Telecommunication

The most common networks available in the District include Vodafone, MTN, Tigo, and Glo Telecom. The functionality of each telecommunication network varies from location to location. The proportion of the population 12 years and older who own mobile phones is 36.9 percent. In general, 25.2 percent of the total district population own mobile phones.

Housing
Introduction

This chapter gives the analysis of household structure, size and composition in the District per the 2010 Population and Housing Census. Social and cultural factors like family systems and marriage determine the kind of living arrangements found in a household. Thus, the structure of a household, composition and size may differ from one ethnic group to another due the prevailing kinship and inheritance systems

Household Size by type of locality

 Table 3.1 shows that the household population in the District is 94,029 and the number of households is 22,529. The average household size in the District is 4.2 and it is lower than both the regional (4.3) and the national (4.5)

Table 3.1: Household size by type of locality

Household composition

 Household generally consists of a head, with or without spouse, children, in-laws, parents, grandchildren, and other relatives or non-relative. The head of a household is usually the person who has economic and social responsibility for the household. Table 3.2 indicates that 24.0 percent of household compositions are heads. The proportion of males who are household heads is 30.7 percent; this proportion is higher than that for female household heads (17.5%).

Table 3.2: Household population by composition and sex

Of all household members, children (son/daughter) constitute the highest percent (39.1%), followed by heads of households (24.0%) Next are grandchildren (10.8%) and spouse (10.4%). Adopted or foster children (0.6%) form the smallest proportion. In terms of sex, the Table further shows that30.7 percent of males are household heads as against 17.5 percent for females. This could confirm the assertion that more men than women assume family leadership/headship roles. The proportion of children (son/daughter) who are members of male-headed households is 41.2 percent; this proportion is higher than the corresponding percentage (37.0%) in female-headed households. Similarly, the percentage of grandchildren in male-headed households is 11.4 percent higher than the corresponding percentage of 10.3 percent for female- headed households (Table 3.2).

Household structure

Table 3.3 shows that the nuclear family structure comprising the head, spouse(s) and children) is more common; it forms a proportion of 26.2 percent of all household structures and it is higher than the proportion of 23.1 percent recorded for extended family system made up of heads, spouse, children, and head’s relatives. Single parent extended family structures are 17.0 percent of all household structures; this is higher than single parent nuclear family proportion of 10..4 percent. There are more male members in nuclear family households made up of head, spouse and children (28.0%) than female members who constitute a proportion of 24.5 percent. Females constitute 19.2 percent of all members in single parent extended family households; this is higher than the 14.6 percent proportion for male members in such households

Table 3.3: Household population by structure and sex

Household headship

The basic responsibility of a household head is to ensure the welfare of all members of the household, including access to food, clothing, and housing is met. The characteristics of the household head such as sex, age, education, occupation are important for understanding household dynamics. Detailed information on household composition by type of locality is presented in Appendix Table 1 and summarised in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1 indicates that 22.4 percent of household heads are in the rural areas with their spouse(s) and biological/adopted children only compared to 20.2 percent for their counterparts in the urban areas. Also, more household heads in urban areas (20.2%) than rural areas (18.0%) live alone without any family. Again, more household heads in urban areas (3.5%) than rural areas (3.3%) live with their spouses only. On the other hand, no household head in district lives with multiple spouses only.

Figure 3.1: Household headship by type of locality

 Access to Utilities and Household Facilities

Lighting

Table 8.8 indicates that 59.8 percent of households in the District use electricity (mains) as their main sources of lighting which is relatively higher compared to the regional figure of 49.6 percent. Kerosene lamp (32.7 %) is the second largest source of lighting in the District.

Figure 8.8 shows that a greater proportion of households in rural areas (60.4%) than urban areas (57.2%) use electricity (mains) as their main source of lighting. On the other hand, the proportion of households in urban areas (34.1%) which use kerosene lamp as their main source of lighting is more than that of rural areas (32.4%). The proportion of household using crop residue as source of lightning is zero in both rural and urban areas.

 Source of cooking fuel

Table 8.9 describes the source of cooking fuel and cooking space by the households in the District. From the data, 72.2 percent of households use wood as their main source of cooking fuel which is higher compared to the regional figure of 57.1 percent. It is also revealed that 18.9 percent of households in the District use charcoal for cooking. Less than six percent (5.6%) of households in the District use gas as their main source of cooking fuel.

The use of wood as main cooking fuel in the rural areas (76.9%) is more predominant than the urban areas (52.5%). Also, charcoal is mostly used in the urban areas (33.6%) compared to the rural areas (15.3%). The proportion of households which use gas as their main source of cooking fuel in the urban areas (9.5%) is more than that of rural areas (4.7%).

In terms of cooking space, Table 8.9 indicates that the most popular form is the separate room devoted exclusively for cooking and this is the choice of 36.1 percent of households. The second most common form of cooking space is the use of structure with roof but no wall (26.7 percent). Another 14.1 percent of households use open space in compound for cooking while 3.5 percent of the households do not have cooking space.

Table 8.10 presents information on the main source of water in dwelling unit for drinking and other domestic use by households. The source of drinking water for majority of households (35.7%) in the District is water from river/stream. A total of 420 households representing 1.9 percent of all households depend on sachet water as their main source of water for drinking. Again, 20.5 percent of households in the District depend on water from pipe-borne outside dwelling as against 3.9 percent who use pipe-borne inside dwelling for drinking.

A little less than half the proportion of all households in the urban areas (44.8%) use water from river/stream from drinking while 33.5 percent of households in the rural areas also drink from river/streams. The proportion of households who use pipe-borne outside dwelling in the urban areas (31.8%) is more than that of rural areas (17.7%).

The use of water from river/streams (41.5%) for other domestic activities is again the highest among households in the District. Majority of households in urban areas (48.9%) use water from river/stream for other domestic activities than households in rural areas (39.7%). Less than four percent (3.7%) of households in the District use pipe-borne water inside dwelling unit for other domestic activities. On the other hand, unprotected well (0.7%) and water from other sources are the least used for other domestic purposes in the District. However, the proportion of households using public tap/standpipe is higher in the rural areas (19.2%) than the urban areas (4.0%).

 Toilet and Bathing Facilities

The type of bathing and toilet facilities used by households in the District is shown in Table 8.11. The Table reveals that 0.1 percent of households in the rural areas still use bucket/pan as toilet facility whereas in the urban areas, 18.6 percent of households still use pit latrine. In all, 29.5 percent of households in the District still use pit latrine while 13.1 percent of households do not have any toilet facility and so use the bush to relieve themselves.

Even though the proportion of households in the rural areas (12.4%) without any toilet facility is unacceptable, it is recorded that 16.2 percent of households in the urban areas also use the bush (No facility). It is established that the proportion of urban households that use public toilet facility (WC/KVIP/Pit/Pan) is 38.9 percent as against 7006 households representing 38.6 percent of rural households who also use public toilet facility. 66

Table 8.11 confirms that the most important toilet facility used in the District is the public toilet facility. This is similar to the observation at both the regional and national level. A major concern raised by the information in the Table is the relatively large number of households using unimproved toilet facilities. The proportion of households in the District using unimproved toilet facilities is over half (52.5%). This proportion is made up of 13.1 percent with no facilities, 38.7 percent public toilet facilities, 0.1 percent pan and 0.5 percent others.

The data again reveals that 0.1 percent of households in the District bath in river bodies while 6.8 percent also bath in open space around their houses. The proportion of households in urban areas who own bathroom for exclusive use is 17.9 percent while 30.5 of households in urban areas shares open cubicle for bathing. About 4.7 percent of households in the District use bathrooms in another house and 21.9 percent also share separate bathroom in the same house.

 Method of Waste Disposal

The most common method of disposing liquid and solid waste by households in the District is represented in Table 8.12. The District has majority of its households in the rural areas (80.5%). The Table indicates that the dominant method of solid disposal in the District is through the use of public dump (open space) (63.9%). The practice of burning refuse is another common method used by households to dispose solid waste. Thus, 16.6 percent of the households in the District burn their solid waste. Less than two percent (1.6%) of households in the District use the public container as a method of solid waste disposal. 67

About 67.9 percent of households in the urban areas use public dump site (open space) whereas 62.9 percent of rural households also use open space public dump sites. The practise of disposing solid waste through burning is common among the rural households (17.4%) than the urban households (13.4%). Table 8.12 again shows that 8.1 percent of households dump their solid waste indiscriminately. Again, the practice is very common among rural households (9.2%) than urban households (3.2%).

Liquid waste disposal is another challenge in the District. From the Table, 47.7 percent of households in the District throw their liquid waste onto their compound as the most common method of liquid waste disposal. In the localities however, 47.9 percent of households in rural areas use this method as against 46.7 percent of urban households. The least method of liquid waste disposal used by rural households is through drainage system into a gutter (0.7%) whereas among the urban households, the least used method is through the sewerage system (0.8%). Again, the proportion of rural households (34.6%) who throw liquid waste onto the street/outside is more than that of urban households (26.8%).