 14 994 0.66 1.44
7 19 959 147 19 670 20 248 0.74 1.71
8 27 978 193 27 598 28 358 0.69 1.55
9 44 673 485 43 721 45 626 1.09 1.95
10 142 637 6 423 130 029 155 244 4.50 2.53

4.1.11. Sampling Error for Consumption Group: Food, Beverage and Tobacco

Area

Food and
Beverage

Consumption

Standard
Error

95% Confidence Interval Observation
Coefficient
of Variation

Design
Effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

% % %
Namibia 36.3 1.4 33.5 39.0 10 090 544 655 3.87 2.78

Urban 26.9 1.5 23.9 30.0 4 555 294 827 2.88 5.70
Rural 56.6 1.8 53.0 60.2 5 535 249 827 1.62 3.23

!Karas 31.5 4.0 23.6 39.4 559 23 567 12.76 1.16
Erongo 23.1 1.6 20.0 26.3 828 58 454 6.86 2.73
Hardap 26.2 3.3 19.7 32.8 561 20 901 12.66 0.99
Kavango East 42.3 3.2 36.1 48.5 554 25 301 7.45 1.62
Kavango West 57.0 4.2 48.6 65.3 568 14 518 7.45 1.60
Khomas 25.5 2.7 20.2 30.8 1 084 112 305 10.62 3.00
Kunene 50.5 9.4 32.1 68.9 570 21 468 18.54 3.05
Ohangwena 56.0 3.2 49.8 62.2 854 48 487 5.62 2.84
Omaheke 46.7 8.4 30.1 63.3 557 19 639 18.09 1.66
Omusati 63.5 2.9 57.8 69.1 854 53 090 4.51 2.47
Oshana 47.9 5.1 38.0 57.9 846 45 331 10.61 1.65
Oshikoto 53.5 3.4 46.9 60.1 852 41 411 6.27 1.96
Otjozondjupa 38.4 3.0 32.5 44.3 837 38 238 7.82 0.74
Zambezi 41.5 3.0 35.6 47.5 566 21 945 7.26 2.21

126
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

4.1.12. Sampling Error for Consumption Group: Housing

Area
Housing

Consumption
Standard

error

95% Confidence interval Observation
Coefficient
of Variation

Design
effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

% % %
Namibia 31.8 1.1 29.5 34.0 10 090 544 655 3.60 2.94

Urban 35.4 1.4 32.6 38.2 4 555 294 827 4.10 3.28
Rural 23.9 1.3 21.3 26.5 5 535 249 827 5.57 1.39

!Karas 28.5 2.1 24.3 32.6 559 23 567 7.38 1.10
Erongo 38.6 1.7 35.3 41.9 828 58 454 4.35 1.35
Hardap 38.7 4.4 30.1 47.4 561 20 901 11.37 1.27
Kavango East 27.4 1.6 24.3 30.4 554 25 301 5.68 1.06
Kavango West 21.3 2.2 17.0 25.5 568 14 518 10.17 0.71
Khomas 36.9 2.6 31.9 41.9 1 084 112 305 6.94 3.65
Kunene 24.4 4.6 15.3 33.5 570 21 468 18.91 2.04
Ohangwena 25.9 2.0 21.9 29.9 854 48 487 7.88 1.77
Omaheke 24.7 4.7 15.5 33.8 557 19 639 18.85 1.67
Omusati 21.6 2.6 16.5 26.8 854 53 090 12.12 2.42
Oshana 23.5 2.7 18.3 28.7 846 45 331 11.28 1.36
Oshikoto 28.0 2.6 23.0 33.1 852 41 411 9.13 1.65
Otjozondjupa 28.5 2.0 24.5 32.4 837 38 238 7.02 0.75
Zambezi 22.9 2.0 18.9 26.8 566 21 945 8.82 2.02

4.1.13. Sampling Error for Consumption Group: Clothing and Footwear

Area

Clothing and
Footwear

Consumption

Standard
Error

95% Confidence interval Observation
Coefficient
of Variation

Design
Effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

% % %
Namibia 4.16 0.14 3.88 4.448 10 090 544 655 3.62 2.11

Urban 4.81 0.21 4.40 5.212 4 555 294 827 4.47 2.35
Rural 2.76 0.15 2.47 3.056 5 535 249 827 5.44 1.78
!Karas 3.18 0.44 2.32 4.045 559 23 567 12.59 1.07
Erongo 5.32 0.51 4.32 6.314 828 58 454 9.82 2.86
Hardap 3.79 0.38 3.05 4.530 561 20 901 8.75 0.90
Kavango East 3.84 0.53 2.80 4.892 554 25 301 13.96 2.01
Kavango West 3.37 0.36 2.66 4.079 568 14 518 10.75 1.04
Khomas 4.47 0.32 3.85 5.094 1 084 112 305 7.73 2.50
Kunene 4.02 0.89 2.26 5.769 570 21 468 23.54 2.70
Ohangwena 3.75 0.40 2.98 4.530 854 48 487 10.54 2.46
Omaheke 4.31 1.12 2.11 6.501 557 19 639 26.75 0.97
Omusati 3.23 0.36 2.52 3.937 854 53 090 11.04 2.97
Oshana 4.34 0.43 3.49 5.193 846 45 331 9.99 1.37
Oshikoto 2.43 0.30 1.84 3.024 852 41 411 12.41 1.68
Otjozondjupa 3.69 0.31 3.09 4.295 837 38 238 8.73 0.93
Zambezi 5.73 0.35 5.03 6.421 566 21 945 6.16 0.93

127

Appendix 4: Sampling Errors

4.1.14. Sampling Error for Consumption Group: Health

Area

Health
Consumption

Standard
Error

95% Confidence Interval Observation
Coefficient
of Variation

Design
effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

% % %
Namibia 1.65 0.24 1.18 2.12 10 090 544 655 14.47 2.38

Urban 2.01 0.34 1.34 2.68 4 555 294 827 16.98 2.42
Rural 0.85 0.10 0.66 1.05 5 535 249 827 11.61 0.98

!Karas 1.87 0.47 0.95 2.79 559 23 567 25.13 1.28
Erongo 1.79 0.42 0.96 2.62 828 58 454 23.57 1.46
Hardap 1.36 0.26 0.85 1.87 561 20 901 19.19 1.44
Kavango East 0.96 0.14 0.69 1.22 554 25 301 14.21 1.00
Kavango West 1.21 0.24 0.74 1.68 568 14 518 19.88 0.81
Khomas 2.49 0.62 1.28 3.71 1 084 112 305 24.87 2.49
Kunene 1.44 0.42 0.61 2.27 570 21 468 29.49 1.69
Ohangwena 0.77 0.12 0.54 1.01 854 48 487 15.72 2.19
Omaheke 1.32 0.29 0.75 1.89 557 19 639 21.99 1.09
Omusati 0.49 0.22 0.06 0.92 854 53 090 44.34 2.43
Oshana 0.63 0.11 0.41 0.84 846 45 331 17.80 0.95
Oshikoto 0.61 0.14 0.32 0.89 852 41 411 23.77 1.70
Otjozondjupa 1.64 0.38 0.90 2.39 837 38 238 23.13 0.71
Zambezi 1.00 0.22 0.57 1.43 566 21 945 21.96 1.44

4.1.15. Sampling Error for Consumption Group: Education

Area

Education
Consumption

Standard
Error

95% Confidence Interval Observation
Coefficient
of Variation

Design
Effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

% % %
Namibia 2.56 0.12 2.31 2.80 10 090 544 655 4.88 1.97

Urban 3.20 0.17 2.87 3.54 4 555 294 827 5.34 1.92
Rural 1.15 0.10 0.95 1.35 5 535 249 827 9.03 2.26

!Karas 2.43 0.55 1.35 3.50 559 23 567 22.51 2.20
Erongo 1.80 0.17 1.46 2.14 828 58 454 9.50 1.11
Hardap 1.33 0.17 1.00 1.66 561 20 901 12.53 0.83
Kavango East 2.10 0.34 1.44 2.76 554 25 301 15.96 1.37
Kavango West 1.51 0.38 0.77 2.25 568 14 518 24.97 1.30
Khomas 4.07 0.31 3.46 4.68 1 084 112 305 7.64 2.03
Kunene 2.25 1.05 0.18 4.32 570 21 468 46.89 1.97
Ohangwena 0.90 0.12 0.67 1.13 854 48 487 13.05 2.25
Omaheke 1.73 0.55 0.66 2.81 557 19 639 31.57 1.57
Omusati 1.75 0.33 1.10 2.39 854 53 090 18.76 2.75
Oshana 2.11 0.23 1.67 2.56 846 45 331 10.78 1.01
Oshikoto 1.23 0.17 0.90 1.55 852 41 411 13.55 1.72
Otjozondjupa 1.61 0.25 1.13 2.10 837 38 238 15.26 1.27
Zambezi 1.90 0.23 1.46 2.34 566 21 945 11.85 0.97

128
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

4.1.16. Sampling Error for Consumption Group: Furnishing and Equipment

Area
Furnishing and

Equipment
Standard

Error

95% Confidence Interval Observation
Coefficient
of Variation

Design
Effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

% % %
Namibia 5.27 0.25 4.78 5.76 10 090 544 655 4.74 2.55

Urban 5.72 0.35 5.04 6.40 4555 294 827 6.05 2.82
Rural 4.30 0.23 3.86 4.74 5535 249 827 5.26 1.28

!Karas 5.90 0.61 4.70 7.10 559 23 567 10.37 0.82
Erongo 6.05 0.44 5.19 6.90 828 58 454 7.21 1.67
Hardap 5.94 0.65 4.66 7.21 561 20 901 10.94 1.11
Kavango East 6.41 0.66 5.11 7.72 554 25 301 10.34 0.73
Kavango West 4.91 0.73 3.48 6.35 568 14 518 14.83 1.21
Khomas 5.50 0.62 4.28 6.73 1 084 112 305 11.35 3.15
Kunene 5.64 1.14 3.41 7.88 570 21 468 20.16 2.36
Ohangwena 3.80 0.36 3.09 4.51 854 48 487 9.54 2.61
Omaheke 4.71 1.03 2.70 6.73 557 19 639 21.82 1.58
Omusati 4.05 0.51 3.05 5.05 854 53 090 12.58 2.72
Oshana 3.89 0.40 3.12 4.67 846 45 331 10.17 1.14
Oshikoto 3.85 0.39 3.08 4.62 852 41 411 10.18 1.15
Otjozondjupa 5.50 0.53 4.46 6.55 837 38 238 9.70 1.03
Zambezi 10.73 0.99 8.78 12.68 566 21 945 9.25 1.03

4.1.17. Sampling Error for Consumption Group: Transport and Communication

Area

Transport and
Communication

Consumption

Standard
Error

95% Confidence Interval Observation
Coefficient

of
Variation

Design
Effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

% % %
Namibia 7.54 0.49 6.59 8.49 10 090 544 655 6.44 1.80

Urban 8.87 0.67 7.56 10.19 4 555 294 827 6.44 1.80
Rural 4.64 0.47 3.71 5.57 5 535 249 827 7.55 1.88

!Karas 9.77 1.63 6.57 12.97 559 23 567 10.22 1.45
Erongo 10.48 1.90 6.76 14.21 828 58 454 16.70 0.98
Hardap 9.88 1.78 6.39 13.37 561 20 901 18.09 2.03
Kavango East 6.08 1.38 3.37 8.78 554 25 301 17.99 0.88
Kavango West 5.15 1.05 3.10 7.21 568 14 518 22.66 1.16
Khomas 8.04 0.92 6.23 9.84 1 084 112 305 20.34 0.68
Kunene 4.63 1.10 2.47 6.79 570 21 468 11.43 2.17
Ohangwena 4.66 1.22 2.27 7.06 854 48 487 23.80 1.75
Omaheke 9.19 1.87 5.53 12.86 557 19 639 26.13 2.98
Omusati 1.55 0.29 0.99 2.12 854 53 090 20.30 0.89
Oshana 8.76 2.16 4.51 13.01 846 45 331 18.45 1.32
Oshikoto 3.90 0.63 2.66 5.14 852 41 411 24.71 1.31
Otjozondjupa 7.13 1.32 4.55 9.72 837 38 238 16.20 1.06
Zambezi 9.70 2.32 5.15 14.26 566 21 945 18.46 0.90

129

Appendix 4: Sampling Errors

4.1.18. Sampling Error for Consumption Group: Others

Area

Other
Consumption

Standard
Error

95% Confidence Interval Observation
Coefficient
of Variation

Design
Effect

Lower
Confidence

Limit

Upper
Confidence

Limit
Unweighted Weighted

% % %
Namibia 10.77 0.36 10.07 11.47 10 090 544 655 3.33 1.92

Urban 13.05 0.45 12.17 13.92 4 555 294 827 3.41 1.72
Rural 5.82 0.41 5.02 6.63 5 535 249 827 7.03 1.93

!Karas 16.88 1.37 14.19 19.57 559 23 567 8.12 1.21
Erongo 12.81 0.60 11.63 13.99 828 58 454 4.69 1.46
Hardap 12.73 1.41 9.97 15.49 561 20 901 11.05 1.41
Kavango East 10.94 1.57 7.86 14.02 554 25 301 14.35 0.86
Kavango West 5.56 0.82 3.95 7.17 568 14 518 14.72 1.33
Khomas 13.03 0.77 11.53 14.53 1 084 112 305 5.87 1.77
Kunene 7.13 1.85 3.49 10.76 570 21 468 25.98 3.21
Ohangwena 4.22 0.56 3.12 5.32 854 48 487 13.29 4.29
Omaheke 7.36 1.50 4.42 10.31 557 19 639 20.35 1.58
Omusati 3.83 0.62 2.62 5.05 854 53 090 16.16 2.27
Oshana 8.80 1.16 6.51 11.08 846 45 331 13.23 2.64
Oshikoto 6.48 0.72 5.07 7.89 852 41 411 11.11 2.43
Otjozondjupa 13.58 0.91 11.79 15.36 837 38 238 6.71 0.88
Zambezi 6.53 0.54 5.46 7.60 566 21 945 8.33 1.64

130
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

131

Appendix 3: Estimation

132
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey
(NHIES) 2015/2016 Report

Namibia Statistics Agency
P.O. Box 2133, FGI House, Post Street Mall,

Windhoek, Namibia

Tel: +264 61 431 3200
Fax: +264 61 431 3253

Email: info@nsa.org.na
www.nsa.org.na