2008 POPULATION AND HOUSING CENSUS

REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA

Housing Conditions and Housing Facilities

Analytical Report on

LIBERIA INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS AND GEO-INFORMATION SERVICES (LISGIS) MONROVIA, LIBERIA

SEPTEMBER 2011

Table of Content Page Table of content……………………………………………………………. i List of Tables ……………………………………………………………… iii List of Figures …………………………………………………………….. v List of Acronyms………………………………………………………….. v Foreword …………………………………………………………………. vi Acknowledgement ………………………...……………………………… vii Fact Sheet ……………………….………………………………………… ix Executive Summary ……………………………………………………….. xi

Chapter One: Background …………………………………………….… 1 1.1 Introduction ……………………..…………………………………. 1 1.2 Importance of Data on Households Characteristics and Housing Conditions

………………………....................................................................... 1 1.3 Objectives of the study ……………………………………………. 2 1.4 Methodology ……………………………………………………… 2 1.4.1 Source of Data ……………………………………………………… 2 1.4.2 Method of Data Analysis …………………………………………… 2 1.5 Limitations of Data …………………………………………………… 3 1.6 Organization of the report …………………………………………… 3

Chapter Two: Household Character istics …………………………………… 4 2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………… 4 2.2 Sex and Age of Household Heads …………………………………… 4 2.3 Living quarters and populations type in Liberia ……………………… 6 2.4 Household Occupancy and size ……………………………………… 7 2.4.1 Number of Rooms per Household …………………………………… 7 2.5 Households by size and sex of house head …………………………… 9 2.6 Summary ……………………………………………………………… 12

Chapter Three: Household Utilities ……………………………………… 13 3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………… 13 3.2 Access to safe water ………………………………………………… 13 3.2.1 Main Source of Drinking Water ……………………………………… 13 3.3 Human Waste Disposal System ……………………………………… 15 3.4 Time to the nearest health facility …………………………………… 17 3.5 Time to the nearest primary school ………………………………….. 19 3.6 Main source of fuel for cooking ……………………………………… 21 3.7 Summary ……………………………………………………………… 22

Chapter Four : Housing Conditions …………………………………………… 23 4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………… 23 4.2 Ownership status of households in Liberia …………………………… 23 4.3 Repair needs of housing units ………………………………………… 25 4.4 Quality of housing type of building materials used …………………... 26 4.5 Summary ……………………………………………………………… 29

i

Chapter Five: Household Warefare…………………………………………… 30 5.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………….. 30 5.2 Ownership of Essential Household Amenities……………………………….. 30 5.3 Ownership of Non-Essential Household Amenities ………………………… 32 5.4 Agriculture Households and Type of Housing Units…………………………. 34 5.5 Employment Status……………………………………………………………. 35 5.6 Quality of Housing…………………………………………………………….. 36 5.7 Summary………………………………………………………………………. 38 Chapter Five: Policy Implication and Way forward…………………………… 39 6.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 39 6.2 Summary of Key Findings…………………………………………………….. 39 6.3 Policy Implications…………………………………………………………….. 40 6.4 Recommendations……………………………………………………………… 41 References………………………………………………………………………….. 43 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………. 44

ii

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Distribution of household heads by sex and age...........................................................5

Table 2.2: Distribution of household heads by sex and county.................................................... 6

Table 2.3: Percent distribution of Population by sex and type of living quarters......................... 7

Table 2.4: Percent distribution of household heads by number of rooms per household by sex

of head and urban –rural............................................................................................. 8

Table 2.5: Distribution of households by number of rooms and county..................................... 9

Table 2.6: Distribution of Households by size and sex of head of household............................. 10

Table 2.7: Distribution of households by size and county........................................................... 11

Table 3.1: Percent distribution of Heads of Household by sex and main source of drinking…. 14

Table 3.2: Distribution of household by main source of drinking water and county…………. 15

Table 3.3: Households by sex of heads and type of Human waste disposal by urban-rural….. 16

Table 3.4: Percent of distribution of Households by sex of heads and type of Human waste

disposal systems by county……………………………………………………….. 17

Table 3.5: Percent distribution households by sex of heads and time to the nearest health facility

by urban-rural……………………………………………………………………… 18

Table 3.6: Percent distribution HH by time to reach the nearest health facility and County… 19

Table 3.7: Percent distribution HH by sex of heads by time to the nearest primary school

and urban-rural……………………………………………………………………. 20

Table 3.8: Percent distribution households by time to the nearest primary school by County 20

Table 3.9: Distribution of households by sex of heads and main source of fuel for cooking

by urban-rural……………………………………………………………………… 21

Table3.10: Percent distribution of HH by main source of fuel for cooking and county……… 22

Table 4.1: Distribution of households by household ownership status in Liberia..................... 23

Table 4.2: Distribution of households by ownership status of housing unit and counties........ 24

Table: 4.3: Distribution of households by rural urban residence and current repair needs...... 25

Table 4.4: Distribution of households by current repair needs by County............................. 26

Table 4.5: Percent distribution of HH by sex of heads of household by type of outer wall.... 27

Table 4.6: Percent distribution of households by type of outer walls and county.................. 28

Table 4.7: Percent distribution of households by type of floor materials in Liberia................ 28

Table 4.8: Percent distribution of households by type of floor by County................................... 29

Table 5.1: Percentage distribution of household ownership of essential amenities by county.... 32

iii

Table 5.2: Percentage distribution of households by non-essential assets ownership by economic

activity of household head........................................................................................... 33

Table 5.3: Percentage distribution of HH ownership of non-essential amenities by county....... 34

Table 5.4: Percentage distribution of household by engagement in agricultural activities and type

of housing unit structure........................................................................................... 35

Table 5.5: Percentage distribution of households by quality of housing unit and sex of

Head and county......................................................................................................... 38

iv

List of Figures Figure 2.1: Percent distribution of HH sizes- 1962 -2008................................................... 12

Figure 5.1: Percentage distribution of household ownership of essential amenities

by employment status......................................................................................... 31

Figure 5.2: Percentage distribution of HH by employment status of the household head... 36

Figure 5.3: Percentage distribution of households by activity status of the household head

and quality of housing unit.................................................................................... 37

List of Acronyms GDP Gross Domestic Product LISGIS Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services

MDG Millennium Development Goals

NGOs Non-governmental Organizations

NHA National Housing Authority

NPHC National Population and Housing Census

PRS Poverty Reduction Strategy

v

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success of this first post-war census was a result of the dedicated efforts of the Census Commission, the Development Partners, the Board of Directors, the Management and staff of the Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services (LISGIS), Government line ministries and agencies, county officials and local authorities, the 11,618 field staff who were deployed throughout the country and the millions of Liberians and Foreign Residents who responded. Several International and local analysts have worked assiduously at various stages to translate the data from statistical tables to report formats that can easily be utilized by the Government, International agencies, our development partners, other data users and the general public. We recognize the immense efforts of the lead Consultant, Mr. James P.M. Ntozi and four Research Assistants: Dr. Yeko Mwanga, Mr. John M.A. Mbeire, Mr. Charles Lwanga and Mr. Abel Nzabona. We also give credit to the laudable assistance and dedicated services of Mrs. Dorothy D. Johnson (TOKTEN Consultant, LISGIS), fourteen local analysts and their research assistants, through fervent training, workshops, seminars and emerging with the fourteen individual reports of the 2008 National Population and Housing Census. The sectionalized reports include:

• Administrative Report • Population Size and Composition • Fertility and Marriage Patterns • Mortality • Migration and Urbanization • Population Projections • Youth and Adolescents • Gender Dimensions • Education and Literacy • Labour Force and Employment • Persons with Disabilities and the Elderly • Housing Conditions and Housing Facilities • Population in Agriculture • Poverty Dimensions

The 2008 National Population and Housing Census programme is adjudged to have been executed within acceptable limits of the highest international standards, using state-of-the-art technology and expertise at all stages of the census operations. The extra resources and other support have been coming from a plethora of organisations whose contributions and moral support are herein acknowledged. We also extend our thanks and appreciation to the United Nations Population Fund for their continuous support all throughout the tenure of the 2008 Census activities, from the stages of planning, execution, analysis and the completion of the fourteen final reports. They have contributed varied levels of assistance, from logistics to the provision of technical expertise.

vii

On behalf of the Census Commission and the Board of Directors of LISGIS, I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to the Government of Liberia and our development partners for providing the required resources for conducting this census. My thanks also go to all local institutions and Analysts that worked with LISGIS to implement and conclude the census programme. Special appreciation for making the census a success goes to Dr. Toga McIntosh, former Chairman of the Commission, the Census Commissioners, the Census Secretariat and other local and international professionals, all categories of census field staff, office staff and all respondents who provided the required information. Hon. Amara Konneh Minister of Planning and Economic Affairs and Chairman of the Census Commission

viii

Facts Sheet

INDICATOR NUMBER

PERCENT

Total number of Household 670,295 100.0 Number of household Urban 327,022 48.8 Number of household Rural 343,273 51.2 Household population 3,425,241 98.5 Household population urban 1,611,162 47.0 Household population Rural 1,814,079 53.0 1-room households 228,359 34.0 2-room households 127,706 19.1 8+room households 20,123 3.0 1-person households 66,337 10.0 2-4 person households 262,444 39.2 5-7 person households 206,611 30.8 8+ person 134,708 20.1 Households using pipe/pump indoor 15,827 2.4 Households using pipe/pump outdoor 243,876 36.4 Households using open well 83,047 12.4 Households using River, Lake and Spring 154,448 23.0 Households using well protected wells 78,720 11.7 Households using flush toilet 90,677 13.5 Households using cover pit latrine 141,113 21.1 Households using bush 334,196 49.9 Households taking less than 20 minutes to the nearest health facilities 200,627 29.9 Households taking less than 20-59 minutes to the nearest health facilities 191,884 28.6 Households taking 80 or more minutes to the nearest health facilities 209,045 31.2 Households taking less than 20 minutes to the nearest primary school 376,714 56.2 Households taking less than 20-59 minutes to the nearest primary school 167,798 25.0 Households taking less than 80 or more minutes to the nearest primary school 75,812 11.3 Households using electricity for cooking 2,263 1.0 Households using wood for cooking 383,266 57.2 Households using charcoal for cooking 247,842 37.0 Households living in purchased housing units 18,760 2.8 Households living in self-constructed housing units 348,641 52.0 Households living in inherited housing units 103,555 15.4 Households with no repair needs 83,042 12.4 Households with manor repair needs 289,861 43.2 Households with rehabilitation and reconstruction needs 290,427 43.3 Households with cement blocks as outer wall 148,425 22.1 Households with mud and sticks 315,307 47.0

ix

Households with mud and bricks 82,673 12.3 Households with cement as floor 263,214 39.3 Households with mud as floor 361,622 53.9 Households using electricity for lighting 30,644 4.6 Households using kerosene for lighting 204,208 30.5 Households using candle for lighting 174,359 26.0 Households using wood for lighting 27,506 4.1 Households using palm oil lamp for lighting 212,666 31.7 Percentage of households having mattresses 58.0 Percentage of households owing furniture 25.0 Percentage of paid employees owing television 16.0 Percentage of paid employees owning cell phone 50.0 Percentage of paid employees owning motorcycles 5.0 Percentage of paid employees owning refrigerator 4.0 Percentage of paid employees owning vehicles 6.0 Percentage of farming households residing in permanent housing units 6.0 Percentage of farming households residing in temporary housing units 50.0 Percentage of households heads in paid employment 15.0 Percentage of households heads in self employment 35.0 Percentage of households resident in permanent housing units 27.0

x

Executive Summary

This analytical report presents the household characteristics and housing conditions of Liberia. The household

headship among males and females was mainly concentrated in the age group 25-49; accounting for about two

thirds of the households. As expected, the proportion of household heads at younger ages for both sexes was

found to be small, less than 3 percent. At the national level, the male headed households were 73 percent while

the female headed were 27 percent.

The total population of Liberia was 3,476,608 of which 98.5 percent lived in households, while the

rest (1.5 percent) were living in other living quarters around the country. It was noted that, the Bush

society declined, reflecting a cultural transformation in Liberia where a substantial portion of the

population may have shifted away from this traditional form of living.

About one third of the households in Liberia resided in one room followed by those households

residing in two- room houses (19 percent). About one third of the households reported that they used

pipe or pump out door as the main source of drinking water, followed by river, lake or spring which

amounted to 23 percent. Flush toilets usage was also limited, 14 percent of the households used flush

toilets for waste disposal compared to about half of the households who relied on bushes. In Liberia,

57 percent of the households depended on charcoal and 37 percent on wood for cooking.

In terms of access to health services, about one third of households reportedly took less than 20

minutes to reach the nearest health facility and another one third took 80 minutes and above to reach

the nearest health facility. About half of the households were living in self-constructed housing units

and 15 percent of these housing units were inherited. About 47 percent of the households reportedly

resided in poor quality housing units whose outer walls were made of mud and sticks and only 22

percent were in housing units made of cement blocks.

The country had high essential and non-essential household amenities deficiency. At the national

level, paid employees reported the highest usage of essential and non- essential household amenities.

For instance, the percentages of households owning mattress, radio and furniture were estimated at 76

%, 54 % and 34 % respectively. Over half of the farmers who grow food crop mainly for subsistence

were resident in temporary housing units implying that gainful employment is crucial for poverty

reduction; through better paying jobs, households heads may be able to provide basic needs for their

family.

xi

The female headed households were sizable (180,995 or 27percent) in the country which could partly

be attributed to the civil conflict at which time women were empowered and constrained to take over

the households, as their male counterparts had to escape due to the insecurity which mainly targeted

the men. Access to safe drinking water and proper human waste disposal is a sure way of avoiding

some diseases. In addition, a high dependence on charcoal and wood for cooking should be avoided

since it may lead to the depletion of the forests and its catastrophic effects on the population and the

world over.

The following policy recommendations are made:

1. The Liberian Government should formulate and implement a favourable private investment

regulatory framework so that the private sector may invest in low cost housing for the benefit of

the poor masses in the country.

2. The Ministry of Youth Affairs should come up with projects to support the youth who dropped out

of school to engage in small scale enterprises. This may comprise of a training component on

entrepreneurship and marketing skills, a revolving start-up fund, adult education component to

help them understand financial issues.

3. The Liberian Government with the support of development partners should focus on increased

accessibility of the residents to utilities like electricity and water and sewerage for improved

welfare of the people. The Government should also offer budgetary support to the utility

companies so as to increase their coverage.

4. The “bush society” is on the decline and the Ministry of Education should include some of the

positive values in the formal education curriculum.

5. Community sanitation and hygiene programs should be enhanced so that the people may be

encouraged to construct covered pit latrines, protect sources of drinking water and promote

general family hygiene.

xii

1

Chapter One

Background 1.1 Introduction The family is usually considered as the basic unit of society and it is comprised of a mother, a

father and their children. In Africa, the concept of a family may include adopted or foster

children as well as relatives. A household is comprised of a group of people or family living

under one roof and eating together. In the 2008 National Population and Housing Census

(NPHC) of Liberia, a household was defined to be comprised of persons who regularly shared

basic necessities of life such as food and dwelling unit.

One cannot meaningfully speak of a household without referring to housing. It includes its

characteristics, defined as a shelter, lodging or dwelling. The type of housing and number of

rooms are important determinants of a household’s welfare. When the demand for housing is

higher than its supply, some people are likely to be deprived of housing. By extension, the

households in which such people belong are left homeless with adverse implications on their

health, education, nutrition, and other welfare indicators. These people are exposed to the

harshness of the weather and other natural hazards.

There have been a few studies conducted on households in Liberia. The Liberia Demographic

and Health Survey (LDHS) 2007 contained information on household population and housing

characteristics including the population distribution and household composition. Also Younquoi

(1988) studied the effects of household structure and size on household headship changes in

Liberia.

1.2 Importance of Data on Households Characteristics and Housing Conditions

Statistics on households are important for the determination of national economic priorities

because they reveal the potential demand for items which are consumed by households. Most of

the population is often enumerated in households and household characteristics and housing

conditions therefore merit careful study so as to apply social equity in development planning.

2

The Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) articulated the poor state of housing conditions in the

country and emphasized the need for urgent action since it leads to homelessness and undermines

government’s efforts aimed at improving the quality of life of its citizenry. The PRS further

states that the lack of housing would be addressed using a dual approach such as tackling basic

shelter and related infrastructure and services. The PRS is approaching its final stage of

implementation and Government needs information on housing and household characteristics for

monitoring and formulation of a successor strategy. The 2008 National Population and Housing

Census of Liberia questionnaire included questions on dwelling unit, housing utilities and

ownership of amenities and the responses were used for this analysis.

1.3 Objectives of the study

The overall objective of this report is to provide information on housing and household

characteristics. The specific objectives are to:

• Provide information on household characteristics of the Liberian population;

• Assess the household distribution and access to utilities ;

• Determine the housing conditions and household welfare of the population; and

• Suggest policy recommendations.

1.4 Methodology

1.4.1 Source of Data

Data used in the analyses were obtained from the 2008 National Population and Housing Census.

The questions on housing were comprised of the structure and type of household, housing tenure,

housing facilities, ownership of amenities, and access to community level infrastructure like

hospital, water supply and schools. In addition, the main construction materials of the housing

unit, sources of fuel and energy used for lighting and cooking and involvement of household

members in agriculture were also probed.

1.4.2 Method of Data Analysis

The analysis was done at national, urban, rural and county levels using simple rates and

percentages. Generally, analysis was not done on gender basis but due regard was given to

gender disparities in household headship, ownership of household amenities, and other allied

socio-economic issues.

3

1.5 Limitations of Data

A few comparisons were made for certain household aspects between the 1984 and 2008

censuses. A significant portion of the 1984 census data suffered massive loss as a result of the

Liberian Civil War. However, a census report was released in 2009 based on remnants of data,

particularly those on households. This means there are not many past indicators to refer to and

hence this report serves as baseline for future comparisons.

The analysis lacked comparative sector policy targets because of the civil crisis, which has left

most of the sectors without relevant data. However, a number of government ministries as well

as utility agencies are in the process of crafting their respective sector policies. The sectoral

targets may include provision of adequate housing, access to safe water supply, solid waste

disposal and electricity.

1.6 Organization of the report

This report is organized into six chapters. Chapter one gives the introduction including concepts

of household characteristics and housing conditions, objectives, methodology and data

limitations. The household characteristics are presented in Chapter two followed by household

utilities in Chapter three. Chapter four gives housing conditions while Chapter five focuses on

household welfare. Chapter six covers summary of key findings, policy implications and

proposed recommendations.

4

Chapter Two

Household Characteristics 2.1 Introduction

The 2008 Census collected data on household characteristics including household members, sex,

age and housing facilities. The types of residential units were also captured including those

classified as institutional or floating population. This chapter analyzes the characteristics of

households and excludes institutions.

2.2 Sex and Age of Household Heads

Table 2.1 presents the distribution of households by age and sex. As can be seen in the table,

household headship among both sexes is mainly concentrated in the combined age groups 25-49,

accounting for about 64.1 percent. The highest proportion for both sexes was in the age group35-

39 years (14.8 percent). Male and female household heads in this age group accounted for 15.2

and 12.9 percent respectively. As expected, the proportion of household heads at younger ages

for both sexes was found to be small. The table shows that male and female heads at early ages

10 to 19 years did not exceed 3.0 percent of the total heads. Similarly, low proportions were

observed in rural and urban areas where the differential was small. This is because many of the

young people were still in school and were not able to form their own households. In contrast,

the older age groups of 60 years and above had higher proportions of 14.5 percent for both sexes

varied from 13.3 percent of males and 17.5 percent of females.

5

Table 2.1 Distribution of Household Heads by Sex and Age Urban Rural Liberia Age

Males Females Both Sexes

Males Females Both Sexes

Males Females Both Sexes

196 193 389 163 95 258 359 288 647 10-14

*(0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1)

2828 2740 5568 2205 1867 4072 5,033 4,607 9,640 15-19

(1.2) (2.8) (1.7) (0.8) (2.2) (1.2) (1.0) (2.5) (1.4)

15780 10377 26157 14658 6007 20665 30,438 16,384 46,822 20-24

(6.9) (10.6) (8.0) (5.6) (7.2) (6.0) (6.2) (9.1) (7)

32136 14357 46493 309,2 7881 7881 63,048 22,238 85,286 25-29

(14.0) (14.7) (14.2) (11.9) (9.4) (2.3) (12.9) (12.3) (12.7)

34677 13772 48449 33026 8283 41309 67,703 22,055 89,759 30-34

(15.1) (14.1) (14.8) (12.7) (9.9) (12.0) (13.8) (12.2) (13.4)

36052 13614 49666 38327 9714 48041 74,379 23,328 97,707 35-39

(15.7) (14) (15.2) (14.8) (11.6) (14.0) (15.2) (12.9) (14.6)

32066 11318 43384 33279 9115 42394 65,345 22,055 85,778 40-44

(14.1) (11.6) (13.3) (12.8) (10.1) (12.3) (13.4) (11.3) (12.8)

24622 8597 33219 29275 8428 37703 53,897 17,025 70,922 45-49

(10.7) (8.8) (10.2) (11.3) (10.1) (11.0) (11) (9.4) (10.6)

18033 6560 24593 19899 7110 27009 37,932 13,670 51.602 50-54

(7.9) (6.7) (7.5) (7.7) (8.5) (7.9) (7.8) (7.6) (7.7)

11558 4210 15768 14884 4993 19877 26,442 9,203 35,645 55-59

(5.0) (4.3) (4.8) (5.7) (6) (5.8) (5.4) (5.1) (5.3)

8222 4196 12418 12674 6210 18884 20,895 10,406 31,302 60-64

(3.6) (4.3) (3.8) (4.9) (7.4) (5.5) (4.3) (5.7) (4.7)

5523 2919 8442 10054 4748 14802 15,577 7,667 23,244 65-69

(2.4) (3.0) (2.6) (3.9) (5.7) (4.3) (3.2) (4.2) (3.5)

7819 4657 12476 20432 9034 29466 28,251 13,691 41,942 70+

(3.4) (4.8) (3.8) (7.9) (10.8) (8.6) (5.8) (7.6) (6.3)

229512 97510 327022 259788 83485 343273 439,300 180,995 670,295

Total (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) *Percentages are in parentheses Table 2.2 shows the distributions of household heads by sex and county. The table shows that

there were more male headed households than the female ones nationally and across all the

counties. At the national level, the male headed households were 73 percent while the female

headed ones were 27 percent. The distribution of households by county was in line with the

population distribution since the highest percentage was in Montserrado (35 percent), followed

by Nimba (12 percent). The counties with the least proportion of households were: Grand Kru

6

and River Gee with each of them accounting for less than 2 percent. This implies that service

delivery should match demand by the population.

Table 2.2: Distribution of Household Heads by Sex and County County Household heads Male Percent Females Percent Total Percent Bomi 14,562 71.0 5,946 29.0 20508 3.1 Bong 50,418 72.2 19,392 27.8 69810 10.4 Grand Bassa 37,253 78.5 10,187 21.5 47440 7.1 Cape Mount 17,565 73.3 6,385 26.7 23,950 3.6 Gbarpolu 11,691 80.4 2842 19.6 14,533 2.2 Grand Gedeh 13,643 75.2 4,500 24.8 18,143 2.7 Grand Kru 6,613 73.7 2,356 26.3 8969 1.3 Lofa 33,441 67.4 16,201 32.6 49,642 7.4 Margibi 34,234 75.9 10,861 24.1 45,095 6.7 Maryland 14,301 74.3 4,953 25.7 19,254 2.9 Montserrado 166,501 71.6 66,084 28.4 232,585 34.7 Nimba 58,197 72.1 22,537 27.9 80,734 12.0 Rivercess 11,090 79.3 2,891 20.7 13,981 2.1 River Gee 7,363 75.0 2,459 25.0 9,822 1.5 Sinoe 12,428 78.5 3,401 21.5 15,829 2.4 Total 489,300 73.0 180,995 27.0 670,295 100.0

2.3 Living quarters and population type in Liberia

The 2008 census classified the households into two: “private households” and “institutions”. The

term “private household” was applied to normal households as generally understood in censuses

in sub-Saharan Africa. “Group quarters” refer to institutional populations like boarding schools,

military camps, boarding houses, hotels or motels, persons living in ‘bush school’, hospitals and

other medical establishments, and prisons. They also include persons with no fixed places of

aboard.

Table 2.3 depicts the distribution of population by sex and type of living quarters. The total

population of Liberia was 3,476,608 of which 98.5 percent lived in households, while the rest

(1.5 percent) were lived in other living quarters around the country. There was little difference

between urban and rural areas in terms of the living quarters since over 98 percent were in

households. It should be noted that in 1984, “bush society’ and educational facilities dominated

the non-households residence, accounting for 64.3 and 13.8 percent of them respectively

(LISGIS 2009). The reduction in “bush society”* proportion reflects cultural transformation in

the Liberia society where a substantial portion of the population may have shifted away from this

traditional form of living.

_____________________________________ *Bush Society is traditional fraternity in Liberia in which young men and women are initiated once in life in order to be taught the basic tenets of man and womanhood. From there, initiates are prepared for marriage

7

Table: 2.3 Percent Distribution of Population by Sex and Type of Living Quarters

Urban Rural Liberia Living quarters Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Household 787,660 823,502 1,611,162 923,235 890,844 1,814,079 1,710,895 1,714,346 3,425,241 *(48.9) (51.1) (98.6) (50.9) (49.1) (98.4) (49.9) (50.1) (98.5)

Educational 2,233 1,712 3,945 7,491 6,884 14,375 9,724 8,596 18,320

(56.6) (43.4) (0.2) (52.1) (47.9) (0.8) (53.1) (46.9) (0.5)

Prison 478 49 527 99 88 187 577 137 714

(90.7) (9.3) (0.0) (52.9) (47.1) (0.0) (80.8) (19.2) (0.0) Bush Society 80 118

198 277 3,161

3,438 357 3,279

3,636

(40.4) (59.6) (0.0) (8.1) (91.9) (0.2) (9.8) (90.2) (0.1)

Orphanage 1,638 1,510 3,148 796 638 1,434 2,434 2,148 4,582

(52) (48) (0.2) (55.5) (44.5) (0.1) (53.1) (46.9) (0.1) Floating Population 6,339 1,935

8,274 2,799 1,029

3,828 9,138 2,964

12,102

(76.6) (23.4) (0.5) (73.1) (26.9) (0.2) (75.5) (24.5) (0.3)

Others 3,664 2,801 6,465 3,156 2,392 5,548 6,820 5,193 12,013

(56.7) (43.3) (0.4) (56.9) (43.1) (0.3) (56.8) (43.2) (0.3)

TOTAL 802,092 831,627 1,633,719 937,853 905,036 1,842,889 1,739,945 1,736,663 3,476,608

100.0 100.0 100.0 *Percentages are in Parenthesis

2.4 Household Occupancy and Size

2.4.1 Number of Rooms per Household

The 2008 Census collected information on household occupancy which consists of number of

persons in the household and rooms. Table 2.4 shows the distribution of households by number

of rooms, sex of household head and rural-urban residence. The table indicated that the majority

(34.1 percent) of the households in Liberia resided in one room. Household residency in one

room was higher in urban centers (43.6 percent) compared to 25 percent in rural areas.

The households residing in two-room houses were 19 percent which was the second most

common house type. However, there was rural differential with the rural area accounting for 22

percent as against 16 percent for the urban ones. Male headed households were the majority of

the households residing in all room types, from one to more than 8 rooms. The percentages of

household occupancy declined with increase in the number of rooms. The concentration of

8

households in one or two rooms housing units is a reflection of possible congestion and a

manifestation of poverty.

Table 2.4 Distribution of Household Heads by Number of Rooms, Sex, and Residence, 2008

Urban Rural Liberia Number of Rooms Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

1 98518 44028 142546 63042 22771 85813 161560 66799 228359

*(43.2) (44.4) (43.6) (24.1) (27.7) (25.0) (33.0) (36.8) (34.1)

2 36959 15384 52343 57750 17613 75363 94709 32997 127706

(16.2) (15.5) (16.0) (22.1) (21.4) (22.0) (19.4) (18.2) (19.1)

3 33968 13885 47853 60775 18086 78861 94743 31971 126714

(14.9) (14.0) (14.6) (23.3) (22.0) (23.0) (19.4) (17.6) (18.9)

4 25192 10947 36139 45899 13425 59324 71091 24372 95463

(11.1) (11.0) (11.1) (17.6) (16.3) (17.3) (14.5) (13.4) (14.2)

5 12248 5525 17773 16325 4820 21145 28573 10345 38918

(5.4) (5.6) (5.4) (6.3) (5.9) (6.2) (5.8) (5.7) (5.8)

6 8159 3756 11915 9195 2900 12095 17354 6656 24010

(3.6) (3.8) (3.6) (3.5) (3.5) (3.5) (3.5) (3.7) (3.6)

7 3717 1669 5386 2728 888 3616 6445 2557 9002

(1.6) (1.7) (1.6) (1.0) (1.1) (1.1) (1.3) (1.4) (1.3)

8+ 9065 4002 13067 5396 1660 7056 14461 5662 20123

(4.0) (4.0) (4.0) (2.1) (2.0) (2.1) (3.0) (3.1) (3.0)

Total 227826 99196 327022 261110 82163 343273 488936 181359 670295 *Percentages are in parentheses

There was much variation between counties in terms of number of rooms occupied by

households. Table 2.5 depicts the distribution of households by number of rooms and county.

The table shows that Bomi and Montserrado counties had the highest percentage of households

residing in one-room housing units estimated at about 50 and 49 percent respectively. Also,

households staying in two-room housing units were found to be more prevalent in Grand Kru,

Gbarpolu and Margibi counties accounting for about 24 percent in each of the counties. River

Gee and Lofa had the highest percent of households in three-room housing units, accounting for

about 32 percent of households in each of them. The distribution of households by number of

rooms occupied by the household declined with the increase in the number of rooms as seen at

the national level.

9

Table: 2.5 Distributions of Households by Number of Rooms and County, 2008

No of rooms Number of rooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ Total Bomi 10282 4560 3163 1349 517 223 94 320 20508

*(50.1) (22.2) (15.4) (6.6) (2.5) (1.1) (0.5) (1.6) (100.0) Bong 19805 14616 11226 13504 4415 3822 882 1540 69810

(28.4) (20.9) (16.1) (19.3) (6.3) (5.5) (1.3) (2.2) (100.0) Gbarpolu 3410 3514 3768 2202 835 355 117 332 14533

(23.5) (24.2) (25.9) (15.2) (5.7) (2.4) (0.8) (2.3) (100.0) Grand Bassa 16900 10769 8371 5603 2254 1564 605 1374 47440

(35.6) (22.7) (17.6) (11.8) (4.8) (3.3) (1.3) (2.9) (100.0) Grand Cape Mount 7948 5114 4194 3275 1505 948 339 627 23950

(33.2) (21.4) (17.5) (13.7) (6.3) (4.0) (1.4) (2.6) (100.0) Grand Gedeh 2027 2864 5238 5503 1395 617 148 351 18143

(11.2) (15.8) (28.9) (30.3) (7.7) (3.4) (0.8) (1.9) (100.0) Grand Kru 1135 2172 2698 1858 713 228 51 114 8969

(12.7) (24.2) (30.1) (20.7) (7.9) (2.5) (0.6) (1.3) (100.0) Lofa 9899 11706 15746 7467 2358 1239 339 888 49642

(19.9) (23.6) (31.7) (15.0) (4.8) (2.5) (0.7) (1.8) (100.0) Margibi 20752 11005 5779 3564 1414 1057 393 1131 45095

(46.0) (24.4) (12.8) (7.9) (3.1) (2.3) (0.9) (2.5) (100.0) Maryland 3177 3305 5421 3530 1763 881 315 862 19254

(16.5) (17.2) (28.2) (18.3) (9.2) (4.6) (1.6) (4.5) (100.0) Montserrado 114392 37242 30480 20560 9799 6913 3683 9516 232585

(49.2) (16.0) (13.1) (8.8) (4.2) (3.0) (1.6) (4.1) (100.0) Nimba 13338 13287 18939 18188 8533 4715 1457 2277 80734

(16.5) (16.5) (23.5) (22.5) (10.6) (5.8) (1.8) (2.8) (100.0) River Cess 2892 2618 4168 2515 1052 378 128 230 13981

(20.7) (18.7) (29.8) (18.0) (7.5) (2.7) (0.9) (1.6) (100.0) River Gee 681 2093 3160 2455 861 302 110 160 9822

(6.9) (21.3) (32.2) (25.0) (8.8) (3.1) (1.1) (1.6) (100.0) Sinoe 1721 2841 4363 3890 1504 768 341 401 15829

(10.9) (17.9) (27.6) (24.6) (9.5) (4.9) (2.0) (2.5) (100.0) *Percentages are in parentheses

2.5 Households by Size and Sex of Household Head

Table 2.6 shows the distribution of households by number of persons and county. The table

indicates that at the national level, large household sizes (8 or more persons) accounted for 20

percent of all the households, while the medium size (i.e. 4-6 persons) accounted for 38.5

percent. The one and two-person households accounted for about 21.3 percent. The trend hardly

changed in the urban and rural areas where the medium size households accounted for a high

percentage in both rural and urban areas. In addition, there existed slight differential in

10

household sizes among the sexes. The female headed households tended to be smaller in both

rural areas and urban centers with their proportion being higher than that of male headed from 1–

4 person households and less for 5 persons and above.

Table 2.6: Distribution of Households by Size and Sex of Head of Household, 2008 No. persons per HH

Urban Rural Liberia

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

1 Person 27,666 12,307 39,973 19,661 6,703 26,364 47,327 19,010 66,337 *(12.1) (12.4) (12.2) (7.5) (8.2) (7.7) (9.7) (10.5) (9.9)

2 Persons 27,294 14,569 41,863 22,389 11,976 34,365 49,683 26,545 76,228 (12.0) (14.7) (12.8) (8.6) (14.6) (10.0) (10.2) (14.6) (11.4)

3 Persons 29,932 16,194 46,126 31,549 13,939 45,488 61,481 30,133 91,614 (13.1) (16.3) (14.1) (12.1) (17.0) (13.3) (12.6) (16.6) (13.7)

4 Persons 30,415 14,231 44,646 37,041 12,915 49,956 67,456 27,146 94,602 (13.4) (14.3) (13.7) (14.2) (15.7) (14.6) (13.8) (15.0) (14.1)

5 Persons 27,281 11,348 84,836 35,545 10,662 84,836 62,826 22,010 84,836

(12.0) (11.4) (14.1) (13.6) (13.0) (14.1) (12.8) (12.1) (14.1)

6 Persons 22,556 8,549 31,105 30,299 7,814 38,113 52,855 16,363 69,218

(9.9) (8.6) (9.5) (11.6) (9.5) (11.1) (10.8) (9.0) (10.3)

7 Persons 17,285 6,211 23,496 23,625 5,436 29,061 40,910 11,647 52,557

(7.6) (6.3) (7.2) (9.0) (6.6) (8.5) (8.4) (6.4) (7.8)

8 + Persons 45,308 157,49 61,057 60,951 12,700 73,651 106,259 28,449 134,708

(19.9) (15.9) (18.7) (23.3) (15.5) (21.5) (21.7) (15.7) (20.1)

Total 227,737 99,196 326,933 261,110 82,163 343,273 488,936 181,359 670,295

*Percentages are in parenthesis Table 2.7 shows the distribution of households by size and county. The table shows that the

counties with large household sizes (8 or more persons) were: Maryland, Grand Gedeh, Grand

Kru, and Nimba which were: 43, 42, 33 and 25 percents respectively. The counties with small

household sizes (1-4 persons) were: Bomi, Margibi and Montserrado counties with 64, 56 and 56

percent respectively. Bomi and Margibi counties border Montserrado which is more urbanized

and the cost of living is high, hence, the household heads are more informed about the

importance of having smaller household sizes.

11

Table 2.7: Distribution of Households by Size and County, 2008

Number of persons

County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ Total Bomi 3,034 3,179 3,472 3,346 2,615 1,834 1,154 1,865 20,508 *(14.8) (15.5) (16.9) (16.3) (12.8) (8.9) (5.6) (9.1) (100)

6,822 8,524 10,634 11,103 9,845 7,699 5,253 9,921 69,810 Bong

(9.8) (12.2) (15.2) (15.9) (14.1) (11.0) (7.5) (14.2) (100) 4,905 5,971 7,636 7,844 6,562 5,003 3,319 6,186 47,440 Bassa

(10.3) (12.6) (16.1) (16.5) (13.8) (10.5) (7.0) (13.0) (9100) 2,279 2,723 3,263 3,289 3,020 2,329 1,749 5,296 23,948 Cape Mount

(9.5) (11.4) (13.6) (13.7) (12.6) (9.7) (7.3) (22.1) (100) 891 1,123 1,523 1,806 1,831 1,779 1,543 7,647 18,143 Grand

Gedeh (4.9) (6.2) (8.4) (10) (10.1) (9.8) (8.5) (42.1) (100) 253 430 779 1,107 1,240 1,158 1,054 2,945 8,969 Grand Kru

(2.8) (4.8) (8.7) (12.3) (13.8) (12.9) (11.8) (32.8) (100) 3,169 4,248 6,470 7,008 6,901 5,706 4,471 11,668 49,642 Lofa

(6.4) (8.6) (13) (14.1) (13.9) (11.5) (9) (23.5) (100) 5,834 6,121 6,640 6,628 5,529 4,443 3,149 6,744 45,095 Margibi

(12.9) (13.6) (14.7) (14.7) (12.3) (9.9) (7.0) (15.0) (100) 851 959 1,377 1,763 2,018 2,036 1,948 8,300 19,254 Maryland

(4.4) (5.0) (7.2) (9.2) (10.5) (10.6) (10.1) (43.1) (100) 30,866 32,154 34,243 32,202 27,123 21,252 15,494 39,126 232,460 Montserrado

(13.3) (13.8) (14.7) (13.8) (11.7) (9.1) (6.7) (16.8) (100) 4,553 6,786 9,568 11,207 10,942 9,785 7,967 19,919 80,734 Nimba

(5.6) (8.4) (11.9) (13.9) (13.6) (12.1) (9.9) (24.7) (100) 755 1,255 2,121 2,434 2,217 1,656 1,356 2,183 13,981 Rivercess

(5.4) (9.0) (15.2) (17.4) (15.9) (11.8) (9.7) (15.6) (100) 807 1,015 1,458 1,784 1,818 1,640 1,517 5,779 15,829 Sinoe

(5.1) (6.4) (9.2) (11.3) (11.5) (10.4) (9.6) (36.5) (100) 317 478 789 1,106 1,225 1,159 1,150 3,597 9,822 River Gee

(3.2) (4.9) (8.0) (11.3) (12.5) (11.8) (11.7) (36.6) (100) 1,001 1,262 1,641 1,975 1,950 1,739 1,433 3,532 14,533 Gbarpolu

(6.9) (8.7) (11.3) (13.6) (13.4) (12.0) (9.9) (24.3) (100) *Percentages are in parentheses Figure 2.1 presents a time series analysis of household sizes from 1962 when the first census was

conducted in Liberia to 2008. The figure shows a general decline of the proportion of the one-

person households from about 13 percent in 1962 to 10 percent in 2008. Likewise the trend of

the 2-4 person households is downward from about 52 percent in 1962 to 27 percent in 1984 then

it rose to 39 percent in 2008. However, the proportion of large sized (8+persons) households rose

from 10 percent in 1962 to 30 percent in 1984 and dropped to 20 percent in 2008. The reversal of

the increasing to downward trend of the large household may have been due to the effects of the

civil crises which forced many people from the rural areas with large households to urban centers

with smaller sizes.

12

Figure 2.1: Percent Distribution of Household Sizes- 1962 -2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1962 1974 1984 2008

Per

cen

t

1- person 2 – 4 5 – 7 8+

2.6 Summary

In Liberia, household headship among males and females was mainly concentrated in the age

group 25-49; accounting for about 64.1 percent. The highest proportion for both sexes was in the

age group 35-39 years (14.8 percent). Male and female household heads in this age group

accounted for 15.2 and 12.9 percent respectively. The majority of the households live in one or

two-bed room housing units accounting for 53 percent of the total households. There has been a

general decline in household sizes since the 1984 census.

The female headed households are fairly large, (180,995or 27 percent).

13

Chapter Three

Household Utilities 3.1 Introduction

Improving the quality of life of the people continues to be one of the ultimate goals of the

Government of Liberia as spelt out in the PRS. The focus of the PRS includes improvement of

water and sanitation, increased electricity generation and utilization and environmental health

sanitation. The Government is implementing the PRS with the support of international partners.

This chapter discusses household amenities, including the issues related to water, sanitation and

waste disposal system.

3.2 Access to Safe water

Access to safe water is of paramount importance because of its implication on public health,

human development and environmental sustainability. The provision of water however has a

number of challenges because a number of areas well served with safe water sources are most

likely to be polluted by improper waster management and other contaminants.

3.2.1 Main Source of Drinking Water

Table 3.1 displays the distribution of households by the main source of drinking water in the

country. The table shows that pipe-borne or outdoor pump accounted for 36 percent, the highest

source of drinking water, followed by river, lake or spring, 23 percent. It also showed that there

was a major difference in main source of drinking water between the urban and rural areas. The

leading source of drinking water in urban centers was pipe-borne or out-door pump, which

accounted for 45 percent; while river, lake or spring constituted the corresponding sources for

the rural, accounting for 43 percent. Piped, or outdoor pump accounted for 28 percent in rural

areas. The ratio of male headed households to female headed ones in the urban area was 2.5 to 1,

compared to nearly 3 to 1 in the rural areas.

Gender disparity was also observed in the distribution of main source of water. These ratios are

in consonance with the population sizes and not necessarily due to differences in the preference

between the sexes.

Generally, piped-borne or pump water, public tap and closed well or protected spring accounted

for about 60 percent nationally and these sources are considered relatively safe water for

14

drinking. It implies that about 40 percent of the population had no access to safe drinking water

which jeopardizes the health of the population since this may promote the spread of water borne

diseases.

Table: 3.1 Percent Distribution of Heads of Household by Sex and Main Source of Drinking, 2008

Urban Rural Liberia Source of Drinking Water Male Female

Both sexes Male Female

Both Sexes Male Female

Both Sexes

Piped or Pump indoors 8506 3213 11719 3093 1015 4108 11599 4228 15827 *(3.7) (3.2) (3.6) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (2.4) (2.3) (2.4) Piped or Pump outdoors 103166 44975 148141 70354 25381 95735 173520 70356 243876 (45.3) (45.3) (45.3) (26.9) (30.9) (27.9) (35.5) (38.8) (36.4) Public Tap 25951 11889 37840 18795 7459 26254 44746 19348 64094 (11.4) (12.0) (11.6) (7.2) (9.1) (7.6) (9.2) (10.7) (9.6) Closed well or Protected Spring 41272 18329 59601 14245 4874 19119 55517 23203 78720 (18.1) (18.5) (18.2) (5.5) (5.9) (5.6) (11.4) (12.8) (11.7) Open Well 27799 12605 40404 32234 10409 42643 60033 23014 83047 (12.2) (12.7) (12.4) (12.3) (12.7) (12.4) (12.3) (12.7) (12.4) River, Lake, or Spring 5348 2050 7398 116064 30986 147050 121412 33036 154448 (2.3) (2.1) (2.3) (44.5) (37.7) (42.8) (24.8) (18.2) (23.0) Water Vendors 12304 4560 16864 3633 1058 4691 15937 5618 21555 (5.4) (4.6) (5.2) (1.4) (1.3) (1.4) (3.3) (3.1) (3.2) Other 3480 1575 5055 2692 981 3673 6172 2556 8728 (1.5) (1.6) (1.5) (1.0) (1.2) (1.1) (1.3) (1.4) (1.3) Total 227826 99196 327022 261110 82163 343273 488936 181359 670295 *Percentages are in parentheses Table 3.2 shows the distribution of households by main source of drinking water and county.

Montserrado and Nimba had the highest usage of pipe- borne or outdoor pump estimated at

about 45 percent for both counties respectively. Most of the other counties relied heavily on

river, lake or spring as main source of drinking water with Rivercess at 82.9 percent followed by

Sinoe at 61.4 percent and Grand Kru at 61.1 percent. Pipe or indoor pump was hardly used in the

counties as it is only Montserrado which reported 4 percent of its households using it.

The relatively high usage of piped water in Nimba and Montserrado was associated with the

Government’s effort to rehabilitate the water distribution systems destroyed by the civil war as

well as the presence of many NGOs in these two counties.

15

Table: 3.2 Distribution of household by Main Source of Drinking Water and County, 2008

Source of Drinking Water

Piped or Pump indoors

Piped or Pump outdoors

Public Tap

Closed well or Protected Spring

Open Well

River, Lake, or Spring

Water Vendors Other Total

Liberia 15827 243876 64094 78720 83047 154448 21555 8728 670295 *(2.4) (36.4) (9.6) (11.7) (12.4) (23) (3.2) (1.3) (100) Bomi 155 7946 2104 3342 1000 5250 508 203 20508 (0.8) (38.7) (10.3) (16.3) (4.9) (25.6) (2.5) (1.0) (100) Bong 615 6570 6570 8156 15295 17656 618 572 69810 (0.9) (29.1) (9.4) (11.7) (21.9) (25.3) (0.9) (0.8) (100) Grand Bassa 593 9186 1765 4394 4635 25424 733 710 47440 (1.3) (19.4) (3.7) (9.3) (9.8) (53.6) (1.5) (1.5) (100) Grand Cape Mount 188 6051 3131 2473 2367 8705 605 430 23950 (0.8) (25.3) (13.1) (10.3) (9.9) (36.3) (2.5) (1.8) (100) Grand Gedeh 331 6529 4106 1220 1334 4212 215 196 18143 (1.8) (36.0) (22.6) (6.7) (7.4) (23.2) (1.2) (1.1) (100) Grand Kru 107 1499 1033 181 371 5479 198 101 8969 (1.2) (16.7) (11.5) (2.0) (4.1) (61.1) (2.2) (1.1) (100) Lofa 1118 19262 6529 2772 5370 13791 300 500 49642 (2.3) (38.8) (13.2) (5.6) (10.8) (27.8) (0.6) (1.0) (100) Margibi 948 15085 2246 7103 7611 11285 332 485 45095 (2.1) (33.5) (5.0) (15.8) (16.9) (25.0) (0.7) (1.1) (100) Maryland 693 7110 3893 893 508 5286 454 417 19254 (3.6) (36.9) (20.2) (4.6) (2.6) (27.5) (2.4) (2.2) (100) Montserrado 9596 104069 25208 37932 24664 10944 16619 3553 232585 (4.1) (44.7) (10.8) (16.3) (10.6) (4.7) (7.1) (1.5) (100) Nimba 1173 36345 4796 7360 17648 11752 545 1115 80734 (1.5) (45.0) (5.9) (9.1) (21.9) (14.6) (0.7) (1.4) (100) River Cess 15 1105 223 525 273 11591 160 89 13981 (0.1) (7.9) (1.6) (3.8) (2.0) (82.9) (1.1) (0.6) (100) Sinoe 75 3366 648 1156 684 9721 77 102 15829 (0.5) (21.3) (4.1) (7.3) (4.3) (61.4) (0.5) (0.6) (100) River Gee 130 1829 1252 576 727 5128 82 98 9822 (1.3) (18.6) (12.7) (5.9) (7.4) (52.2) (0.8) (1.0) (100) Gbarpolu 90 4166 590 637 560 8224 109 157 14533 (0.6) (28.7) (4.1) (4.4) (3.9) (56.6) (0.8) (1.1) (100) *Percentages are in parentheses

3.3 Human Waste Disposal System Liberia still has serious sanitation problems as evidenced by sporadic out breaks of cholera and

other diseases associated with poor sanitation. Monrovia, the country’s capital city, suffers from

poor sewer system as well as inadequate water supply. The Government with the support of

development partners has been working together to address sanitation as well as environmental

concerns in the country. The National Health Policy specially aims at improvement of solid

waste disposal through increased latrine coverage and training of extension workers engaged in

16

hygiene promotion. The flush toilets and covered pit latrines were classified as safe waste

disposal systems.

Table 3.3 shows the types of human waste disposal facilities in Liberia. In this table, flush toilet

coverage is about 14 percent nationally and in rural areas, it accounted for 2.5 percent. About

half of the households nationally rely on bushes for human waste disposal, 75 percent in rural

areas and almost 24 percent in urban centers. The difference between male and female headed

households in terms of waste disposal systems was marginal.

This implies that generally, there is need for improvement of waste disposal systems so as to

reduce the possible risk of water-borne diseases and illnesses due to poor hygienic conditions.

Table: 3.3 Households by Sex of Heads, Type of Human Waste Disposal, Urban-Rural Residence, 2008

Urban Rural Liberia Human waste disposal Male Female

Both Sexes Male Female

Both Sees Male Female

Both Sexes

Flush Toilet for HU only 34,114 14,144

48,258 2,250

688

2,938

36,364

14,832

51,196

*(15.0) (14.3) (14.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.9) (7.4) (8.2) (7.6) Flush Toilet Shared 23,298 10,124

33,422 4,657

1,402

6,059

27,955

11,526

39,481

(10.2) (10.2) (10.2) (1.8) (1.7) (1.8) (5.7) (6.4) (5.9) Covered Pit Latrine 64,247 27,921

92,168 36,714

12,231

48,945

100,961

40,152

141,113

(28.2) (28.1) (28.2) (14.1) (14.9) (14.3) (20.6) (22.1) (21.1)

Open Pit Latrine 29,178 12,607

41,785 10,919

3,601

14,520

40,097

16,208

56,305

(12.8) (12.7) (12.8) (4.2) (4.4) (4.2) (8.2) (8.9) (8.4)

Bush 52,857 23,894

76,751 196,622

60,823

257,445

249,479

84,717

334,196

(23.2) (24.1) (23.5) (75.3) (74.0) (75.0) (51.0) (46.7) (49.9)

Beach 13,813 5,705

19,518 7,443

2,492

9,935

21,256

8,197

29,453

(6.1) (5.8) (6.0) (2.9) (3.0) (2.9) (4.3) (4.5) (4.4)

Others 10,319 4,801

15,120 2,505

926

3,431

12,824

5,727

18,551

(4.5) (4.8) (4.6) (1.0) (1.1) (1.0) (2.6) (3.2) (2.8)

Total 227,826 99,196

327,022 261,110

82,163

343,273

488,936

181,359

670,295

*Percentages are in parenthesis

Table 3.4 shows the distribution of household heads by type of human waste disposal system in

the counties. The table shows that the bush was the main type of human waste disposal in all

counties with the exception of Montserrado which is more urbanized and where only 2 percent of

the households used bush. Other counties reported the major reliance on bush for human waste

disposal accounting for more than 40 percent outside Montserrado. The use of bush ranged from

the highest of 83.9 percent for Rivercess to the lowest of 41.4 percent for Maryland County. The

large use of bush in Rivercess further confirms earlier result of its being among the poorest

17

counties in the country. Montserrado County, the seat of the country’s capital city (Monrovia),

recorded the highest use of flush toilet both within and outside, accounting for about 30 percent

of the households.

Table: 3.4 Percent Distribution of Households by Sex of Heads, Type of Human Waste Disposal Systems and County

3.4 Time to the Nearest Health Facility Time taken to the nearest health facility is an indicator of accessibility to health services. Table

3.5 indicates that, about 30 and 18 percent of households reportedly take less than 20 minutes

and 20-39 minutes respectively to reach the nearest health facility. A relatively higher proportion

(31.2 percent) reportedly took 80 minutes and above to reach the nearest health facility. There

was a sharp differential observed between the urban and rural areas of the country. About 46

percent of the households in urban areas reported that they take less than 20 minutes to reach the

nearest health facility while it was 15 percent in rural areas for the same time taken to the nearest

health facility. There were more male headed households in all the categories of time taken to

reach the nearest health facility which is a reflection of household distribution by sex of the

household head.

The majority of the residents in rural areas reported to take relatively longer time to reach the

nearest health facility compared to the urban residents which depicts the poor state f health

Human waste disposal Flush

Toilet for HU only

Flush Toilet

Shared Covered

Pit Latrine Open Pit

Latrine Bush Beach Others Total Liberia 7.6 5.9 21.1 8.4 49.9 4.4 2.8 100 Bomi 1.1 2.1 26.9 5.2 61.0 2.6 1.2 100 Bong 1.9 2.7 19.5 6.5 66.3 2.0 1.2 100 Grand Bassa 3.0 2.6 15.7 6.1 67.8 3.1 1.8 100 Grand Cape Mount 2.0 3.3 21.0 7.2 61.5 3.7 1.2 100 Grand Gedeh 1.6 3.0 39.3 7.8 45.4 1.6 1.2 100 Grand Kru 0.7 1.0 13.9 7.1 64.9 11.5 1.0 100 Lofa 1.0 2.6 17.5 5.9 69.5 2.2 1.2 100 Margibi 3.9 4.3 21.9 6.4 60.2 1.8 1.5 100 Maryland 3.6 5.1 29.8 9.3 41.4 8.1 2.7 100 Montserrado 18.3 11.9 23.1 12.6 21.7 7.1 5.3 100 Nimba 1.8 2.4 20.4 5.4 66.3 2.1 1.6 100 River Cess 0.3 1.4 7.1 2.8 83.9 3.5 1.0 100 Sinoe 1.3 1.6 12.0 4.3 72.8 7.2 0.9 100 River Gee 1.0 1.6 15.8 13.1 65.0 2.4 1.1 100 Gbarpolu 0.8 1.1 15.7 3.5 75.9 1.9 1.1 100

18

delivery in the country side. This implies that the country may be losing people on account of

poor access to health services which could have been preventable.

Table: 3.5 Percentage of Distribution of Households by Sex of Heads, Time to the Nearest Health Facility and urban-rural Residence, 2008

Urban Rural Liberia Nearest Health facility Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Less than 20 Minutes

104,285

45,586

149,871

36,623

14,133

50,756

140,908

59,719

200,627

(45.8)*

(46.0)

(45.8)

(14.0)

(17.2)

(14.8)

(28.8)

(32.9)

(29.9)

20 - 39 Minutes

61,779

27,276

89,055

24,160

8,648

32,808

85,939

35,924

121,863

(27.1)

(27.5)

(27.2)

(9.3)

(10.5)

(9.6)

(17.6)

(19.8)

(18.2)

40 - 59 Minutes

26,099

11,589

37,688

24,419

7,914

32,333

50,518

19,503

70,021

(11.5)

(11.7)

(11.5)

(9.4)

(9.6)

(9.4)

(10.3)

(10.8)

(10.4)

60 - 79 Minutes

14,591

6,250

20,841

30,665

9,691

40,356

45,256

15,941

61,197

(6.4)

(6.3)

(6.4)

(11.7)

(11.8)

(11.8)

(9.3) (8.8)

(9.1) 80 and Over Minutes

18,394

7,225

25,619

142,546

40,880

183,426

160,940

48,105

209,045

(8.1)

(7.3)

(7.8)

(54.6)

(49.8)

(53.4)

(32.9)

(26.5)

(31.2)

Not Stated

2,678

1,270

3,948 2,697

897

3,594

5,375

2,167

7,542

(1.2)

(1.3)

(1.2)

(1.0)

(1.1)

(1.0)

(1.1)

(1.2)

(1.1)

Total

227,826

99,196

327,022

261,110

82,163

343,273

488,936

181,359

670,295 *Percentages are in parenthesis Table 3.6 presents household in the counties by the time taken to reach the nearest health facility. The table shows that in all counties except Montserrado and River Gee the proportion of households which took less than 20 minutes to reach the nearest health facilities were less than 30 percent. Montserrado has the capital city with a number of hospital and other health facilities while Rivercess (63 percent), Grand Bassa (54 percent) and Gbarpolu (57 percent) had very high proportion of households taking over 80 minutes to reach health facilities.

19

Table: 3.6 Percentage Distribution of Households by Time to Reach the Nearest Health Facility and County, 2008 Nearest Health facility

Less than 20 Minutes

20 – 39 Minutes

40 - 59 Minutes

60 - 79 Minutes

80 and Over Minutes

Not stated Total

Liberia 29.9 18.2 10.4 9.1 31.2 1.1 100 Bomi 23.0 15.8 12.3 12.3 35.9 0.7 100 Bong 17.2 12.7 10.7 9.6 48.5 1.1 100 Grand Bassa 15.0 11.3 9.2 9.5 53.6 1.3 100 Grand Cape Mount 25.2 12.3 12.9 10.3 38.3 1.1 100 Grand Gedeh 21.3 14.5 9.0 10.4 43.6 1.2 100 Grand Kru 23.7 13.4 5.4 6.9 49.6 1.0 100 Lofa 26.5 17.4 9.3 10.7 35.3 0.8 100 Margibi 22.6 19.2 15.5 12.2 29.6 0.8 100 Maryland 26.9 22.7 10.9 10.7 26.5 2.3 100 Montserrado 46.8 25.2 10.1 6.6 10.1 1.1 100 Nimba 20.0 14.7 11.6 10.9 41.5 1.2 100 River Cess 11.7 6.6 6.0 12.0 62.8 0.9 100 Sinoe 23.6 12.7 8.2 10.1 44.6 0.9 100 River Gee 33.2 14.2 3.6 9.6 37.9 1.4 100 Gbarpolu 17.2 7.6 9.4 7.9 56.8 1.1 100

3.5 Time to the nearest Primary School

Table 3.7 gives the percent distribution of households in Liberia by the time taken to the nearest

primary school. The table shows that the majority (56 percent) of the households took less than

20 minutes to reach the nearest primary school. The improved access to primary school can be

explained by Government’s efforts to meet the MDG targets as well as the support from the

international partners. About 85 percent of households in the urban area accessed the nearest

primary school in less than 40 minutes as against 53 percent in the rural. Proximity to the

schools does not imply good quality education, so the emphasis of Government school program

support should be, to ensure the availability of qualified teachers and teaching aids as well as

adequate text books.

20

Table: 3.7 Percentage Distribution of Households by Sex of Heads, Time to the Nearest Primary School and Urban-Rural Residence, 2008 Urban Rural Liberia Time to nearest primary school Male Female

Both sexes Male Female

Both sexes Male Female

Both sexes

Less than 20 Minutes 64.4 64.4 64.4 47.2

52.3

48.4

55.2

58.9 56.2

20 - 39 Minutes 21.2 21.6 21.3 14.6

15.2

14.7

17.7

18.7 17.9

40 - 59 Minutes 6.1 6.1 6.1 8.3 7.3

8.0

7.2

6.6 7.1

60 - 79 Minutes 2.8 2.7 2.8 7.6 6.9

7.4

5.4

4.6 5.2 80 and Over Minutes 2.8 2.5 2.7 20.5

16.5

19.5

12.2

8.8 11.3

Not Stated 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.9

1.9

2.3

2.3 2.3

Total

227,826

99,196

327,022

261,110

82,163

343,273

488,936

181,359

670,295 Table 3.8 provides the distribution of households in the counties by time to the nearest primary

school. Access to primary school was fairly good as there were substantial percentage of

households accessing school in less than 20 minutes. For instance, more than 30 percent of

households in the counties reported accessing primary school in less than 20 minutes. The

highest was found in Montserrado County (66.5 percent) and the lowest was Grand Bassa with

31.7 percent. The table shows that there were still substantial proportions of households in the

counties reportedly taking, at least, one hour to get to the nearest primary school.

Table: 3.8 Percentage Distribution Households by Time to the Nearest Primary School by County, 2008 Nearest primary school Less than

20 Minutes 20 - 39

Minutes 40 – 59 Minutes

60 - 79 Minutes

80 and Over

Minutes Not

stated Total Liberia 56.2 17.9 7.1 5.2 11.3 2.3 100 Bomi 48.7 18.3 10.2 6.1 14.3 2.5 100 Bong 43.0 15.4 8.7 7.2 23.4 2.3 100 Grand Bassa 31.7 15.4 10.0 9.0 32.2 1.7 100 G. Cape Mount 55.4 15.6 8.5 4.4 14.4 1.7 100 Grand Gedeh 55.2 18.6 6.1 5.0 13.2 2.0 100 Grand Kru 65.8 20.7 2.1 2.2 8.3 0.9 100 Lofa 52.6 19.8 7.3 6.6 11.5 2.2 100 Margibi 40.9 20.3 11.0 8.1 16.8 3.0 100 Maryland 55.2 22.5 6.2 6.4 6.6 3.2 100 Montserrado 66.5 18.8 5.5 3.2 3.4 2.6 100 Nimba 65.2 17.0 6.0 3.8 5.9 2.0 100 River Cess 45.8 15.0 10.1 9.8 17.1 2.2 100 Sinoe 56.5 17.6 6.8 5.4 12.4 1.3 100 River Gee 63.1 22.9 3.6 2.9 6.3 1.2 100 Gbarpolu 57.4 11.9 7.6 5.9 16.0 1.3 100

21

3.6 Main source of fuel for cooking Fuel for cooking, like that of lighting fuel, affects the living environment of household members.

For instance, the excessive use of charcoal has health implications for the household members

and it also contributes to environmental degradation.

Table 3.9 summarises the distribution of households by main source of fuel for cooking, sex of

household head and by rural-urban residence. This table shows that in the households in Liberia

greatly depend on charcoal and wood for cooking fuel with wood accounting for 57 percent and

charcoal for 37 percent. The rural areas mostly depended upon firewood while the urban areas

depended on charcoal. The ratios of male headed households to their female counterparts in the

use of cooking fuel in the urban and rural area were 2 to 1 and 4 to 1 respectively. The high

dependence on wood and charcoal poses a series of health risks to the people and environmental

concerns for the national as well as the international communities. Therefore, urgent actions

should be taken to reverse the trend.

Table: 3.9 Distributions of Households by Sex of Heads and Main Source of Fuel for Cooking by Urban-Rural Residence, 2008

Urban Rural Liberia Source of fuel cooking Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Electricity or Own generator 2,040

682

2,722 287 84

371

2,327

766

3,093

(0.9)* (0.7) (0.8) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.5) (0.4) (0.5) Electricity/Power Supply 1,662

734

2,396 598

176

774

2,260

910

3,170

(0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (0.2) (0.2( (0.2) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5)

Gas 3,201

1,335

4,536

1,394

479

1,873

4,595

1,814

6,409 (1.4) (1.3) (1.4) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0)

Kerosene 7,667

3,488

11,155

3,887

1,319

5,206

11,554

4,807

16,361 (3.4) (3.5) (3.4) (1.5) (1.6) (1.5) (2.4) (2.7) (2.4)

Charcoal

160,968

69,028

229,996

13,616

4,230

17,846

174,584

73,258

247,842 (70.7) (69.6) (70.3) (5.2) (5.1) (5.2) (35.7) (40.4) (37.0)

Wood

47,537

22,143

69,680

238,660

74,926

313,586

286,197

97,069

383,266 (20.9) (22.3) (21.3) (91.4) (91.2) (91.4) (58.5) (53.5) (57.2)

Others 4,751

1,786

6,537

2,668

949

3,617

7,419

2,735

10,154 (2.1) (1.8) (2.0) (1.0) (1.2) (1.1) (1.5) (1.5) (1.5)

Total

227,826

99,196

327,022

261,110

82,163

343,273

488,936

181,359

670,295 *Percentages are in parenthesis

22

Table: 3.10 Percentage Distribution of Households by Main Source of Fuel for Cooking and County, 2008

Table 3.10 provides the percentage distribution of households by their main sources of fuel for cooking in the counties. The table shows that wood was the most commonly used fuel for cooking in all counties except Montserrado whose households depended mostly on charcoal (79 percent). The use of electricity, gas and kerosene are minimal in all counties as can be seen from the table. The heavy dependence on wood and charcoal is a health and environmental threat with serious implication for the nation.

3.7 Summary In conclusion, the country had poor waste disposal systems generally and access to safe water is

limited to the urban areas. In addition, access to health services is very poor because most of the

household take more than 40 minutes to reach the nearest health facility. Use of clean sources of

fuel for cooking was not common.

Source of fuel cooking Electricity

or Own generator

Electricity/ Power Supply Gas Kerosene Charcoal Wood Others Total

Bomi 0.1 0.3 0.9 2.5 16.8 78.3 1.1 100 Bong 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.4 14.4 82.2 1.1 100 Grand Bassa 0.2 0.4 0.6 2.1 19.5 75.6 1.5 100 Grand Cape Mount 0.4 0.4 1.1 3.1 11.5 82.3 1.3 100 Grand Gedeh 0.1 0.3 1.3 2.4 10.9 83.6 1.3 100 Grand Kru 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.9 2.5 94.8 0.9 100 Lofa 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.7 7.1 89.0 1.1 100 Margibi 0.3 0.7 1.1 2.9 38.7 55.1 1.2 100 Maryland 0.1 0.3 1.1 2.4 13.0 80.7 2.4 100 Montserrado 1.0 0.8 1.3 3.2 79.0 12.7 2.0 100 Nimba 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.4 10.9 84.1 1.4 100 River Cess 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 4.2 93.5 0.8 100 Sinoe 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.2 13.8 83.4 0.9 100 River Gee 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.3 3.4 93.3 1.2 100 Gbarpolu 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.1 6.7 90.2 1.3 100

23

Chapter Four

Housing Conditions 4.1 Introduction

Shelter is a basic need and every government strives to ensure that the population has access to

adequate housing. The housing conditions reveal a lot about the welfare of the population. The

2008 Census collected data on the living conditions of the population in terms of housing units’

ownership, repair condition of the housing unit, and the construction materials of the housing

unit. This chapter presents the ownership status of housing units, state of repair of the housing

unit, and quality of building materials used in the construction of the housing unit.

4.2 Ownership status of households in Liberia

Table 4.1 presents the distribution of households by ownership of housing unit in Liberia. The

table shows that more than half of the households were living in self-constructed housing units.

Inherited housing units also constituted a sizable proportion (15.4 percent) of units. There were,

however, urban-rural disparities in the ownership status. The proportions of self constructed

housing units in rural and urban areas were 66.8 and 36.5 percent respectively, while inherited

housing units constituted in rural and urban areas 16.2 and 14.7 percent respectively. Provision

of public housing was limited, with Government housing units accounting for only 0.8 percent

while the National Housing Authority (NHA) accounted for 0.4 percent.

Table: 4.1 Distribution of Households by Household Ownership Status, 2008

Ownership status Urban Rural Liberia Purchased Number 13,635 5,125 18,760 (4.2)* 1.5 2.8 Constructed 119,203 229,438 348,641 Percent 36.5 66.8 52.0 Inherited Number 48,111 55,444 103,555 Percent 14.7 16.2 15.4 Government & NHA Number 5,713 2,129 7,842 Percent 1.7 0.6 1.2 Private Company & individual Number 101,679 32,643 134,322 Percent 31.1 9.5 20.0 Squatter Number 24,895 12,062 36,957 Percent 7.6 3.5 5.5 Others Number 13,786 6,432 20,218 Percent 4.2 1.9 3.0 Total Number 327,022 343,273 670,295 *Percentages are in parenthesis

24

Table 4.2 shows the ownership status of housing units in the counties. A high proportion of

households in the counties lived in self-constructed housing units. The self constructed units

accounted for between 34 percent in Montserrado county to the highest of 84 percent in Grand

Kru County. Inherited houses were also predominant across counties accounting for over 20

percent in Nimba, Grand Cape Mount and Bong counties. Provision of public housing across the

counties was very low implying the poor quality housing.

Table: 4.2 Distributions of Households by Ownership Status of Housing Unit and County, 2008

*Percentages are in parenthesis

Ownership status Purchased Constructed Inherited

Government & NHA

Private Co. & individual Squatter Others Total

Bomi 390 11573 2959 232 3537 1268 549 20508 (1.9)* (56.4) (14.4) (1.1) (17.3) (6.2) (2.7) (100.0) Bong 1257 39975 14615 287 8319 3944 1413 69810 (1.8) (57.3) (20.9) (0.4) (11.9) (5.6) (2.0) (100.0) Grand Bassa 1163 28389 6940 173 8098 1603 1074 47440 (2.5) (59.8) (14.6) (0.4) (17.0) (3.4) (2.3) (100.0) Grand Cape Mount 732 14408 4877 225 2512 749 447 23950 (3.1) (60.2) (20.4) (0.9) (10.5) (3.1) (1.9) (100.0) Grand Gedeh 719 13097 1536 111 2045 312 323 18143 (4.0) (72.2) (8.5) (0.6) (11.2) (1.7) (1.8) (100.0) Grand Kru 165 7501 940 20 122 85 136 8969 (1.8) (83.6) (10.5) (0.3) (1.4) (0.9) (1.5) (100.0) Lofa 725 34797 7313 290 4005 1084 1428 49642 (1.5) (70.1) (14.7) (0.6) (8.1) (2.2) (2.9) (100.0) Margibi 1032 19433 4499 860 15477 2930 864 45095 (2.3) (43.1) (10.0) (1.9) (34.3) (6.5) (1.9) (100.0) Maryland 643 11120 2509 124 3478 865 515 19254 (3.3) (57.8) (13.0) (0.7) (18.1) (4.5) (2.7) (100.0) Montserrado 9930 79079 32720 4799 76724 19023 10310 232585 (4.3) (34.0) (14.1) (2.1) (33) (8.2) (4.4) (100.0) Nimba 1230 49352 18524 514 7012 1910 2192 80734 (1.5) (61.1) (22.9) (0.7) (8.7) (2.4) (2.7) (100.0) River Cess 158 10714 1442 53 486 882 246 13981 (1.1) (76.6) (10.3) (0.3) (3.4) (6.3) (1.8) (100.0) Sinoe 233 11375 1852 76 1065 1022 206 15829 (1.5) (71.9) (11.7) (0.5) (6.8) (6.5) (1.3) (100.0) River Gee 166 7692 1086 44 471 209 154 9822 (1.7) (78.3) (11.1) (0.4) (4.8) (2.1) (1.6) (100.0) Gbarpolu 217 10136 1743 34 971 1071 361 14533 (1.5) (69.7) (12.0) (0.3) (6.7) (7.4) (2.5) (100.0)

25

4.3 Repair needs of housing units

Table 4.3 summarizes the distribution of households by current repair needs. Households with

either no repairs or minor repair needs constituted more than 55 percent of all households in

Liberia. Another 43 percent were said to have rehabilitation and reconstruction needs. The table

further shows that about 58 percent of the housing units in urban areas had no repair or had

minor repair needs compared to 54 percent in the rural areas. However, there was higher

proportion of rehabilitation and reconstruction needs in the rural areas. The implication of having

such a high proportion of the households having rehabilitation and reconstruction needs is that,

unless steps are taken to provide some assistance to low income households, the substantial

portion of the population will continue to live in dilapidated housing units.

Table: 4.3 Distribution of Households by Rural-Urban Residence and Current Repair Needs, 2008 Repair needs Urban Rural Liberia No repairs 47163 35879 83042 (14.4)* (10.5) (12.4) Minor repairs 141420 148441 289861 (43.2) (43.2) (43.2) Rehabilitation 82001 91197 173198 (25.1) (26.6) (25.8) Reconstruction 52468 64761 117229 (16) (18.9) (17.5) Not stated 3970 2995 6965 (1.2) (0.9) (1)

Total 327022 343273 670295 *Percentages are in parenthesis Table 4.4 shows the distribution of households by current repair needs and county. All of the

counties reported relatively higher percentages (at least 47 percent) of household had no repair or

had minor repair needs. However, Grand Gedeh county had the highest percentage (52 percent)

of the households which reportedly had rehabilitation and reconstruction needs. The high level of

reconstruction could be attributed to the civil war since the county was home to the late president

of Liberia against whom the war was launched. This implies that a policy should be designed to

cater for the special needs of counties highly affected by the war.

26

Table: 4.4 Distribution of Households by Current Repair Needs and County,2008 Repair needs No

repairs Minor repairs Rehabilitation Reconstruction

Not stated Total

Bomi 2012 9992 5683 2711 110 20508

(9.8)* (48.7) (27.7) (13.2) (0.5) (100)

Bong 5453 30166 22541 11136 514 69810

(7.8) (43.2) (32.3) (16) (0.7) (100)

Grand Bassa 8239 20493 10664 7492 552 47440

(17.4) (43.2) (22.5) (15.8) (1.2) (100)

Grand Cape Mount 1388 10855 7407 4096 204 23950

(5.8) (45.3) (30.9) (17.1) (0.9) (100) Grand Gedeh 1978 6579 4259 5171 156 18143

(10.9) (36.3) (23.5) (28.5) (0.9) (100)

Grand Kru 1472 4653 1606 1171 67 8969

(16.4) (51.9) (17.9) (13.1) (0.7) (100)

Lofa 3589 21830 14262 9515 446 49642

(7.2) (44) (28.7) (19.2) (0.9) (100)

Margibi 8004 18008 9522 9256 305 45095

(17.7) (39.9) (21.1) (20.5) (0.7) (100)

Maryland 2333 9182 4447 2876 416 19254

(12.1) (47.7) (23.1) (14.9) (2.2) (100)

Montserrado 32729 95879 59889 41448 2640 232585

(14.1) (41.2) (25.7) (17.8) (1.1) (100)

Nimba 9702 33292 21283 15310 1147 80734

(12) (41.2) (26.4) (19) (1.4) (100)

River Cess 1212 8067 3111 1515 76 13981

(8.7) (57.7) (22.3) (10.8) (0.5) (100)

Sinoe 1797 7087 4051 2805 89 15829

(11.4) (44.8) (25.6) (17.7) (0.6) (100)

River Gee 1556 5829 1568 789 80 9822

(15.8) (59.3) (16) (8) (0.8) (100)

Gbarpolu 1578 7949 2905 1938 163 14533

(10.9) (54.7) (20) (13.3) (1.1) (100) *Percentages are in parenthesis

4.4 Quality of Housing by Type of Building Materials Used

Table 4.5 presents the distribution of households by type of construction materials used for the

outer wall. About 47 percent of the households reportedly resided in housing units whose outer

walls were made of mud and sticks and 22 percent of the households were in housing units made

of cement blocks. Over 70 percent of the outer walls of the housing units in urban areas were

27

constructed from stone, concrete, cement blocks or clay bricks which were considered permanent

materials while in the rural areas 83 percent of the households reported to be resident in housing

units whose outer walls were made of mud and sticks. The high usage of mud and sticks for

outer walls implies that a high proportion of the population were resident in poor quality housing

units and steps should be taken to improve the quality of housing for the population.

Table: 4.5 Percentage Distribution of Households by Sex of Heads of Households and Type of Outer Wall, 2008

Type of outer wall Urban Rural Liberia

Stone/Concrete 21608 2697 24305

(88.9) (11.1) (3.6)

Cement Blocks 131832 16593 148425

(88.8) (11.2) (22.1)

Clay Bricks 20933 8992 29925

(70.0) (30.0) (4.5)

Zinc or Iron 34839 3957 38796

(89.8) (10.2) (5.8)

Wood or Board 2217 1157 3374

(65.7) (34.3) (0.5)

Mud and Bricks 43858 38815 82673

(53.0) (47.0) (12.3)

Mud and Sticks 52970 262337 315307

(16.8) (83.2) (47.0)

Reed, Bamboo, Grass, Mat 13657 5015 18672

(73.1) (26.9) (2.8)

Other 5108 3710 8818

(57.9) (42.1) (1.3)

Total 327022 343273 670295 *Percentages are in parenthesis Table 4.6 shows the distribution of households by type of outer walls and by county. All the

counties, except Montserrado, had substantial proportion of housing units constructed out of mud

and sticks for outer walls. The counties with the highest proportions of mud and sticks were:

Rivercess, Grand Kru and Grand Gedeh at 90.3, 89.7 and 87.3 percent respectively. Montserrado

reported 10 percent of the outer walls of the housing units constructed from mud and sticks and

48 percent constructed from cement blocks. Montserrado County had relatively better outer wall

materials because it’s the seat of the capital city of Liberia with better economic opportunities for

the residents. Therefore, steps must be taken to improve the quality of housing in the counties.

28

Table 4.6: Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Outer Walls and County,

2008

Type of outer wall Stone

&Concrete Cement Blocks

Clay Bricks

Zinc or Iron

Wood or Board

Mud and Bricks

Mud and Sticks

Reed, Bamboo, Grass, Mat Other

Bomi 1.4 11.7 3.4 1.1 0.2 6.9 74.1 0.4 0.8 Bong 1.4 7.3 4.6 1.3 0.4 13.3 70.5 0.3 0.9 Grand Bassa 1.5 18.2 0.9 3.8 0.5 5.0 65.8 2.7 1.6 Grand Cape Mount 1.5 8.5 2.4 2.5 0.4 10.1 71.9 1.5 1.2 Grand Gedeh 0.6 4.5 0.9 0.7 0.1 4.5 87.3 0.3 1.2 Grand Kru 0.6 2.0 0.3 0.9 0.1 3.6 89.7 2.0 0.9 Lofa 0.5 3.1 2.5 1.3 0.5 29.7 60.9 0.3 1.2 Margibi 2.8 16.9 17.2 4.1 0.4 11.5 42.0 4.2 0.9 Maryland 2.7 9.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 4.5 78.2 0.2 2.3 Montserrado 7.6 48.0 4.4 13.2 0.7 8.1 10.9 5.6 1.5 Nimba 2.0 6.0 6.2 1.4 0.5 30.1 52.0 0.2 1.7 River Cess 0.4 1.3 0.2 1.2 0.2 3.0 90.3 2.5 0.8 Sinoe 0.8 6.7 0.8 2.2 0.7 3.9 79.8 4.3 0.8 River Gee 1.1 1.9 0.2 0.7 0.4 3.7 90.5 0.4 1.1 Gbarpolu 0.5 2.6 1.1 0.6 0.1 4.5 88.4 1.1 1.1

Table 4.7 presents the distribution of households by type of construction materials of the floor of

the housing units. The most common floor type in Liberia was mud (53.9 percent), followed by

cement (39.3 percent). Over 80 percent of the floors of the housing units in the urban areas were

made of cement and tiles while in the rural areas about 79 percent were made of mud. It implies

that the condition of housing was poor in rural areas compared to the urban areas hence, the need

for programs to improve on housing of the population.

Table: 4.7: Percent Distribution of Households by Type of Floor Materials, Liberia Type of Floor Urban Rural Liberia Cement 215583 47631 263214 (81.9)* (18.1) (39.3) Tiles 20612 2184 22796 (90.4) (9.6) (3.4) Wood 2430 1525 3955 (61.4) (38.6) (0.6) Mud 77542 284080 361622 (21.4) (78.6) (53.9) Other 10855 7853 18708 (58.0) (42.0) (2.8) Total 327022 343273 670295 (48.8) (51.2) (100.0)

*Percentages are in parenthesis

29

Table 4.8 shows the percentage distribution of households by type of construction materials of

the floor of the housing units and county. Mud floors accounted for 50 percent and above in all

the counties except Montserrado County were it accounted for only 18 percent. Rivercess and

Grand Kru had the highest proportions (over 90 percent) of households resident in housing units

whose floors were made of mud. In Montserrado County the households resident in housing

units made of cemented floors were about 70 percent. This implies that poor quality housing

was predominantly rural based because Montserrado County is more urbanized.

Table: 4.8 Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Floor and County, 2008 Type of floor Cement Tiles Wood Mud Other Bomi 26.3 0.8 0.6 71.1 1.3 Bong 22.5 1.0 0.5 74.2 1.8 Grand Bassa 26.1 1.7 0.6 69.0 2.5 Grand Cape Mount 22.9 0.6 1.0 71.4 4.1 Grand Gedeh 13.3 0.8 0.4 83.7 1.8 Grand Kru 7.4 0.3 0.2 90.1 2.0 Lofa 10.3 0.6 0.5 86.3 2.3 Margibi 45.1 2.2 0.6 49.7 2.4 Maryland 30.7 1.0 0.9 64.4 2.9 Montserrado 69.6 7.8 0.7 18.4 3.5 Nimba 28.4 1.1 0.5 67.3 2.7 River Cess 3.6 0.4 0.2 93.2 2.5 Sinoe 11.9 0.7 1.0 83.2 3.2 River Gee 10.3 0.3 0.3 86.6 2.4 Gbarpolu 10.0 0.5 0.2 87.0 2.3

4.5 Summary

About half of the households were living in self-constructed housing units. Inherited housing

units also constituted a sizable proportion (15.4 percent). The proportions of self constructed

housing units in rural and urban areas were 66.8 and 36.5 percent respectively, while inherited

housing units constituted in rural and urban areas 16.2 and 14.7 percent respectively. The

proportion of housing units provided by the government or the National Housing Authority was

very small since a negligible percent of households were reported to be resident in these housing

units.

30

Chapter Five

Household Welfare 5.1 Introduction

The Government of Liberia strives to improve the general welfare of the people through

implementation of a number of developmental programs. The Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS)

is one of the leading policies guiding the processes. The welfare of members of the households

depends on income as well as ownership of assets. In this chapter, the household’s ownership of

selected assets, quality of housing unit and means of transport were used as indicators of welfare.

5.2 Ownership of Essential Household Amenities

Ownership of essential household amenities was considered as proxy for income. The 2008

Census collected data on household ownership of the three essential amenities which were:

mattress, furniture and a radio.

Figure 5.1 shows the percentage distribution of household ownership of essential amenities by

employment status. The household ownership of mattresses was high compared to both furniture

and radio. At the national level, paid employees had the highest percentage of households

owning mattress, radio and furniture estimated at 76, 54 and 34 percent respectively. Paid

employees had incomes which may be used to acquire the household essential items. Household

heads who were contributing to family were most likely engaged in subsistence agriculture with

virtually no surpluses for sale, hence without income. They were also essential assets amenities

deficient.

31

Figure 5.1: Percentage Distribution of Household Ownership of Essential Amenities by Employment Status, 2008

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.0

Liberia

Paid e

mplo

yee

Self-e

mplo

yee

Contrib

uting

fam

il

Look

ing fo

r work

Not worki

ng a

nd n

o

Househo

ld worke

r

Other

s

Per

cen

t

Furniture Mattress Radio

Table 5.1 shows that 58 percent of the households in Liberia had mattresses which implied that

42 percent of the households who could not afford mattresses were very poor. The youth headed

households were the most disadvantaged since about 3 percent of them had mattresses and less

than 2 percent owned furniture or radios. Montserrado County had the highest ownership of

mattress at about 80 percent. Grand Gedeh and Margibi counties had household ownership of

mattresses estimated at 63 percent each. Similarly, Montserrado and Margibi counties had the

highest percentage of households owning radios of over 44 percent. Ownership of furniture is

low generally in the country, estimated at about 25 percent nationally. River Gee County had the

highest household ownership of furniture of about 60 percent followed by Maryland at 48

percent. These two counties are situated in timber-rich south east Liberia. The counties with the

highest ownership of mattresses and radios were nearest to Monrovia City where there are

relatively better economic opportunities and access to better infrastructure and social services.

32

Table 5.1: Percentage Distribution of Household Ownership of Essential Amenities by County, 2008 Furniture Mattress Radio All Age groups 24.5 58.0 40.4 <18 years 1.1 2.8 1.8 18 - 59 years 27.1 64.6 44.9 60 years+ 21.7 49.5 35.1 Liberia 24.5 58.0 40.4 Bomi 11.8 30.2 24.7 Bong 12.9 39.6 30.2 Grand Bassa 21.2 47.3 35.3 Grand Cape Mount 22.8 34.4 29.0 Grand Gedeh 27.0 63.6 37.2 Grand Kru 21.2 42.0 30.0 Lofa 18.4 21.6 25.8 Margibi 27.0 63.6 44.3 Maryland 47.7 57.3 42.6 Montserrado 32.1 79.7 52.9 Nimba 9.9 55.7 34.8 River Cess 17.2 39.5 32.0 Sinoe 25.4 62.4 38.3 River Gee 60.0 50.7 31.1 Gbarpolu 32.5 53.1 40.5

5.3 Ownership of Non-essential Household Amenities

During the Census operations, non-essential amenities were composed of television, cell phone,

motor cycle, vehicle and refrigerator. These items were considered important for news and

communication as well as transportation. These household amenities were vital for the comfort

of the members of the households; however, they were quite expensive for an average household.

Table 5.2 shows the percentage distribution of household ownership of non-essential amenities

by employment status. As expected, paid employees have a better welfare since generally they

had the highest proportion of households with non-essential amenities. About 16 percent of the

households of the paid employee household heads had television sets, about 50 percent had cell

phones, 5 percent had motorcycles, 6 percent had vehicles and over 4 percent had refrigerators.

Households whose heads were engaged as contributing to family income had the least non-

essential assets ownership with less than 3 percent with television sets and about 16 percent with

cell phones. This implies that Government should design well targeted poverty reduction

programs so as to enable the poor households to acquire both essential and non-essential

household amenities.

33

Table 5.2: Percentage Distribution of Households by Non-Essential Assets Ownership and

Economic Activity of Household Head, 2008

Television Cell phone Motor cycle vehicle Refrigerator Liberia 7.5 30.1 3.1 2.7 1.9 Paid employee 15.5 49.9 5.1 5.7 4.4 Self-employee 5.7 24.8 2.5 2.1 1.4 Contributing family 2.8 15.5 1.9 1.0 0.7 Looking for work 9.8 40.7 3.7 3.2 2.1 Not working and no 8.3 33.0 3.3 2.8 1.9 Household worker 4.5 22.0 2.6 1.6 1.0 Others 8.3 34.6 3.6 2.9 1.9

Table 5.3 shows that at the national level, cell phone was the only non-essential amenity owned

by about 30 percent of the households. Despite generally low household ownership of non-

essential amenities, the youth were the most deficient. About 1.5 percent of the youth headed

households had cell phones while less than 1 percent had television sets, vehicles or refrigerators.

The youth may not have accumulated wealth to enable them acquire these non-essential assets.

The table also shows that ownership of television sets, motorcycles, vehicles and refrigerators

was less than 10 percent across the counties except Montserrado County whose television

ownership was about 17 percent. Motorcycles, vehicles and refrigerators are quite expensive

which explains the limited ownership of these household items. However, Montserrado County

hosts the capital city which is relatively better served in terms of electricity, hence increased

ownership of television sets which commonly operate on electricity.

34

Table 5.3: Percentage Distribution of Household Ownership of Non-essential Amenities by County Television Cell phone Motor cycle vehicle Refrigerator Age 7.5 30.1 3.1 2.7 1.9 < 18 years 0.3 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 18 - 59 years 8.5 34.3 3.5 3.0 2.1 60 years+ 5.2 21.8 2.5 2.0 1.5 Liberia 7.5 30.1 3.1 2.7 1.9 Bomi 1.5 13.6 1.3 0.7 0.5 Bong 1.9 15.6 1.9 1.0 0.7 Grand Bassa 2.6 17.1 1.9 1.0 1.0 Grand Cape Mount 1.7 14.6 1.4 0.8 0.6 Grand Gedeh 2.4 20.6 3.6 1.1 1.0 Grand Kru 1.2 3.4 0.8 0.3 0.4 Lofa 1.2 10.9 2.4 0.6 0.5 Margibi 5.9 33.0 2.8 2.3 2.6 Maryland 2.9 25.0 4.3 1.1 1.2 Montserrado 17.3 55.5 4.6 5.8 3.7 Nimba 1.9 16.0 3.3 0.9 0.7 River Cess 0.9 7.8 1.1 0.4 0.4 Sinoe 1.9 12.8 2.6 0.6 0.7 River Gee 1.4 14.7 2.0 0.7 0.6 Gbarpolu 1.5 7.6 0.7 0.4 0.3

5.4 Agriculture Households and Type of Housing Unit

Agriculture is the main stay of the Liberian economy contributing over 50 percent of the Gross

Domestic Product (GDP) and employs the majority of the population. Table 5.4 shows that about

half of the farmers were resident in temporary housing units and only about 6 percent were in

permanent housing units. This implies that the majority of the farmers could not afford good

quality housing. Over 50 percent of the food crop farmers were resident in temporary housing

units compared to households in cash crop farming or livestock rearing. It was also evident that

over 10 percent of coconut, livestock and fishing households were resident in permanent housing

units.

35

Table 5.4: Percentage Distribution of Household by Engagement in Agricultural Activities and Type of Housing Unit Structure, 2008

Permanent Temporary Semi-

permanent Total 6.0 50.2 43.8 Rice 4.2 53.2 42.6 Cassava 6.5 51.6 41.9 Plantain 6.1 52.2 41.6 Rubber 7.0 43.2 49.8 Palm oil 6.6 46.8 46.6 Coffee 5.0 42.4 52.5 Cocoa 4.7 45.7 49.7 Coconut 11.6 48.5 39.9 Sugar cane 8.5 40.4 51.1 Livestock 10.7 42.6 46.7 Poultry 9.2 48.1 42.7 Fishery 10.9 49.5 39.5

5.5 Employment status

Generally, employed persons have better welfare compared to the unemployed because they

receive wages and salaries. The Census collected data on persons who were employed

comprising of paid employment, self employment, contributing to family, household workers,

part-time employment and unemployed persons comprising of those who were seeking

employment and those who were not seeking employment. These data were used to assess the

welfare of the households.

Figure 5.2 presents the percentage distribution of households by employment status of the

household head. The figure shows that less than 15 percent of he household heads were serving

on paid employment terms while the majority were in self employment accounting for 35 percent

of the households. The part time workers account for about 3 percent implying that about half of

the household heads work for a salary or they are self employed. The others were either

unemployed, providing family labour or household work. It implies that the majority of

households in Liberia were not in gainful employment because contributing to the family could

be due to lack of better paying jobs. Food crop farming was limited in the country to production

for household needs and there was a potential for increased food crop production which may be

tapped.

36

Figure 5.2: Percentage Distribution of Households by Employment Status of the Household

Head, 2008

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Paid em

ploy

ee

Self-e

mploy

ee

Contribu

ting to fa

mily

Look

ing for w

ork

Not w

orkin

g an

d no

House

hold w

orke

r

Full tim

e stud

ent

Retire

d/pe

nsione

r

Inca

pacitated

Part-t

ime worke

r

Other

Per

cent

5.6 Quality of Housing

The employment status of the household head was considered as an indicator of welfare of the

household. The activities comprised of paid employment, self employed, contributing family

members, not employed and looking for work, not employed and not looking for work,

household workers, fulltime students, retired or pensioners, incapacitated, part time workers and

others.

Figure 5.3 shows the percentage distribution of households by activity status of the household

head and quality of housing unit. The figure shows that the highest proportions (50 percent) of

paid employees were resident in permanent housing units. The households whose heads were not

employed but looking for work was the second with 40 percent resident in permanent housing

units. Paid employees earn incomes which may enable them to construct or rent permanent

housing units which tend to be more expensive compared to the other types of housing units. The

households whose heads were self employed and contributing family members were resident

mostly in temporary housing units estimated at 46 and 42 percent respectively.

37

Figure 5.3: Percentage Distribution of Households by Activity Status of the Household Head and Quality of Housing Unit, 2008

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Paidemployee

Self-employee

Contributingfamil

Looking forwork

Not workingand no

Householdworker

Other

Per

cen

t

Permanent Temporary Semi-permanent

Table 5.5 shows that 27 percent of the households were resident in permanent housing units in

Liberia of which female headed households accounted for 28.3 percent while the male headed

26.2 percent. About 29.1 percent of the female headed household resided in temporary units

which was less than 34.6 percent for male headed households. This implies that females were

less poor compared to males which may be attributed to support programs of Non-Governmental

Organizations (NGOs) targeting the widows, and other vulnerable groups.

Montserrado County has the highest proportion of households resident in permanent housing

units of about 55.3 percent followed by Margibi County at 32.7 percent. The counties with the

highest proportion of households resident in temporary housing units were: River Gee and Grand

Kru. The households that resided in temporary housing units accounted for 85.9 percent in River

Gee County and 82.1 percent in Grand Kru County. These counties are distant from Monrovia

the capital city and they have very poor infrastructure including roads hence the residents might

be poor because of lack of access to social services as well as markets.

There were three broad types of dwelling units identified during the 2008 census, these were:

permanent, semi-permanent and temporary units. Permanent dwelling unit were those dwellings

constructed with durable materials such as concrete walls, cement floor, tile roof and floor, zinc

roof, among others with a life span of at least fifteen years. Temporary structures were those

38

built of inferior construction materials such as outer walls made of zinc or sticks and mud; roof

with bamboo leaves; they often last for at most three years. Semi-permanent structures were

those units that were built with a mixture of permanent and temporary materials.

Table 5.5: Percentage Distribution of Households by Quality of Housing Unit, Sex of Head and county, 2008 Permanent Temporary Semi-permanent Number All sexes 26.8 33.1 40.1 Male headed 26.2 34.6 39.2 Female headed 28.3 29.1 42.6 County Bomi 14.3 48.2 37.5 20,508 Bong 10.8 32.3 57.0 69,810 Grand Bassa 19.0 54.8 26.1 47,440 Grand Cape Mount 9.2 46.9 43.9 23,950 Grand Gedeh 4.5 76.5 19.0 18,143 Grand Kru 1.5 82.1 16.4 8,969 Lofa 2.9 48.3 48.8 49,642 Margibi 32.7 27.5 39.8 45,095 Maryland 10.7 55.6 33.7 19,254 Montserrado 55.3 9.7 35.0 232,585 Nimba 10.0 24.4 65.6 80,734 River Cess 1.3 85.9 12.8 13,981 Sinoe 6.3 73.5 20.2 15,829 River Gee 2.1 78.2 19.7 9,822 Gbarpolu 2.6 70.8 26.6 14,533

5.6 Summary

The country had high essential and non-essential household amenities deficiency. At the national

level, paid employees had the highest percentage of households owning mattress, radio and

furniture estimated at 76, 54 and 34 percent respectively. Paid employees had incomes which

may be used to acquire the household essential items. Agriculture is the main stay of the

economy and yet over 50 percent of the food crop farmers resided in temporary housing units.

Employment is also crucial for poverty reduction; through better paying jobs, households may be

capable of catering for the basic needs and other luxury items.

39

Chapter Six

Policy Implications and Way Forward 6.1 Introduction This chapter presents findings of the 2008 Census data analysis and presents policy implications

and recommendations. Statistics on households are important for the determination of national

economic priorities because they reveal the potential demand for items which are consumed by

households. Most of the population is often enumerated in households and household

characteristics and housing conditions therefore merit careful study so as to inform the social

equity in development planning. The overall objective of this report was to provide information

on housing and household characteristics.

6.2 Summary of Key Findings The household headship among males and females was mainly concentrated in the age group 25-

49; accounting for about 64.1 percent. The highest proportion for both sexes was in the age

group 35-39 years (14.8 percent). As expected, the proportion of household heads at younger

ages for both sexes was found to be small (less than 3 percent). At the national level the male

headed households were 73 percent while the female headed were 27 percent.

The total population of Liberia was 3,476,608 of which 98.5 percent lived in households, while

the rest (1.5 percent) were living in other living quarters around the country. It was noted that,

the “bush society’ has declined reflecting a cultural transformation in the Liberia where a

substantial portion of the population may have shifted away from this traditional form of living.

The majority (34.1 percent) of the households in Liberia resided in one room followed by those

households residing in two roomed houses (19 percent). The distribution of households by

number of rooms they occupied declined with increase in number of rooms as seen at the

national level. In the country, large household sizes (8 or more persons) accounted for 20 percent

of all the households, while the medium size (i.e. 4-6 persons) accounted for 38.5 percent.

About 36 percent of the households reported that they use pipe borne or out door pump as the

main source of drinking water, followed by river, lake or spring which contributed 23 percent.

40

Flush toilets usage was also limited, 14 percent of the households used flush toilets for human

waste disposal compared to about half of the households who relied upon bushes. In Liberia the

population greatly depended on charcoal and wood for cooking fuel with wood accounting for 57

percent and charcoal for 37 percent.

In terms of access to health services, about 30 percent of households reportedly took less than 20

minutes to reach the nearest health facility and 31 percent took 80 minutes and above to reach

the nearest health facility. However, primary schools were accessible because 56 percent of the

households reported that they take less than 20 minutes to reach the nearest primary school.

About half of the households were living in self-constructed housing units and 15 percent of the

housing units were inherited. About 47 percent of the households reportedly resided in poor

quality housing units whose outer walls were made of mud and sticks and only 22 percent were

in housing units made of cement blocks. Provision of public housing was limited, with

Government housing units accounting for only 0.8 percent while the National Housing Authority

(NHA) accounted for 0.4 percent.

The country had high essential and non-essential household amenities deficiency. At the national

level, paid employees had the highest percentage of households owning mattress, radio and

furniture estimated at 76, 54 and 34 percent respectively. Paid employees had incomes which

may be used to acquire the household essential items. Agriculture is the main stay of the

economy and yet over 50 percent of the food crop farmers resided in temporary housing units.

Employment is also crucial for poverty reduction; through better paying jobs households may be

cable of catering for the basic needs and luxury items.

6.3 Policy Implications The implication that high proportion of the population live in poor quality housing units and

have large number of persons living in a single household is serious in that it spells danger for

the health and welfare of the people. For instance, it leads to easy transmission of communicable

diseases.

41

The female headed households are many in the country and this could partly be attributed to the

civil crises. The situation which calls for programs targeted at these vulnerable groups so that

they may be able to support their families, lead better life and contribute to the nation building.

Safe drinking water is a sure way of avoiding some of the water borne diseases. The limited

access to safe drinking water calls for urgent action by the Government and development

partners. Likewise, the waste disposal system was also generally poor throughout the country

since the majority of the people relied on bushes.

The high dependence on charcoal and wood for fuel has led to some deforestation in the country.

Consequently, if the forest is lost, soil degradation is eminent thereby negatively affecting the

food production capability of the population, who rely on agriculture for their livelihood. It will

also affect the pattern of rain fall as well as the temperature level of the country.

6.4 Recommendations

This analysis has revealed some gaps in terms of housing, utilities and source of energy for

cooking and the following policy recommendations are therefore proposed:

1. The Government should formulate and implement a favourable private investment

regulatory framework so that the private sector may invest in low cost housing for the

benefit of the poor in the country.

2. The Ministry of Youth and Sports should come up with projects to support the youth who

dropped out of school to engage in small scale enterprises. This may comprise of a

training component on entrepreneurship and marketing skills, a revolving start-up fund,

and adult education component to help them understand financial statements. One surest

way of achieving this is the enactment of the Youth Policy which has been with the

Executive Branch of Government for some time now.

3. The Government, with the support of development partners, should focus on increased

accessibility of the residents to utilities like electricity as well as water and sewerage for

improved welfare of the people. The Government should also offer budgetary support to

the utility companies, such as Water and Sewer Corporation (LWSC) and the Liberia

Electricity Corporation (LEC) so as to increase their coverage.

42

4. The “bush society” is on the decline and the Ministry of Education should include some

of its positive values in the curriculum of the formal education.

5. Community sanitation and hygiene programs should be enhanced so that the people may

be encouraged to construct covered pit latrines, protect sources of drinking water and

promote family hygiene.

43

References

Liberia Statistics and Geo-Information Service (2009), 1984 Population and Housing Census,

2009, LISGIS, Monrovia, Liberia

Republic of Liberia (2008), Liberia Poverty Reduction Strategy, Monrovia, Liberia.

Younquoi, Larry P., Components of Household Headship changes in Liberia, 1974- 1984; an

unpublished Thesis presented to the faculty of Social Studies, University of Ghana, Legon,

Accra, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of M. A. (Population Studies),1988

44

Appendices

Appendix Table 1: Percent distribution of household Sizes- 1962 -2008 Household Size 1962 1974 1984 2008 1- person 12.8 10.8 9.8 9.9

2 – 4 51.7 37.0 32.4 39.2 5 – 7 25.2 26.6 27.0 30.8 8+ 10.3 25.6 30.8 20.1 Total 1016,443 150,3368 2,094,252 3,425,241

Source: Liberia Institute for Statistics and Geo-Information Services, 2009

Appendix Table: 2: Percent distribution of households by sex of head of household by type of outer walls and county Type of outer wall Stone or

Concrete Cement Blocks

Clay Brick

Zinc or Iron

Wood or Board

Mud & Bricks

Mud & Sticks

Reed, Bam/ Grass Other Total

Bomi 296 2402 693 228 50 1415 15192 78 154 20508 1.4 11.7 3.4 1.1 0.2 6.9 74.1 0.4 0.8 100 Bong 972 5120 3243 901 256 9287 49199 203 629 69810 1.4 7.3 4.6 1.3 0.4 13.3 70.5 0.3 0.9 100 Grand Bassa 716 8638 439 1784 242 2391 31230 1264 736 47440 1.5 18.2 0.9 3.8 0.5 5 65.8 2.7 1.6 100 Grand Cape Mount 361 2026 575 597 90 2409 17231 362 299 23950 1.5 8.5 2.4 2.5 0.4 10.1 71.9 1.5 1.2 100 Grand Gedeh 104 823 171 119 25 814 15830 48 209 18143 0.6 4.5 0.9 0.7 0.1 4.5 87.3 0.3 1.2 100 Grand Kru 50 175 29 80 10 322 8043 175 85 8969 0.6 2 0.3 0.9 0.1 3.6 89.7 2 0.9 100 Lofa 251 1543 1248 642 241 14761 30230 132 594 49642 0.5 3.1 2.5 1.3 0.5 29.7 60.9 0.3 1.2 100 Margibi 1278 7622 7737 1852 183 5203 18951 1875 394 45095 2.8 16.9 17.2 4.1 0.4 11.5 42 4.2 0.9 100 Maryland 522 1776 203 182 169 872 15063 31 436 19254 2.7 9.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 4.5 78.2 0.2 2.3 100 Montserrado 17789 111642 10256

30614 1528 18850 25382 13124 3400 232585

7.6 48 4.4 13.2 0.7 8.1 10.9 5.6 1.5 100 Nimba 1587 4852 4994 1126 385 24289 41954 165 1382 80734 2 6 6.2 1.4 0.5 30.1 52 0.2 1.7 100 River Cess 61 186 34 168 32 418 12630 343 109 13981 0.4 1.3 0.2 1.2 0.2 3 90.3 2.5 0.8 100 Sinoe 134 1053 125 346 112 619 12630 682 128 15829 0.8 6.7 0.8 2.2 0.7 3.9 79.8 4.3 0.8 100 River Gee 108 191 21 69 35 366 8891 37 104 9822 1.1 1.9 0.2 0.7 0.4 3.7 90.5 0.4 1.1 100 Gbarpolu 76 376 157 88 16 657 12851 153 159 14533 0.5 2.6 1.1 0.6 0.1 4.5 88.4 1.1 1.1 100

*Percentages are in parenthesis

45

Appendix Table 3: Percentage distribution of households owning essential amenities Furniture Mattress Radio Both Sexes Male Female

Both sexes Male Female

Both Sexes Male Female

19.9 19.7 20.3 47.2 46.9 47.9 32.9 33.3 31.7 20.7 20.4 22.3 46.4 46.6 45.4 32.9 33.0 32.3 21.3 21.1 21.6 46.2 45.9 47.2 32.5 33.0 31.2 18.8 18.2 19.7 46.1 45.6 47.1 35.1 36.1 33.1 19.2 18.9 20.4 48.8 48.7 48.9 32.1 32.4 30.7 18.8 18.3 19.4 49.3 48.9 49.8 32.0 32.7 30.8 17.7 15.9 18.9 49.3 49.1 49.4 33.0 34.9 31.6 19.0 18.8 19.7 48.7 48.7 48.7 32.3 32.6 31.7 19.8 19.4 21.3 47.1 47.1 46.9 33.1 33.5 31.8 20.3 20.3 20.4 46.8 46.4 47.4 32.9 33.3 32.2 18.1 18.0 19.5 49.0 49.1 47.9 32.9 32.9 32.6 18.4 18.4 18.2 47.9 47.5 48.8 33.7 34.1 33.0

Appendix Table: 4: Distribution Households by sex of heads by time to the nearest primary school and urban-rural

Urban Rural Liberia

Time to Nearest Primary School Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Less than 20 Minutes

146,690 63,876

210,566

123,137

43,011

166,148

269,827

106,887

376,714

64.4 64.4 64.4 47.2

52.3

48.4

55.2

58.9 56.2

20 - 39 Minutes

48,385 21,382

69,767

38,082

12,460

50,542

86,467

33,842

120,309

21.2 21.6 21.3 14.6

15.2

14.7

17.7

18.7 17.9

40 - 59 Minutes

13,889 6,092

19,981

21,545

5,960

27,505

35,434

12,052

47,486

6.1 6.1 6.1 8.3 7.3

8.0

7.2

6.6 7.1

60 - 79 Minutes 6,439 2,721

9,160

19,875

5,644

25,519

26,314

8,365

34,679

2.8 2.7 2.8 7.6 6.9

7.4

5.4

4.6 5.2 80 and Over Minutes 6,278 2,494

8,772

53,520

13,520

67,040

59,798

16,014

75,812

2.8 2.5 2.7 20.5

16.5

19.5

12.2

8.8 11.3

Not Stated 6,145 2,631

8,776

4,951

1,568

6,519

11,096

4,199

15,295

2.7 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.9

1.9

2.3

2.3 2.3

Total

227,826 99,196

327,022

261,110

82,163

343,273

488,936

181,359

670,295 *Percentages are in parenthesis

The Liberian

Government and

its Development

Partners for the

2008 National

Population and

Housing Census