zz republic of the gambia ligth poverty study 2014 final report core welfare … · 2020-03-05 ·...
TRANSCRIPT
zz
REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA
LIGTH POVERTY STUDY 2014
FINAL REPORT
CORE WELFARE INDICATOR QUESTIONNAIRE (CWIQ) SURVEY
Gambia Bureau of Statistics (GBoS)
Preface:
This is the second CWIQ survey to be conducted by The Gambia Bureau of Statistics (GBoS),
with the first study conducted in 2008. This light poverty study is preferably conducted in
between Integrated Household Surveys carried out every five years to give up to date
information on poverty levels and other social dynamics.
This year’s light poverty study covers indicators for various areas such as education and
household characteristics, health, employment, household amenities, assets, access to services,
agriculture and knowledge about hypertension and diabetes.
I hope the information contained in this report will complement other data sets so as to enhance
policy formulation on poverty alleviation and eradication.
I thank all GBoS staff who participated in writing this report, data analysis, coding, data entry,
fieldworker and coordination.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to UNDP for providing the necessary funds
required for the conduct of this very important exercise and also the Government of The Gambia
for creating the conducive environment for such an exercise to be conducted and also the support
rendered.
Nyakassi M.B. Sanyang
Statistician General
Concepts and Definitions:
Household
This consists of a person or group of persons who live together in the same house or
compound, share the same house-keeping arrangements and are catered for as one. It is
important to remember that members of a household may not necessarily be related (by blood
or marriage) as for instance, maid- servants may form part of a household. Rural: Settlements that do not meet the criteria of an urban settlement described
below are considered rural Urban: According to the 2013 Population and Housing Census, a settlement is considered
urban if it satisfies most of the following:
Has commercial importance
Has institutional importance
Majority of the population should be non-agricultural in occupation
Population should be 5,000 and above
Density should be high
Some degree of infrastructure should be available
Unemployed: Is defined for persons age 7 and above. It includes persons who did not
work in the four-week period preceding the survey and who looked for worked in the same
period.
Underemployed is defined for age 7 and above. It includes persons who worked part time in
the seven day period preceding the survey.
Health satisfaction: Is defined for persons who consulted a health practitioner in the four
weeks preceding the survey and cited having no problems with their treatment.
Employment status
Employment status means that a person is:
Either self employed
Employs others (employer)
Is employed by someone or
Works in the family farm or in the family business with or without pay
The employment status of a person will be determined according to his/her status during
the reference period. If a person works on more than one job during the reference period,
then the employment status of that person can be determined according to the job on
which he/she spent more time or worked longest hours.
NOTE: A person who is assisted by his/her own family members to whom he/she does
not pay any wages or salaries is not an employer as his/her family members are unpaid
family workers. He/she is regarded as self-employed. On the other hand, if he/she pays
wages to for example, his/her own son who runs his/her business, then he/she is an
employer and his/her son will be classified as an employee.
Industry: consist of group of establishments engaged in the same, or similar, kinds of activity.
Pre-natal:
List of Acronyms
LGA Local Government Area
CWIQ Core Welfare Indicator Survey Questionnaire
UNDP United Nations Development Programmes
UNICEF United Nations International Children Education Fund
ILO International Labour Organization.
Chapter 1: Introduction Background
The Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) is a tool that was developed by the World
Bank, with the close collaboration of the UNDP, UNICEF and the ILO, to provide countries with
an instrument to generate essential statistical indicators and very rapidly help them strengthen
their capacity to use such indicators to design and monitor programs and projects more
effectively. The CWIQ generates standardized indicators which, apart from providing snapshot
of current living conditions, also indicate who are, and who are not, benefiting from various
development programs that have been designed to promote improved social and economic
conditions.
The CWIQ is a household survey that measures changes in key social indicators for different
population groups – specifically indicators of access, utilization and satisfaction with core social
and economic services. It is a very effective tool for improving project and sector program
design and targeting of services towards the poor and most disadvantaged communities. When
repeated annually, the CWIQ becomes a monitoring tool for assessing implementation
effectiveness and the impact of programs/projects on living conditions.
DESIGN OF QUESTIONNAIRE AND MANUAL FOR THE CWIQ SURVEY
It was a necessity to re-design the CWIQ questionnaire in order to suit the need of the country in
measuring poverty. To be more effective and have a more efficient training that will yield better
understanding of the questionnaire and better data collection, a data collection manual was also
necessary to be developed.
The two exercises were done over ten days from the 19th to 22nd February and 24th of February to
1st of March with special focus on efficiency and quality.
TRAINING
Six days training was conducted for both the enumerators and supervisors to get them
understand both the content of the questionnaire and the procedures of selecting households and
respondents in administering the questionnaire. On the fifth day of the training, a field exercise
was conducted for the trainees to have a practical exercise in conducting the interview during
which they were observed and issues that were noticed were addressed the next day
DATA COLLECTION
As planned, ten teams of five enumerators were deployed to the field for the actual data
collection which lasted for 15 days. All teams were able to complete the exercise within the
given time period. The completed forms were edited in the field by the supervisors and errors
detected were corrected. This enabled the minimization of field errors and therefore eased the
coding and entry of the data.
CODING
Because the questionnaire had open-ended questions which could not be entered directly as they
were collected, coding such questions was necessary. As such twelve people were assigned to
code the questionnaires for ten days, supervised by two other persons. This went smoothly and
was also completed within the given time.
DATA ENTRY
Upon completion of the coding exercise, thirteen data entry clerks who were also supervised by
two supervisors entered the data using the Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro). This
was done over a period of ten days.
DATA ANALYSIS
The data analysis was done immediately after the data entry was completed. Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro) and STATA
were used to analyze the data.
SAMPLE DESIGN
The administrative regions which are called local government areas (LGAs) were used as
domains and each sampling domain was sub divided into urban and rural areas where
appropriate. This resulted in 14 strata. For each strata, EAs that randomly occurred at fixed
intervals on the population sampling frame were selected. For each EA selected a list of all the
households in it was prepared and 20 households that randomly occurred at fixed intervals on
this list were also selected for interviews.
SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION
Due to consideration of available funds and time, the 2008 CWIQ survey’s sample size of 3000
households was replicated. This sample size constitutes 1.4 per cent of the 2013 number of
households of The Gambia (217,400).
SAMPLE ALLOCATION
The table below shows the allocations of the sample of 3000 households. We allocated 2100
households equally among the 14 strata; the remaining 900 households were allocated among the
14 strata in proportion to the size (population) in each stratum shown by the provisional 2013
population census results.
LGA
Provisional Population by LGA and
residence, 2013
Sample allocations for CWIQ survey, 2014
Number of EAs Number of households
Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
Banjul 34,320 0 34,320 8 0 8 160 0 160
Kanifing 383,785 0 383,785 17 0 17 340 0 340
Brikama 441,710 257,550 699,260 18 14 32 360 280 640
Mansakonko 16,023 74,353 90,376 8 9 17 160 180 340
Kerewan 48,624 166,623 215,247 9 12 21 180 240 420
Kuntaur 5,090 74,492 79,582 9 9 18 180 180 360
Janjabureh 21,233 88,913 110,146 8 10 18 160 200 360
Basse 35,158 196,784 231,942 8 11 19 160 220 380
Total 985,943 858,715 1,844,658 85 65 150 1700 1300 3000
CHAPTER 2: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Residence, LGA, age and sex distribution of the Sample Population
The results of the survey reveal that females constitute 51.0 percent and males 49.0 percent of
the household respondents and most of the respondents (51.8%) are between the ages of 15 years
and 64 years.
At LGA level, the results show that 35.6 percent of the sampled population live in Brikama and
14.4 percent live in Kanifing. The least proportion of respondents during the CWIQ survey was
in Banjul. Fifty-one percent of the households that were interviewed were found in the urban
areas compared to 49 percent in the rural areas. This is expected however, as the sampling was
based on probability-proportional-to-size at the EA level which allocates most EAs to Brikama
and Banjul the least. (See Table 2.1)
Table 2.1: Percent distribution of the total sample population by place of residence, LGA, age, and sex
Count Percentages
Total 27192 100.0
Place of Residence
Urban 13876 51.00
Rural 13316 49.00
Local Government
Area
Banjul 307 1.1
Kanifing 3912 14.4
Brikama 9761 35.9
Mansakonko 1358 5.0
Kerewan 3150 11.6
Kuntaur 1917 7.0
Janjanbureh 1728 6.4
Basse 5059 18.6
Gender
Male 13186 49.0
Female 13736 51.0
Age
<15 11902 43.8
15 - 64 14077 51.8
65+ 1213 4.4
2.2 Characteristics of Household Heads
Household refers to a person or group of persons who live together in the same
house or compound, share the same house-keeping arrangements and are catered for as
one. It is important to remember that members of a household may not necessarily be related
(by blood or marriage) as for instance, maid- servants may form part of a household.
Gambia has a very strong patriarchal system where male dominance of the social structure of
society remains high. As a result, male headed households are more common in Gambia than
households headed by females. Table 2.3 shows that 84.2 percent of all households in The
Gambia are headed by males and only 15.8 percent of the households are headed by females. No
much difference exists at the residential level in respect of male and female headed households.
The majority of the household heads were in monogamous marriage, accounting for 58.3
percent, 29.8 percent are in polygamous marriage and 6.1 percent are widowed. Only 3.9 percent
reported to be never married and 1.9 percent reported to be divorced/separated.
(See Table 2.3)
2.3 Educational Attainment of Household Heads
Heads of households were asked whether they have ever attended school. Table 2.3 shows that
about 95.4 percent of household heads had attended school. Household heads in urban areas
attended school more (58.7%) than those in rural areas (41.3%). Table 2.3 further shows that
male household heads attended school more than female heads of household.
Analysis of educational attainment, as presented in Table 2.3 indicates that 4.6 percent of the
household heads have never been to school. About fifty-five percent reported to have attained
secondary education, 18.1 percent reported to have attained primary school. The proportions of
household heads that have attained vocational and higher education are 2.3 percent 20.5 percent
respectively. Most of the household heads were self- employed with 62.4 percent, followed by
those who work with the government with 13.6 percent and the least proportion of household
heads work with Parastatals (2.6 %).
Table 2.3: Percentage distribution of households by place of residence and characteristics of the
household head
Count Percentages
Total 2975 100.0
Place of Residence Urban 1747 58.7
Rural 1228 41.3
Socio-economic group Government 290 13.6
Parastatal 56 2.6
Private business 190 8.9
Private person or household 268 12.5
Self-Employed 1335 62.4
Industrial Classification Agriculture 309 14.5
Services 489 22.9
Administration 51 2.4
Trade /selling 631 29.5
Education 118 5.5
Health Care 55 2.6
Hotels and restaurants 43 2.0
Construction 297 13.9
Transport 123 5.8
Others 22 1.0
Gender Male 2443 84.2
Female 457 15.8
Marital status Never married 112 3.9
Married (monogamous) 1687 58.3
Married (Polygamous) 861 29.8
Divorced/Separated 55 1.9
Widowed 177 6.1
Highest level of None 49 4.6
education Primary 191 18.1
Secondary 577 54.5
Higher (University,
College)
217 20.5
Vocational 24 2.3
2.4.1 Perception of Economic Situation of communities
During the survey, the respondents were asked about the economic situation of their
communities compared to the year preceding the survey. Respondents who reported that the
economic situation of their communities were little worse now compared to the year preceding
the survey registered the highest (36.8%), followed by those who reported that the economic
situation of their communities were little better now (17.3%). Other respondents differed greatly
as they believe the economic situation is much worse than it was a year before the survey. Those
with this perception accounted for 15.3 percent of the respondents. Nonetheless, 14.2 percent
reported that the economic situation of their communities was the same compared to the year
before the survey, while 14.3 percent could not tell about the economic situation of their
communities compared to the year preceding the survey and 2.0 percent believe that the
economic situation of their communities was much better now compared to the year before the
survey.
At residence level the rural areas had the highest proportion of households that reported that the
economic situation of their community is much worse now with 17.2 percent compared to the
urban counterparts with only 13.9 percent.
At LGA level Mansakonko has the highest proportion of households that asserted that the
economic situation of their community is much worse now with 42.1 percent followed by
Brikama with only 18.9 percent. The least proportion of households that stated the economic
situation of their community is much worse now was recorded in Basse with 4.3 percent. Banjul
recorded the highest proportion of households that reported the economic situation of their
community is much better now with 8.3 percent and the least was recorded in Kuntaur as none of
the households reported that the economic situation of their community is much better now. (See
Table 2.4.1).
Table 2.4.1: Percentage distribution of households by the perception of the economic situation of the community
compared to the year before the survey
Much
worse
now
A
little
worse
now
Same
A
little
better
now
Much
better
now
Don't
know
Totals
TOTAL 15.3 36.8 14.2 17.3 2.0 14.3 100
Place of Residence
Urban 13.9 31.6 17.0 17.4 2.8 17.3 100
Rural 17.2 44.2 10.2 17.2 0.9 10.2 100
Local Government
Area
Banjul 15.0 21.7 11.7 23.3 8.3 20.0 100
Kanifing 12.3 30.7 20.4 18.2 2.2 16.2 100
Brikama 18.9 30.6 13.4 19.6 2.8 14.8 100
Mansakonko 42.1 35.7 2.1 17.1 2.1 0.7 100
Kerewan 11.7 58.3 7.1 12.9 0.3 9.8 100
Kuntaur 14.9 48.9 12.1 5.7 0.0 18.4 100
Janjanbureh 13.3 27.6 16.0 10.5 1.7 30.9 100
Basse 4.3 46.1 18.5 21.1 1.0 9.0 100
Household Size
1-2 23.8 22.2 6.3 20.6 4.8 22.2 100
3-4 13.0 37.5 15.5 15.5 3.2 15.2 100
5-6 13.2 39.0 14.1 15.9 1.9 15.9 100
7+ 15.9 36.6 14.3 17.9 1.8 13.6 100
Land Holding by
Household
<1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1-1.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2-3.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4-5.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6+ 16.4 38.7 15.1 15.8 2.0 11.9 100
Livestock Holding
None 12.3 35.3 16.8 17.1 2.1 16.4 100
Large 11.5 51.7 5.8 21.4 0.0 9.6 100
Small 14.5 39.5 12.9 17.9 1.9 13.2 99.9
Both 14.5 35.3 14.9 17.5 2.4 15.3 99.9
Socio-economic group
Government 13.1 32.5 14.9 19.7 3.1 16.6 100
Parastatal 10.7 35.7 16.1 19.6 5.4 12.5 100
Private business 12.6 27.9 17.4 21.6 4.7 15.8 100
Private person or household 17.2 34.5 12.0 17.6 1.5 17.2 100
Self-Employed 15.5 37.2 14.3 17.4 1.9 13.6 100
Other Specify 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Industrial
Classification
Agriculture 25.9 42.7 8.7 11.3 1.6 9.7 100
Services 12.1 31.0 17.0 18.7 4.5 16.6 100
Administration 15.7 23.5 19.6 17.6 2.0 21.6 100
Trade/Selling 13.0 34.2 15.7 19.9 1.7 15.4 100
Education 9.2 32.9 16.2 22.0 2.9 16.8 100
Table 2.4.1: Percentage distribution of households by the perception of the economic situation of the community
compared to the year before the survey
Much
worse
now
A
little
worse
now
Same
A
little
better
now
Much
better
now
Don't
know
Totals
Health 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hotel and Restaurants 20.9 37.2 11.6 9.3 0.0 20.9 100
Construction/Carpenter 14.2 37.5 14.2 19.9 1.0 13.2 100
Transport 14.6 45.5 8.9 18.7 2.4 9.8 100
Other 31.8 27.3 9.1 13.6 0.0 18.2 100
Gender
Male 14.7 37.7 14.4 17.2 1.9 14.1 100
Female 18.4 32.2 12.9 18.0 2.6 15.8 100
Marital Status
Never married 16.1 35.7 14.3 15.2 0.9 17.9 100
Married (monogamous) 16.4 34.1 15.3 18.3 2.0 13.9 100
Married (Polygamous) 12.5 42.9 12.7 15.2 2.0 14.8 100
Divorced/Separated 20.0 27.3 9.1 20.0 3.6 20.0 100
Widowed 16.9 36.7 12.4 18.6 2.8 12.4 100
Highest Level of
Education
None 18.4 38.8 22.4 8.2 2.0 10.2 100
Primary 12.0 36.1 14.7 19.9 2.1 15.2 100
Secondary 15.3 32.7 13.4 20.7 3.3 14.6 100
Higher (University, College) 10.1 31.3 18.4 18.0 3.7 18.4 100
Vocational 8.3 20.8 8.3 33.3 0.0 29.2 100
2.4.2 Perception of Economic Situation of households
During the course of the survey, the respondents were posed questions about the economic
situation of their households compared to the year preceding the survey. Respondents who
reported the situation of their households were a little worse now compared to the year before the
survey registered the highest (40.6%) , followed by those who reported that their situation is a
little better now (28.3%). Fifteen percent reported that their economic situation is the same
compared to the year preceding the survey and 13.3 percent reported that their situation is much
worse now compared to the year before the survey. Only 2.3 percent reported that their situation
is much better compared to the year before the survey and 0.5 percent reported that they don’t
know the economic situation of their households compared to the year preceding the survey.
At residence level there are more households in urban areas that declared that their economic
situation is much worse now than in rural areas with 14.6 and 11.4 percent each. The same
situation exists for the economic situation of household being much better now.
Again at LGA level Mansakonko reported the highest proportion of households that stated their
economic situation is much worse now with 20.7 percent compared to the year preceding the
survey and Basse recorded the least proportion with 6 percent. (See Table 2.4.2)
Table 2.4.2: Percent distribution of households by perception of the economic situation of their household
compared to the year before the survey
Much
worse
now
A little
worse
now
Same
A
little
better
now
Much
better
now
Don't
know
Total
TOTAL 13.3 40.6 15.0 28.3 2.3 0.5 100
Place of
Residence
Urban 14.6 34.3 16.0 31.5 2.9 0.6 100
Rural 11.4 49.5 13.6 23.7 1.5 0.2 100
Local
Government
Area
Banjul 11.7 20.0 20.0 40.0 6.7 1.7 100
Kanifing 13.6 29.2 18.8 32.4 5.3 0.7 100
Brikama 17.2 38.5 10.2 31.3 2.4 0.4 100
Mansakonko 20.7 50.0 2.1 26.4 0.7 0.0 100
Kerewan 11.3 47.9 14.7 25.2 0.3 0.6 100
Kuntaur 10.3 58.6 21.3 9.8 0.0 0.0 100
Janjanbureh 6.6 39.2 27.1 24.9 1.1 1.1 100
Basse 6.0 48.4 18.5 25.8 1.0 0.3 100
Household Size
1-2 19.0 38.1 4.8 30.2 7.9 0.0 100
3-4 15.2 35.7 17.7 27.1 3.2 1.1 100
5-6 11.3 40.3 16.6 28.7 2.5 0.6 100
7+ 13.4 41.4 14.5 28.3 2.0 0.4 100
Land Holding
by Household
<1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1-1.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2-3.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4-5.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6+ 12.9 43.2 14.7 26.8 2.1 0.3 100
Livestock
Holding
None 12.3 35.3 16.8 17.1 2.1 16.4 100
Large 11.5 51.7 5.8 21.4 0.0 9.6 100
Small 14.5 39.5 12.9 17.9 1.9 13.2 99.9
Both 14.5 35.3 14.9 17.5 2.4 15.3 99.9
Socio-
economic
group
Government 8.7 34.9 16.6 35.3 4.2 0.3 100
Parastatal 10.7 28.6 23.2 33.9 3.6 0.0 100
Private business 14.7 27.9 16.8 33.7 5.8 1.1 100
Private person or
household
16.9 36.7 14.2 30.3 1.1 0.7 100
Self-Employed 12.9 41.7 15.0 28.2 1.7 0.4 100
Other Specify 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Industrial
Classification
Agriculture 15.9 51.5 12.6 19.4 0.6 0.0 100
Services 14.2 34.1 15.0 32.6 3.5 0.6 100
Administration 11.8 27.5 23.5 31.4 5.9 0.0 100
Trade/Selling 11.1 38.2 18.6 29.7 1.6 0.8 100
Education 11.0 32.9 15.6 35.8 4.0 0.6 100
Health 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hotel and Restaurants 25.6 30.2 20.9 23.3 0.0 0.0 100
Construction/Carpenter 11.1 41.6 11.8 32.4 2.7 0.3 100
Transport 11.4 35.8 13.0 36.6 3.3 0.0 100
Table 2.4.2: Percent distribution of households by perception of the economic situation of their household
compared to the year before the survey
Much
worse
now
A little
worse
now
Same
A
little
better
now
Much
better
now
Don't
know
Total
Other 22.7 40.9 9.1 27.3 0.0 0.0 100
Gender
Male 12.7 41.5 15.4 28.0 2.0 0.5 100
Female 16.4 36.0 12.7 30.0 4.2 0.7 100
Marital Status
Never married 16.1 33.9 19.6 27.7 2.7 0.0 100
Married (monogamous) 13.5 39.1 15.0 29.2 2.7 0.5 100
Married (Polygamous) 11.1 46.0 15.4 25.8 1.3 0.5 100
Divorced/Separated 21.8 34.5 12.7 29.1 1.8 0.0 100
Widowed 17.5 35.0 11.3 32.2 3.4 0.6 100
Highest Level
of Education
None 12.2 36.7 14.3 30.6 4.1 2.0 100
Primary 12.0 37.7 15.2 33.0 1.0 1.0 100
Secondary 14.1 34.4 14.8 32.3 4.0 0.3 100
Higher (University,
College)
8.3 30.0 19.4 34.6 6.5 1.4 100
Vocational 20.8 20.8 25.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 100
2.5: Households difficulty in satisfying the food needs of the household during the year
before the survey
.
Meeting a households food requirements (quantity and quality) is essential for the household to
meet other socio-economic needs.. In Table 2.5, 57.4 percent of the households reported that
they sometimes have difficulty meeting up their food needs. Twenty-four percent reported that
they never had trouble in meeting their food needs, 7.2 percent reported they seldom had such
difficulty and 6.4 percent reported they often have difficulty satisfying their food needs. Only 5
percent of the households reported to always have difficulty satisfying the food needs of their
households.
The highest proportion of households that reported to never have difficulty in satisfying the food
needs of their households was registered in urban areas with 33.5 percent compared to the rural
areas with 10.5 percent. And households that reported to always have difficulty in satisfying their
food needs, the proportion was higher in the rural areas with 5.1 percent and the urban area with
4.9 percent. At LGA level Kanifing reported the highest proportion of households to never have
difficulty in satisfying their food needs, followed by Banjul, Brikama and Kerewan.
Table 2.5: Percent distribution of households by the difficulty in satisfying the food needs of the household during
the year before the survey
Never Seldom Sometim
es
Often Always Total
TOTAL 24.0 7.2 57.4 6.4 5.0 100
Place of Residence Urban 33.5 5.8 52.0 3.7 4.9 100
Rural 10.5 9.1 65.0 10.3 5.1 100
Local
Government Area
Total
Banjul 50.0 13.3 26.7 3.3 6.7 100
Kanifing 52.2 4.4 36.9 2.2 4.2 100
Brikama 19.7 4.0 67.7 3.2 5.4 100
Mansakonko 1.4 5.7 82.1 4.3 6.4 100
Kerewan 18.7 7.7 54.3 15.0 4.3 100
Kuntaur 7.5 15.5 52.3 17.8 6.9 100
Janjanbureh 10.5 11.6 56.9 16.6 4.4 100
Basse 18.6 13.1 58.8 5.5 4.0 100
Does the
household own
any land?
No 26.6 6.1 55.2 6.1 5.9 99.9
Yes 21.9 7.9 59.2 6.8 4.2 100
Household Size
1 - 2 33.3 6.3 55.6 1.6 3.2 100
3 - 4 32.9 10.8 45.1 5.8 5.4 100
5 - 6 28.3 5.9 55.6 5.2 5.0 100
7+ 21.4 7.0 59.6 7.0 5.0 100
Livestock Holding
None 38.5 6.9 45.2 4.7 4.7 100
Large 9.2 9.0 68.1 9.0 4.8 100.1
Small 22.5 7.3 58.3 6.7 5.1 99.9
Both 9.2 8.9 68.4 9.0 4.5 100
Socioeconomic
group
Government 34.6 9.7 51.2 2.4 2.1 100
Parastatal 46.4 10.7 39.3 1.8 1.8 100
Private business 46.8 3.2 43.2 3.2 3.7 100
Private person or household 17.6 8.2 62.9 8.2 3.0 100
Self employed 19.7 7.6 60.7 6.8 5.3 100
Unpaid family
worker/family helper
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Specify 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Industrial
Classification
Agriculture 9.1 6.1 68.6 9.7 6.5 100
Services 29.8 8.4 52.0 5.1 4.7 100
Administration 45.1 7.8 45.1 0.0 2.0 100
Trade/Selling 28.8 7.9 53.6 5.6 4.1 100
Education 32.9 9.8 49.1 4.6 3.5 100
Health 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hotel and Restaurants 23.3 4.7 65.1 4.7 2.3 100
Construction/Carpenter 15.9 6.4 68.2 6.1 3.4 100
Transport 24.4 6.5 61.0 5.7 2.4 100
Other 13.6 13.6 54.5 4.5 13.6 100
Table 2.5: Percent distribution of households by the difficulty in satisfying the food needs of the household during
the year before the survey
Never Seldom Sometim
es
Often Always Total
Gender of Head of
Household
Male 22.6 7.3 58.8 6.5 4.8 100
Female 31.4 6.8 49.8 5.9 6.1 100
Marital Status
Never Married 28.6 9.8 49.1 7.1 5.4 100
Married (Monogamous) 25.0 6.4 58.6 5.5 4.5 100
Married (Polygamous) 20.5 8.6 58.5 7.8 4.5 100
Divorced/Separated 16.4 7.3 61.8 5.5 9.1 100
Widowed 29.9 6.8 44.6 8.5 10.2 100
Highest Level of
Education
None 40.8 4.1 51.0 4.1 0.0 100
Primary 21.5 4.7 61.8 6.8 5.2 100
Secondary 30.3 6.3 56.9 2.6 4.0 100
Higher (College &
University)
57.1 6.9 33.6 1.4 0.9 100
Vocational ( Skill Centers) 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100
2.6 Distribution of households by principal contributor to household income
In all the households visited, the head of the households are the principal contributors to
household income (83.8%) and there is not much difference by place of residence in terms of the
household heads being the principal contributors to household income. The proportion of
spouses contributing to the household income is 7.3 percent, children contribute 4.0 percent to
the household income and other relatives contribute 2.3 percent to household income. Parents
being principal contributor to household income recorded 2.1 percent and the least principal
contributor to household income was recorded by siblings with 0.3 percent.
The highest proportion of household head being principal contributor to family income was
recorded in Mansakonko with 90.6 percent, followed by Kerewan with 90.2 percent and the least
proportion was reported in Banjul with 76.7 percent. (See Table 2.6).
Table 2.6: Percent distribution of households by principal contributor to household income
Head Spouse Child Parent Brother/Sister Other
Relative
Not
Related
Total
Total 83.8 7.3 4.0 2.1 0.3 2.3 0.1 100
Place of Residence
Urban 81.5 9.5 4.0 2.2 0.4 2.2 0.1 100
Rural 86.9 4.2 4.0 2.0 0.3 2.3 0.3 100
Local Government Area
Banjul 76.7 21.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Kanifing 77.2 11.8 5.0 2.8 0.4 2.9 0.0 100
Brikama 84.3 7.2 4.0 2.3 0.3 1.8 0.1 100
Mansakonko 90.6 2.9 2.9 0.7 0.7 2.2 0.0 100
Kerewan 90.2 4.0 3.7 0.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 100
Kuntaur 82.2 5.2 5.7 2.9 0.6 3.4 0.0 100
Janjanbureh 83.4 5.5 2.8 5.0 1.1 1.7 0.6 100
Basse 85.7 5.3 3.5 1.5 0.3 3.3 0.5 100
Household Size
1-2 82.5 14.3 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
3-4 82.7 10.1 3.6 1.8 0.4 1.4 0.0 100
5-6 83.7 6.9 4.6 1.3 0.6 2.5 0.4 100
7+ 84.0 6.8 4.0 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.1 100
Socioeconomic Group
Government 87.9 6.9 2.8 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 100
Parastatal 82.1 8.9 5.4 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 100
Private business 87.4 8.9 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 100
Private person or
household
88.7 6.0 1.1 2.3 0.0 1.9 0.0 100
Self-Employed 89.0 5.1 2.2 1.4 0.5 1.7 0.1 100
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Industrial Classification
Agriculture 86.1 5.2 3.6 2.6 0.6 1.9 0.0 100
Services 87.5 7.0 2.5 0.8 0.6 1.4 0.2 100
Administration 84.3 9.8 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 100
Trade/Selling 88.7 5.4 2.1 1.6 0.5 1.8 0.0 100
Education 88.1 6.8 2.5 0.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 100
Health 87.3 9.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 100
Hotel and Restaurants 90.7 7.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Construction/Carpenter 90.9 5.7 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 100
Transport 94.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 3.3 0.0 100
Other 81.8 13.6 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Gender
Male 86.0 5.7 4.0 1.7 0.4 2.0 0.2 100
Female 71.5 15.9 4.0 4.6 0.2 3.8 0.0 100
Chapter 3: Health
3.0 Introduction
The Gambia has a comprehensive health policy. The National Health policy, 2007-2020, ‘Health
is wealth’, seeks to address the common health desires of the population through a number of
initiatives in the area of preventive and curative health services. The mission of the policy is to
promote and protect the health of the population. It also seeks to promote equity in the access
and affordability of quality services, maintain ethics and standards, promote health system
reforms, and improve staff retention and client satisfaction.
Respondents in this survey were asked about whether any of the household members had any
sickness/illness/injury within the 4 weeks preceding the survey, kind of health care provider
consulted, satisfaction with the health care services received, and reasons for not consulting with
a health care provider and live birth and pre-natal care in the 12 months preceding the survey.
3.1 Satisfaction with Health Care Services
Respondents who consulted with a health care provider or traditional healer for any reason
within the 4 weeks preceding the survey were asked about their satisfaction with the health
service(s) received and the results are shown in Table 3.1. A total of 67.2 percent of the said
respondents expressed satisfaction with the health services received from different providers. A
higher proportion of people in the urban areas (73.2%) said they were satisfied with the health
services they received compared to 60.8 percent in the rural areas. More than three quarters of
the people in Banjul, Brikama and Janjanbureh were satisfied with the health services, while less
than half (44.6%) of the people in Kuntaur were satisfied with the health services they received.
The corresponding figures for Kanifing, Mansakonko, Kerewan and Basse are 64.4 percent, 63.9
percent, 60.8 percent and 58.2 percent respectively.
A slightly higher proportion of females than males expressed satisfaction with the health services
they received, with 68.8 percent of females saying they had no problems with the health services
and 65.6 percent of males saying likewise. The type of ‘Health Service Provider’ didn’t seem to
have much bearing on the proportion of people who said they were satisfied with the services
they received.
Overall, slightly less than half (47.8%) of the respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the
health care services they received within the 4 weeks preceding the survey. The two most
common reasons cited for dissatisfaction were non-availability of drugs (15.9%) and
expensiveness of services (15.9%). The proportions that expressed dissatisfaction for both fore
mentioned reasons was highest in the rural areas (19% and 20.4% respectively) than in the urban
areas (13% and 11.8% respectively). Non-availability of drugs as a reason for dissatisfaction
with the provided health care services was highest in Kerewan (36.5%), followed by
Mansakonko (25.3%) and least in Brikama (8.1%). Proportion of people who complained of the
services being expensive were highest in Kuntaur (36.4%), followed by Kerewan (29.1%) and
least in Brikama (7.4%). Among all the reasons cited for dissatisfaction, absence of trained staff
and inadequate medical facilities emerged the least, with both less than one percent (0.2% and
0.4% respectively).
Table 3.1: Satisfaction and Reasons for dissatisfaction with health services by Area of Residence, LGA,
Employment type, Gender and Type of Service Provider
Satisfaction Reasons for dissatisfaction
No problem
(satisfied)
No drugs
available
Too
expensive
Long
waiting
time
Absence
of
trained
staff
Distance
to the
hospital
Inadequate
medical
facilities
Others
Total 67.2 15.9 15.9 10.6 .2 2.8 .4 2.0
Area of Residence
Urban 73.2 13.0 11.8 10.9 .4 .2 0.0 .4
Rural 60.8 19.0 20.4 10.3 0.0 5.6 .8 3.8
LGA
Banjul 78.8 21.2 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 64.4 17.2 19.5 14.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.2
Brikama 79.5 8.1 7.4 9.6 0.0 .3 0.0 0.0
Mansakonko 63.9 25.3 10.1 15.8 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0
Kerewan 60.8 36.5 29.1 19.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kuntaur 44.6 14.8 36.4 7.5 0.0 4.6 4.6 0.0
Janjanbureh 76.4 19.4 10.4 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Basse 58.2 17.1 16.4 6.1 0.0 10.2 0.0 9.3
Employment Type
Government 68.9 30.7 15.6 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Parastatal 67.5 30.0 17.5 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Private business 73.2 3.1 25.2 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Private person
or household
74.8 5.9 8.0 11.3 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0
Self employed 70.7 9.8 17.1 7.8 .6 2.2 0.0 1.6
Gender
Male 65.6 16.7 17.0 11.4 .2 2.8 .5 2.0
Female 68.8 15.1 14.9 9.8 .3 2.8 .3 2.0
Type of Health provider
Traditional
healer
62.2 21.5 7.1 7.8 0.0 0.0 2.4 5.0
Midwife/Nurse 62.4 23.7 16.2 6.7 0.0 1.7 1.5 1.7
Doctor 66.5 18.6 17.2 14.5 .4 3.2 0.0 1.0
Pharmacist 65.9 14.2 22.8 .4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5
3.2 Reasons for not consulting a health provider
The survey collected information on those who did not seek any medical care in the four weeks
preceding the survey. Table 3.2 shows that more than one third (36.8%) of those who did not
seek care because they did not feel the need for any medical attention. This proportion was
higher in the rural areas (37.9%) than in the urban areas (36%). At the LGA level, this proportion
was also highest in Mansakonko at 80 percent, followed by Banjul at 72.7 percent and lowest in
Basse at 13.7 percent.
More than two thirds of those who didn’t consult with a health provider were not sick within the
4 weeks preceding the survey. This proportion is higher in the rural areas (72%) and highest in
Mansakonko with 90 percent, followed by Basse with 85.5 percent. Less than one percent (0.3%)
of those who did not seek care said they took home made remedies instead.
Table 3.2: Reasons for not consulting a Health Provider by Area of Residence, LGA, Employment Type
and Type of Sickness/Injury
Reasons for not consulting a health provider
No need Too far Too
expensive
Not sick Got
medicine
at home
Others
Total 36.8
3.8 4.0 67.9 .3 .9
Area of Residence
Urban 36.0 3.1 4.2 64.7 .5 1.3
Rural 37.9 4.8 3.8 72.0 0.0 .5
LGA
Banjul 72.7 13.6 0.0 40.9 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 41.6 6.6 2.3 57.2 .8 0.0
Brikama 43.1 .8 5.3 68.6 .2 1.6
Mansakonko 80.0 10.0 0.0 90.0 0.0 0.0
Kerewan 32.1 3.8 6.6 77.4 0.0 4.7
Kuntaur 35.1 9.9 7.2 48.6 .9 0.0
Janjanbureh 34.2 2.6 4.4 60.5 0.0 0.0
Basse 13.7 3.3 1.2 85.5 0.0 0.0
Employment Type
Government 47.2 2.8 2.8 59.4 0.0 0.0
Parastatal 48.3 0.0 31.0 55.2 0.0 0.0
Private business 35.3 7.8 5.2 63.8 0.0 .9
Private person or
household
39.0 4.8 .7 67.8 0.0 0.0
Self-Employed 38.4 2.9 3.5 66.1 0.0 .8
3.3 Health care provider consultation
The type of medical personnel consulted during an illness or injury can at times determine the
quality of care received. Sometimes the quality of care sought can also be determined by the
socio-economic status of the individual. More than half (54.4%) of those who consulted with a
health care provider, received the services of a Doctor; whereas more than a quarter of the
respondents (27.8%) received medical attention from a Midwife/Nurse. Less than one percent
(0.9%) consulted with a Village Health Worker or Traditional Birth Attendant.
The proportion of those who sought medical attention from a Doctor or a Pharmacist was higher
in the urban than the rural areas, with 63 percent and 15.2 percent respectively. On the other
hand, the proportions that sought medical care from a Traditional healer, a Midwife/Nurse or
Village Health Worker/Traditional Birth Attendant were higher in the rural areas, with 21.3
percent, 41.5 percent and 1.9 percent respectively. The proportion of those who sought medical
care from a Doctor was higher in Brikama (71%) than any other LGA, followed by Banjul
(65.3%) then Mansakonko (61.4%). Janjanbureh recorded the least proportion (16.4%) of those
who have sought medical attention from a Doctor, followed by Kuntaur, with 27.8 percent.
None of the employed people reported to have sought health care from a VHW/TBA within the 4
weeks preceding the survey. However, private person/ household and Government workers
reported to have consulted with traditional healers (28.1% and 25.8% respectively). Parastatal
employees (82.1%) registered the highest proportion of respondents who consulted with a
Doctor, followed by private business workers (65.5%) and Private person/ household workers
(61%).
Table 3.3: Type of Health Care Provider By Area of Residence, LGA and Employment Type
Type of health care provider
Traditional
healer
Midwife/Nurse Doctor Pharmacist VHW/TBA Others
Total 18.7 27.8 54.4 12.8 0.9 0.7
Area of Residence
Urban 16.2 14.9 63.0 15.2 0.0 0.0
Rural 21.3 41.5 45.1 10.3 1.9 1.4
LGA
Banjul 0.0 0.0 65.3 34.7 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 17.0 8.3 58.3 20.2 0.0 0.0
Brikama 17.9 11.3 71.0 14.4 0.0 0.0
Mansakonko 25.4 22.8 61.4 7.9 0.0 5.3
Kerewan 28.2 32.8 48.5 8.0 6.5 0.0
Kuntaur 13.9 45.8 27.8 13.9 4.2 0.0
Janjanbureh 25.4 57.5 16.4 18.7 0.0 0.0
Basse 18.5 64.7 39.6 2.1 0.0 2.6
Employment type
Government 25.8 60.6 22.2 11.3 0.0 0.0
Parastatal 17.9 0.0 82.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Private business 12.6 10.9 65.5 16.8 0.0 0.0
Private person or
household
28.1 19.0 61.0 8.7 0.0 0.0
Self-Employed 15.3 25.1 56.6 13.4 0.0 0.0
3.4 Live birth in the last 12 months and pre-natal care
Table 3.4 shows that only 9 percent of women within the childbearing age (12-49) had a live
birth in the 12 months preceding the survey. This proportion was higher in the urban areas
(9.8%) than in the rural areas (8.2%). Brikama and Janjanbureh reported the highest proportions
of live births, with 10.9 percent and 10.2 percent respectively. Banjul recorded the lowest
proportion of women who had a live birth in the previous year preceding the survey, with only
3.8 percent.
The highest proportion of women who gave birth in the year preceding the survey were within
the ages of 15-19 and 30-39, each with 20.6 percent. The lowest proportion was within 40-49
years (12.7%) followed by 12-14 years (13.6%). Banjul, Kanifing, Brikama, Kerewan and
Kuntaur had lower proportions of teenagers (15-19) who gave birth in the 12 months preceding
the survey compared to Mansakonko, Janjanbureh and Basse. Women engaged in the transport
industry reported the highest proportion (12.3%) of live births in the 12 months preceding the
survey while women in the Health industry reported the lowest (6.7%).
Out of all the women who had a live birth in the 12 months preceding the survey, 95 percent of
mothers received pre-natal care during their last pregnancy during the period. This proportion
was higher in the urban areas with 95.6 percent compared to 94.3 percent in the rural areas. All
women who gave birth in the 12 months preceding the survey in Banjul and Kerewan reported to
have received pre-natal care. Kuntaur reported the lowest proportion (91.3%) of mothers who
received pre-natal care during their last pregnancy.
Table 3.4: Percentage of women age 12-49 who had a live birth in the year preceding the survey by Age of
the mother and Percentage of those who received pre-natal care, by Area of residence, LGA and Industry
Percentage
of women
who had a
live birth in
the last 12
months
Received
pre-natal
care
during the
last
pregnancy
Age-group of women
12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-39 40-49
Total 9.0 95.0 13.6 20.6 17.5 15.0 20.6 12.7
Area of Residence
Urban 9.8 95.6 12.4 20.5 18.6 15.3 20.8 12.4
Rural 8.2 94.3 14.9 20.8 16.3 14.7 20.4 13.0
LGA
Banjul 3.8 100 12.7 18.5 18.5 13.8 21.7 14.8
Kanifing 7.6 95.5 11.1 19.9 19.9 16.1 21.0 12.0
Brikama 10.9 94.1 13.9 20.0 17.6 14.4 21.5 12.6
Mansakonko 5.2 95.7 14.1 23.8 15.8 12.6 19.2 14.4
Kerewan 5.7 100 13.6 20.8 16.8 14.5 20.9 13.5
Kuntaur 8.9 91.3 14.1 19.5 17.7 15.2 20.7 12.8
Janjanbureh 10.2 94.7 14.6 23.1 16.5 15.8 18.2 11.9
Basse 9.8 95.8 14.5 21.5 16.3 15.9 19.4 12.4
Industry
Agriculture 8.5 92.9 16.2 24.1 15.3 12.7 18.5 13.1
Services 10.5 92.5 11.9 18.9 17.5 16.5 22.1 13.1
Administration 8.8 100 10.7 24.6 20.1 12.3 18.9 13.5
Trade /selling 9.9 94.2 13.5 19.7 17.8 15.0 20.8 13.2
Education/ 9.5 100 17.6 20.9 16.5 12.9 20.9 11.2
health 6.7 100 14.0 21.0 18.8 15.5 15.9 14.8
Hotels and
restaurants
10.2 100 14.1 16.8 16.8 12.4 27.0 13.0
Construction 10.0 98.8 13.7 19.4 15.3 14.0 23.7 13.9
Transport 12.3 100 12.9 19.7 16.4 17.4 22.8 10.8
Others 9.6 100 18.4 15.3 14.3 13.3 26.5 12.2
Chapter 4: Employment
4.0 Introduction
According to the 2013 Population and Housing Census, the population of the Gambia is
1,856,417 and the average population growth rate is 3.1 percent per annum. According to the
2010 Integrated Household Survey (IHS), 48.4 percent of the population lives below the poverty
line of $1.25 per person per day. One of the underlying causes of poverty in the Gambia as in
most developing countries is the high unemployment and underemployment rates particularly
among women and youth.
During the survey all household members aged seven years and above were asked about their
employment status. The CWIQ captures the following aspects of employment: employment
status (e.g. employee or self-employed), employment sector (e.g. public or private etc.), industry
of employment (e.g. agriculture, services etc.), and labor force status (employed, under –
employed, unemployed or inactive).
Lack of employment without any social safety net means no income and hence poverty.
Therefore, policies and programs that help to increase employment will help in reducing poverty.
4.1 The working population by employment status
Table 4.1 shows that the proportion of the population that are employed constitutes 66.5 percent,
of which 4.2 percent are working and satisfied with their jobs while 14.4 percent are working but
are underemployed. Those that are unemployed account, 22.5 percent that is, those seeking work
but there are no jobs available and 11.0 percent are economically inactive (not seeking for job).
The proportion of the population employed is higher in the urban areas (73.0%) than the rural
areas (59.6%), while the proportion unemployed is higher in the rural areas (30.4%) than the
urban (15.4%).
According to LGA analysis the proportion of employed population is higher in Banjul (79.2%),
Brikama (74.1%) and Janjanbureh (74.7%). On the contrary, the proportion not employed is
higher in Kerewan (44.8%) and Basse (35.3%). Males between the age group of 30-49 (70.6%)
and 50-64 (69.1%) have a higher proportion of those employed, as opposed to those not working.
Proportions of people who are not working are higher in the age groups 15-19 years and 65+
years with 23.4 percent and 34.5 percent respectively.%. In line with the figures shown in the
table 4.1, females in the working and non- working ages are slightly better than males in terms of
employment and labor force participation. Females within the age groups of 15-29 (66.9%) and
30-49 (66.6%) have a higher proportion of those employed.
Table 4.1: Proportion distribution of the population by employment status
Working Under-employed Total Unemployed Inactive
Total 52.1 14.4 66.5 22.5 11.0
Local government area
Banjul 69.4 9.8 79.2 3.9 16.9
Kanifing 50.0 17.5 67.5 9.6 22.9
Brikama 58.6 15.4 74.1 15.7 10.2
Mansakonko 52.0 9.1 61.0 14.4 24.5
Kerewan 33.6 21.1 54.7 44.8 0.5
Kuntaur 42.3 12.3 54.6 29.1 16.3
Janjanbureh 61.0 13.7 74.7 15.3 10.1
Basse 52.1 8.6 60.7 35.3 4.0
Place of residence
Urban 58.6 14.4 73.0 15.4 11.6
Rural 45.2 14.4 59.6 30.0 10.4
Gender & Age
Male Total 51.6 13.6 65.2 22.5 12.3
15-29 50.8 12.7 63.5 23.4 13.0
30-49 54.8 15.8 70.6 19 10.4
50-64 54.5 14.6 69.1 21.2 9.8
65+ 36.5 8.4 44.9 34.5 20.6
Female Total 51.3 13.8 65.1 23.4 11.4
15-29 52.3 14.6 66.9 22.3 10.8
30-49 52.0 14.6 66.6 22.9 10.5
50-64 44.7 9.6 54.4 29.9 15.8
65+ 50.1 8.9 59.0 26.2 14.8
Figure 1: Proportion Distribution of the population by employment status
4.2 The working population by mode of payment
Table 4.2 below shows the proportion distribution of the economically active population by
employment status. Results from the table below shows that overall, the highest proportion of the
economically active population 61.3 percent were self-employed, followed by those who were
paid in wage/salary 28.3 percent. Those who receive the lowest payment among the
economically active were the unpaid contribution workers 2.5 percent.
Table 4.2 further shows that 71.9 percent of rural dwellers were self-employed which is a higher
proportion than their urban counterparts 53.0 percent, this can be as a result of most rural
workers being highly engaged in agricultural activities. As expected those paid in wage/salary is
higher in the urban area 36.1 percent compared to 18.4 percent of their rural counterparts.
Across all LGAs, Mansakonko (79.9%) accounted for the highest proportion of economically
active population that is self-employed, followed by Basse and Kuntaur (73.0 percent and 72.6
percent respectively). Kanifing and Banjul registered the lowest proportions of the self-
employed population with (44.8 percent and 56.4 percent respectively). Among those paid in
wage/salary/payment in kind, Kanifing has the highest proportion (45.4%) followed by Banjul
(38.3%) and Brikama (32.3%). Mansakonko and Kuntaur have the lowest proportions of those
paid in wage/salary, (15.6 percent and 14.0 percent respectively).
Results from the table 4.2 also shows that males 65+ (73.8%) have the highest proportion of
economically active population that are self-employed, which on the contrary is not the case for
their female counterparts as they have the age group 30-49 (62.4%) as their highest proportion of
those self- employed. Among those paid in wage/salary/payment in kind, males within the age
group of 30-49 have the highest proportion of (32.1%); whilst among females the age group that
has the highest proportion of those paid in wage/salary/payment in kind are within the age group
of 15-25 years (29.7%).
Table 4.2: Percentage distribution of the working population by mode of payment
Wage/salary
Casual
(hourly/daily)
Unpaid
contribution
worker
Self
employed
Others
(specify)
Total
Total 28.3 7.6 2.5 61.3 .3 100
Place of residence
Urban 36.1 8.2 2.3 53.0 .4 100
Rural 18.4 6.7 2.8 71.9 .2 100
Local government area
Banjul 38.3 3.7 1.6 56.4 0.0 100
Kanifing 45.4 7.5 2.1 44.8 .2 100
Brikama 32.3 8.8 2.5 56.1 .4 100
Mansakonko 15.6 3.1 1.4 79.9 0.0 100
Kerewan 21.0 8.9 0.0 69.6 .5 100
Kuntaur 14.0 7.9 5.3 72.6 .3 100
Janjanbureh 22.8 7.1 3.2 66.2 .7 100
Basse 18.0 5.5 3.5 73.0 0.0 100
Sex and Age
Male 30.2 6.6 2.7 60.3 .3 100
15-29 30.0 6.1 3.3 60.4 .3 100
30-49 32.1 8.1 1.9 57.7 .3 100
50-64 29.8 5.0 2.5 62.3 .4 100
65+ 17.8 5.4 3.0 73.8 0.0 100
Female 28.7 7.0 2.7 61.4 .3 100
15-29 29.7 6.6 2.6 60.9 .2 100
30-49 27.6 7.3 2.3 62.4 .4 100
50-64 26.3 8.0 4.0 61.5 .3 100
65+ 27.9 7.1 3.6 61.1 .4 100
Figure 2: Percentage Distribution of the working population by employment status.
Wage/salary 28.3%
Casual (hourly/daily), 7.6%
Unpaid contribution worker, 2.5%
Self employed, 61.3%
Others (specify), 0.3%
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORKING POPULATION BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS
4.3 Working population by employer
Table 4.3 shows the percentage distribution of the working population by type of employer.
Overall, majority of the population (64.8%) were self- employed followed by those who reported
that they worked for government (12.5%). The percentage employed by private persons or
households, private businesses and Parastatal, accounted for 12.4 percent, 7.9 percent and 2.4
percent respectively. The proportion of the population that are self- employed is higher in the
rural (75.5%) compared to the 56.1 percent in the urban area, whereas those employed by
government, Parastatal, private business and private persons or households are higher in the
urban areas than in the rural areas. Across LGAs and for all age groups, a higher proportion of
the population was self- employed than any other employer category.
Figure 3: Percentage Distribution of the working population by employer.
Government, 12.5% Parastatal, 2.4%
Private business, 7.9%
Private person or household, 12.4%
Self employed, 64.8%
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORKING POPULATION BY EMPLOYER
Table 4.3: Percentage distribution of the working population by employer
Government Parastatal Private
business
Private
person or
household
Self
employed
Total
Total 12.5 2.4 7.9 12.4 64.8 100
Place of residence
Urban 14.7 3.8 12.2 13.2 56.1 100
Rural 9.8 .6 2.7 11.3 75.5 100
Local government area
Banjul 14.6 5.5 15.7 16.1 48.2 100
Kanifing 17.2 3.6 20.1 12.3 46.7 100
Brikama 14.0 2.9 9.4 14.5 59.1 100
Mansakonko 4.8 0.0 1.5 13.3 80.3 100
Kerewan 6.9 2.5 3.1 10.5 77.1 100
Kuntaur 11.0 .6 .4 12.3 75.8 100
Janjanbureh 16.0 2.6 1.6 12.4 67.4 100
Basse 9.1 1.1 3.2 7.7 78.8 100
Sex & Age
Male 13.0 2.9 9.1 11.9 63.1 100
15-29 12.7 3.1 9.6 11.9 62.8 100
30-49 13.4 3.0 9.3 13.6 60.7 100
50-64 14.6 2.9 8.4 9.3 64.8 100
65+ 9.9 .4 4.3 6.9 78.5 100
Female 13.2 2.4 8.3 11.9 64.3 100
15-29 13.8 2.3 8.6 12.4 62.9 100
30-49 12.7 2.5 7.9 10.8 66.1 100
50-64 11.2 2.2 7.4 13.4 65.8 100
65+ 13.0 1.9 8.4 12.0 64.6 100
4.4 Distribution of the working population by industry
Table 4.4 shows the percentage distribution of the working population by industry. Figures from
the table 4.4 show that overall, 30.5 percent of the working population are engaged in
trade/selling, and this percentage is higher in the urban area (33.2%) than the rural areas
(27.3percent). This is followed by services (20.7%) and agriculture (16.4%). In the case of urban
dwellers a higher proportion of the population were engaged in services and trade/selling
(26.5and 33.2 percent respectively), whereas rural dwellers were more engaged in occupations
such as agriculture and trade/selling (28.1 and 27.3 percent respectively).
Across all LGAs Mansakonko has the highest proportion (37.0%) of the population who are
engaged in agriculture and Banjul has the least proportion with no person involved in
agriculture; Banjul (43.8%) has the highest proportion of the working population engaged in
trade/selling and Janjanbureh (16.5%) has the least proportion. Both males (28.9 %) and females
(31.9 %) have a higher proportion of the working population engaged in trade/selling, followed
by agricultural workers (males 15.6 percent and females 16.4 %) and service workers (males
22.3% and females 20.7 %).
Figure 4: Percentage Distribution of the working population by industry
Agriculture, 16.4%
Services, 20.7%
Administration, 2.1%
Trade /selling, 30.5%
Education/Health, 7.3%
Hotels and restaurants, 1.8%
Construction/carpentry, 14.3%
Transport, 5.9%Others
(specify), 1.0%
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORKING POPULATION BY INDUSTRY
Table 4.4: Percentage distribution of the working population by industry
Agriculture Services Administr
ation
Trade /selling Education/
Health
Hotels and
restaurants
Construction/c
arpentry
Transport Others (specify) Total
Total 16.4 20.7 2.1 30.5 7.3 1.8 14.3 5.9 1.0 100
Place of residence
Urban 6.7 26.5 3.3 33.2 8.4 2.9 11.7 6.3 1.0 100
Rural 28.1 13.8 .6 27.3 6.1 .4 17.4 5.4 .9 100
Local government
area
Banjul 0.0 36.9 0.0 43.8 4.7 4.0 .7 9.1 .7 100
Kanifing 1.1 36.3 3.4 30.1 9.3 3.7 11.2 4.1 .9 100
Brikama 13.5 23.3 2.8 27.0 6.8 2.6 14.5 7.8 1.6 100
Mansakonko 37.0 7.3 1.3 27.7 2.3 .6 15.1 8.7 0.0 100
Kerewan 11.9 12.7 .6 35.2 8.4 0.0 17.9 11.4 1.9 100
Kuntaur 32.1 11.3 0.0 32.3 7.7 0.0 15.1 1.5 0.0 100
Janjanbureh 39.7 17.5 3.0 16.5 10.4 1.4 10.0 1.5 0.0 100
Basse 18.5 13.3 1.0 41.4 6.8 .1 16.8 2.1 0.0 100
Sex & Age
Male 15.6 22.3 2.6 28.9 7.7 1.8 14.0 6.1 1.0 100
15-29 16.9 21.4 2.9 29.6 7.7 1.6 13.0 6.0 .9 100
30-49 11.5 23.8 2.2 28.4 7.7 2.4 15.6 7.1 1.3 100
50-64 19.7 22.2 3.1 27.2 8.0 1.2 14.0 4.1 .5 100
65+ 21.5 21.0 1.7 29.6 6.4 1.3 13.3 4.3 .9 100
Female 16.4 20.7 2.3 31.9 7.7 1.7 13.0 5.5 .8 100
15-29 14.8 21.7 2.4 32.1 8.1 1.6 12.3 6.3 .7 100
30-49 17.2 19.8 2.3 32.2 6.9 1.9 14.0 4.7 .9 100
50-64 17.6 19.8 1.8 31.8 9.8 .2 12.2 5.6 1.1 100
65+ 24.8 17.6 2.3 27.5 5.2 2.6 15.4 3.6 1.0 100
4.5 Working population by employer, sex and industry
Table 4.5 shows the percentage distribution of the working population by employer, sex and
industry. Results from table 4.5 indicate that higher proportions of males and females that were
employed by government were mostly found in the services sector (male 41.3 percent and female
42.6%) than other industries. This is followed by Parastatal (male 35.8 percent and female
31.1%) and private business (male 35.9 percent and female 33.5 percent). Those who were self-
employed however accounted for a higher percentage of both males and females engaged in
trade/selling 40.6 percent and 44.3 percent respectively. The working population that was
engaged in the education/health sector was mainly employed by government (male 32.2% and
female 31.8%) and private businesses (male 23.3% and female 23.2%). Those who were engaged
in the agricultural industry had a proportion of both males (22.5%) and females (22.3%) as self-
employed; whereas those involved in construction/carpentry and transport were mainly
employed by private persons or households.
Table 4.5: Percentage distribution of the working population by employer, sex and Industry
Government Parastatal Private business Private person or
household
Self employed
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Agriculture 6.6 6.6 3.5 4.7 1.3 1.1 6.2 8.6 22.5 22.3
Services 41.3 42.6 35.8 31.1 35.9 33.5 21.1 22.1 15.1 13.5
Administration 11.6 10.6 9.7 12.7 3.8 3.9 0.0 0.0 .3 .2
Trade /selling 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.3 9.5 9.2 14.6 15.6 40.6 44.3
Education/Health 32.2 31.8 6.6 5.2 23.3 23.2 3.9 3.8 1.6 1.2
Hotels and restaurants .9 .8 9.3 7.5 12.5 13.8 1.6 1.8 .3 .4
Construction/carpentry 2.9 2.4 14.6 22.6 8.8 10.5 27.1 24.6 14.7 13.8
Transport 1.7 2.0 15.5 11.8 3.4 3.6 22.3 20.4 4.1 3.7
Others .3 .3 1.8 .9 1.4 1.3 3.2 3.2 .7 .5
4.6 The working population by mode of payment, sex and industry
Table 4.6 shows the percentage distribution of the working population by mode of payment, sex
and industry. The proportions of the population that are paid in wage/salary have a higher
percentage of both males and females engaged in the services (35.8 percent and 37.0%) and
education/health (23.2 percent and 22.2 percent respectively). This is followed by those who are
casual workers who have higher proportions of both males and females engaged in
construction/carpentry and trade/selling. Unpaid contribution workers have a higher percentage
of both sexes involved in agricultural (31.7 and 33.2%) and service sector (20.2 and 21.2%) and
those self- employed also have a higher proportion of both sexes engaged in the agricultural
(22.9 and 22.5%) and trade/selling business (41.3 and 44.7%).
Table 4.6: Percentage distribution of the working population by mode of payment, sex and Industry
Wage/salary Casual
(hourly/daily)
Unpaid
contribution
worker
Self employed Others
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Agriculture 3.6 3.1 3.6 5.6 31.7 33.2 22.9 22.5 23.1 20.0
Services 35.8 37.0 15.2 12.3 20.2 21.2 15.3 13.7 42.3 40.0
Administration 6.8 7.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 .4 .5 .4 0.0 0.0
Trade /selling 5.8 5.4 22.1 28.7 7.7 10.0 41.3 44.7 34.6 40.0
Education/Health 23.2 22.2 4.9 4.6 1.9 1.7 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0
Hotels and restaurants 5.2 5.5 2.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 .3 .4 0.0 0.0
Construction/carpentry 8.5 8.3 45.2 43.0 19.2 19.5 13.4 12.3 0.0 0.0
Transport 9.9 10.3 5.7 3.2 5.8 5.4 4.6 4.2 0.0 0.0
Others 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.5 12.0 8.7 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0
4.7 The working population by employer, sex and mode of payment
Table 4.7 shows the percentage distribution of the working population by employer, sex and
mode of payment. The figures reveal that majority of the males and females working in
government, Parastatal, private business or for private persons are employed for wage or salary.
About 90 percent of both males and females are employed for wages or salaries in government.
For Parastatal employees, 77.5 percent and 78.3 percent of males and females respectively are
employed for wages or salaries.
Table 4.7: Percentage distribution of the working population by employer, sex and Mode of payment
Government Parastatal Private
business
Private person or
household
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Wage/salary/payment in kind 89.5 89.8 77.5 78.3 88.7 88.0 50.8 47.3
Casual (hourly/daily) 3.6 2.7 4.4 5.1 4.0 2.9 22.1 22.3
Unpaid contribution worker 0.5 0.9 2.2 1.4 1.2 1.3 9.4 11.4
Self employed 5.8 6.1 15.9 15.2 6.0 7.8 17.8 19.0
Others (specify) 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chapter 5: Household amenities, assets and access to services
5.0 Introduction
During the survey, basic demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the sampled
population as well as basic housing facilities and conditions were collected.
The information was used to calculate Wealth Quintile (WQ), which was used to examine the
welfare of the sampled population in terms of their wealth and socio–economic status, as well as
to measure inequality and disparity in living conditions and welfare of households across
regions.
5.1 Main roofing material
Percentage distribution of households by the materials of the roof is presented in Table 5.1.
Households were asked about the main materials of their roofs. Most of the households (84.6%)
reported to have metal as the main material of the roof, followed by households with thatch/palm
leaf as the main roofing material (10.2%). The proportion of urban households with metal roofs
is higher than that of rural households represented by 90.8 percent and 78.1 percent respectively.
There are more rural households (19.8 %) with thatch roofs than urban households with about
one percent.
Thatch as a main roofing material was predominantly higher in Kuntaur (34.8%), Janjanbureh
(30%) and Basse (20.9%). At least two-thirds of all the households in the various LGAs reported
to have metal as their main roofing material except for Banjul and Kuntaur.
By industrial classification, respondents in the agricultural sector have the highest proportion of
households with thatch as the main roofing material which constitutes 19.4 percent.
Table 5.1: Percentage distribution of households by the main material of the roof
No
Roof
Thatch/
Palm
leaf
Rustic
mat
Palm /
Bamboo
Wood
planks
Cardboard Metal Wood Ceramic
tiles
Cement
Total .1 10.2 .0 .0 0.0 2.3 84.6 .4 .2 2.1
Place of residence
Urban 0.0 .8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 90.8 .3 .3 3.2
Rural .3 19.8 .1 .1 0.0 .1 78.1 .4 .1 1.0
Local Government Area
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 64.2 0.0 0.0 17.6
Kanifing .3 0.0 0.0 .2 0.0 11.5 81.0 .3 0.0 6.7
Brikama .3 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 95.1 .7 .4 .6
Mansakonko 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.4 .7 0.0 2.0
Kerewan 0.0 6.7 .4 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.5 0.0 .5 .9
Kuntaur 0.0 34.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.7 0.0 0.0 2.5
Janjanbureh 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.8 0.0 0.0 1.2
Basse 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 .6 76.7 .1 .1 1.5
Household size
1-2 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 89.0 0.0 0.0 2.9
3-4 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 87.3 .3 0.0 2.3
5-6 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 84.7 .2 0.0 3.8
7+ .2 11.0 .0 .0 0.0 1.8 84.3 .4 .3 1.9
Socioeconomic group
Government 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 88.9 0.0 .7 1.4
Parastatal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 89.3 1.8 0.0 3.6
Private business 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 88.9 0.0 0.0 2.1
Private person or
household .4 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.4 .7 0.0 2.2
Self-Employed .2 9.8 .1 0.0 0.0 2.6 84.8 .3 .2 2.1
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Industrial classification
Agriculture .6 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.0 .3 0.0 1.6
Services .2 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 87.5 .2 .2 1.8
Administration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 86.3 0.0 2.0 0.0
Trade /selling 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 88.1 .5 .3 3.0
Education 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 91.5 0.0 0.0 1.7
Health 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 80.0 0.0 0.0 1.8
Hotels and
restaurants 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.7 0.0 0.0 2.3
Construction 0.0 12.5 .3 0.0 0.0 3.0 81.8 .7 0.0 1.7
Transport 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 93.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.3 0.0 0.0 9.1
Sex
Male .1 10.4 .1 .0 0.0 2.4 84.3 .4 .2 2.1
Female .1 10.1 .0 .0 0.0 2.3 84.7 .4 .3 2.1
5.2 Main material of the exterior walls
Table 5.2 shows the percentage distribution of households by the main material of the exterior
walls. Respondents were asked about the main material of their exterior walls and a large number
of the households (63%) reported cement as the main material of the walls followed by
households with dirt (24%). The proportion of households with cement as the main material of
the walls of their dwelling is higher in the urban areas (77.2%) than the rural areas (51.3%).
About 4 in every 10 households in the rural areas (38.5%) reported dirt as the main material of
their walls compared to only 6.8 percent in the urban areas.
Banjul has the highest proportion of households with bamboo with mud (7.4%) as their main
material of the walls than the other LGAs. Relatively, very few households in Mansakonko
(21.9%) and Kuntaur (35.1%) have their exterior walls as cement. However, households in these
two LGAs have the highest proportions of dirt as their main material of the walls with 62.5
percent and 45.5 percent respectively.
By industrial classification, households with dirt as their main material of the walls is
predominantly high among those in the agricultural and service sectors with 37.7 percent of
households reported to have dirt as the main material. On the contrary, those in the agricultural
sector have the least proportion of households with cement as the main material of the walls
(49.9%).
Table 5.2: Percentage distribution of households by the main material of the walls
No
walls
Cane/
Palm/
Trucks
Dirt Bambo
o with
mud
Stone
with
mud
Cement Stone
with lime/
cement
Brick
s
Cement
blocks
Other
Area of residence
Urban 0.1 0.0 6.8 1.4 0.5 77.2 1.0 1.3 10.8 1.0
Rural 0.2 0.4 38.5 1.2 0.3 51.3 1.1 3.5 3.3 0.1
Local Government Area
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 68.1 3.7 0.0 20.8 0.0
Kanifing 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.9 81.0 0.8 0.4 15.7 0.0
Brikama 0.3 0.2 20.9 1.2 0.2 64.6 0.7 3.2 7.7 1.0
Mansakonko 0.7 0.0 62.5 0.0 0.0 21.9 0.3 0.0 14.5 0.0
Kerewan 0.0 1.0 24.3 0.2 0.0 62.4 0.8 2.1 8.4 0.8
Kuntaur 1.0 0.0 45.5 3.0 0.0 35.1 4.0 6.6 2.6 2.2
Janjanbureh 0.0 0.6 43.1 3.9 0.0 38.8 2.9 9.3 1.3 0.0
Basse 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.7 0.7 69.7 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.0
Socioeconomic group
Government 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.5 0.1 76.8 1.0 1.0 6.5 0.0
Parastatal 0.0 0.0 16.3 3.8 0.6 63.1 0.0 0.6 15.6 0.0
Private business 0.0 0.0 5.1 1.7 0.6 75.1 1.9 1.1 14.3 0.2
Private person or
household
0.1 0.0 17.7 1.3 0.7 66.6 1.3 3.0 8.7 0.6
Self-Employed 0.1 0.4 24.6 2.1 0.4 62.7 1.1 2.4 5.7 0.5
Other 0.0 0.0 32.4 0.0 0.0 59.5 0.0 2.7 5.4 0.0
Industrial classification
Agriculture 0.2 0.5 37.7 3.3 0.8 49.9 0.5 2.9 3.4 0.8
Services 0.0 0.3 37.7 0.9 0.3 51.8 1.0 1.3 6.2 0.5
Administration 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 87.0 0.0 0.6 2.5 0.0
Trade /selling 0.2 0.3 17.0 1.6 0.1 69.2 1.6 2.3 7.5 0.4
Education 0.0 0.0 12.8 2.9 0.0 77.3 0.3 1.2 5.3 0.3
Health 0.0 0.0 13.1 1.4 0.0 78.6 0.7 2.1 4.1 0.0
Hotels and restaurant 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.8 77.9 1.6 2.5 12.3 0.0
Construction 0.0 0.3 26.0 0.3 0.1 64.0 2.1 2.4 4.4 0.5
Transport 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.9 0.3 69.4 0.9 2.5 8.0 0.3
Other 0.0 0.0 19.6 0.0 0.0 51.8 0.0 8.9 19.6 0.0
Total 0.2 0.2 24.0 1.3 0.4 63.0 1.1 2.5 6.8 0.5
5.3 Main material of the dwelling floor
Respondents were asked about the main material of the floor of their dwellings. Results have
shown that 42.6 percent of households had cement as the main material of the dwelling floor
followed by households with earth/sand (23.2%) and ceramic tiles (15.9% each). Similarly, in
the rural areas cement and earth/sand are the dominant main material of the dwelling floor with
about 44 and 42 percent respectively. Unlike the rural areas, earth/sand is used by few
households (4.4%) in the urban areas as the main material of the dwelling floor. Most of the
households in the urban areas used cement (40.7%), carpet (20.8%) and ceramic tiles (26.8%) as
the main material of the dwelling floor.
There are more households in Mansakonko, Kuntaur and Janjanbureh that have earth/sand as
their main material of the dwelling floor. The proportion of households engaged in agriculture
has more of their dwelling floors as earth/sand than the other industrial sectors.
Table 5.3: Percentage distribution of households by the main material of the dwelling floor
Earth
/
Sand
Dung Wood
planks
Palm /
Bamboo
Parquet
or
polished
wood
Ceramic
tiles
Cement Carpet Other
Total 23.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 15.9 42.6 12.9 3.6
Place of residence
Urban 4.4 .1 0.0 0.0 .1 26.8 40.7 20.8 7.0
Rural 42.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 .3 4.9 44.4 4.9 .2
Local Government Area
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 15.0 58.3 0.0
Kanifing .2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.5 19.3 24.2 12.8
Brikama 16.9 .4 0.0 0.0 .1 19.3 45.1 13.4 4.8
Mansakonko 44.3 .7 0.0 0.0 0.0 .7 53.6 .7 0.0
Kerewan 25.7 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 47.4 20.2 0.0
Kuntaur 40.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 48.0 1.7 0.0
Janjanbureh 39.2 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 44.8 8.3 0.0
Basse 27.6 4.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 4.0 58.1 4.3 0.0
Household size
1-2 14.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 39.7 23.8 3.2
3-4 14.0 .4 0.0 0.0 .4 25.9 31.7 20.9 6.8
5-6 17.4 .8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 44.4 14.5 5.2
7+ 21.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 .2 16.6 43.2 12.9 3.6
Socioeconomic group
Government 9.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.8 36.2 21.0 7.6
Parastatal 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.8 39.3 25.0 7.1
Private business 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 .5 35.8 30.5 23.7 5.8
Private person or 25.1 .7 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 39.3 18.0 4.9
Table 5.3: Percentage distribution of households by the main material of the dwelling floor
Earth
/
Sand
Dung Wood
planks
Palm /
Bamboo
Parquet
or
polished
wood
Ceramic
tiles
Cement Carpet Other
household
Self-Employed 22.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 .2 12.3 46.0 13.3 3.9
Other Specify 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Industrial classification
Agriculture 44.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 39.8 9.4 .3
Services 11.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.2 38.7 18.2 6.6
Administration 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.4 23.5 27.5 9.8
Trade /selling 13.7 .8 0.0 0.0 .3 16.7 48.3 14.9 5.2
Education 11.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 .6 20.8 39.3 20.8 4.6
health 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hotels and restaurants 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 41.9 23.3 11.6
Construction 24.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 40.9 15.2 4.1
Transport 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 50.4 17.9 4.9
Others 31.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 22.7 27.3 0.0
Sex
Male 21.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 .2 15.6 43.3 13.4 4.2
Female 11.2 .2 0.0 0.0 .2 28.9 36.6 18.6 4.2
5.4 Main source of cooking fuel
Presented in Table 5.4 is the percentage distribution of households by main source of cooking
fuel. Questions were asked on the types of fuel mostly used for cooking by households. Majority
of the households (83.4%) use wood as their main source of cooking fuel, the proportion of
which was higher in the rural areas (97.7%) compared to the urban areas (69.6% ).This is
followed by those that use charcoal as their main cooking fuel which constitutes 14.6 percent.
Charcoal as main source of cooking fuel was higher in the urban areas (26.9%) compared to the
rural areas (1.9%).
The use of charcoal as main source of cooking fuel is higher in Banjul (80.1%) and Kanifing
(49.5%) , while the use of wood as the main source of cooking fuel is higher in Brikama,
Mansakonko, Kerewan, Kuntaur, Janjanbureh and Basse with a proportion of at least about 95
percent each except for Brikama (84.7%).
Wood as main source of cooking fuel is mostly used by those in the agricultural sector with 96
percent. The use of charcoal as a main source of cooking fuel is higher among those in the
services sector (30.9%), administration (37.3%), educational sector (30.5%), the health sector
(41.8%) and hotels and restaurants (46.5%).
Table 5.4: Percentage distribution of households by fuel used for cooking
Electricity
Liquefied
Petroleum
Gas (LPG)
Natural
gas Biogas Kerosene Charcoal Wood
Straw /
Shrubs
/ Grass
Animal
dung
Agricultural
crop residue
No food
cooked in
household Other
Total .0 .1 .1 .3 .4 14.6 83.4 .7 .0 .0 .3 .1
Place of residence
Urban .0 .2 .3 .5 .6 26.9 69.6 1.3 .0 0.0 .5 .0
Rural 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .1 1.9 97.7 .1 0.0 .1 .1 .1
Local Government Area
Banjul 0.0 0.0 .7 0.0 0.0 80.1 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0
Kanifing 0.0 .3 .6 1.6 1.4 49.5 43.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 .8 0.0
Brikama .0 .1 .1 .0 .3 13.6 84.7 .8 .0 0.0 .2 .1
Mansakonko 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kerewan 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 0.0 4.4 94.7 0.0 0.0 .3 .2 .4
Kuntaur 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .5 98.9 .4 0.0 0.0 .2 .1
Janjanbureh 0.0 .1 0.0 0.0 .7 2.3 96.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 .4 0.0
Basse 0.0 0.0 .0 0.0 .1 5.2 94.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 .3 0.0
Household size
1-2 0.0 1.3 1.9 4.2 .6 41.6 33.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 .6
3-4 .3 .5 1.3 1.0 .7 42.4 52.1 0.0 .3 0.0 1.4 0.0
5-6 0.0 .3 .5 .3 .8 33.8 63.8 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0 .2
7+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .3 9.9 88.7 .8 0.0 .0 .1 .0
Socioeconomic group
Government 0.0 .3 .7 1.4 .7 29.7 62.8 .3 0.0 0.0 3.4 .7
Parastatal 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 1.8 39.3 48.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0
Private business .5 1.6 .5 1.1 1.6 47.4 44.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0
Private person or household 0.0 0.0 .7 0.0 0.0 24.7 71.9 .7 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0
Self-Employed 0.0 .1 .3 .2 .2 19.1 77.9 .5 .1 0.0 1.7 .2
Table 5.4: Percentage distribution of households by fuel used for cooking
Electricity
Liquefied
Petroleum
Gas (LPG)
Natural
gas Biogas Kerosene Charcoal Wood
Straw /
Shrubs
/ Grass
Animal
dung
Agricultural
crop residue
No food
cooked in
household Other
Industrial classification
Agriculture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 96.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Services .2 .2 .4 .8 .8 30.9 62.7 .4 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0
Administration 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 37.3 56.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Trade /selling 0.0 .3 .5 .2 .2 27.8 68.5 .2 .2 0.0 2.1 .2
Education 0.0 1.7 .8 1.7 0.0 30.5 58.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.7
Health 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.8 54.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0
Hotels and restaurants 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.5 53.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Construction 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 .3 17.6 77.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 .3
Transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 .8 .8 18.7 76.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 27.3 68.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sex
Male .0 .1 .4 .5 .6 21.1 74.6 .6 .0 0.0 1.9 .2
Female 0.0 .9 .7 .9 0.0 30.0 66.4 .2 0.0 .2 .7 0.0
5.5 Household items
In order to determine household amenities respondents were asked whether their households own
certain selected items needed in a house. As can be seen in Table 5.5, about 40 percent of
households have electricity, 77.2 percent of the households have radio and 42.4 percent have
televisions. Most of the households have at least someone who owns a mobile phones (89%) and
about 4 percent with non-mobile telephones.
Households with electricity, television and mobile phones are higher in the urban areas than the
rural areas. There are relatively more radios available in the rural areas 77.5 percent than the
urban areas 76.9 percent, since more of the households in the rural areas listen to radios more
frequently than households in the urban areas.
At least 8 in every 10 households have electricity and own a television in both Banjul and
Kanifing, whilst Mansakonko and Kuntaur have the least proportion of households with
electricity and television. More than half of the households in Banjul and Kanifing have
refrigerators and about 33 percent of the households in Banjul and 43 percent of the households
in Kanifing own cable satellites.
Table 5.5: Percentage distribution of household owing selected household items
Electricity Radio Television
Mobile
Telephone
Non
Mobile
Telephone Refrigerator
Air
conditioner
Electrical
Generator
Solar
Panel Microwave Computer
Cable
Satellite
Total 38.6 77.2 42.4 89.4 3.9 20.9 2.3 5.1 5.2 1.8 3.9 13.7
Place of residence
Urban 64.0 76.9 62.3 91.1 5.0 34.7 3.6 5.5 3.0 3.3 6.6 24.0
Rural 13.1 77.5 22.5 87.8 2.7 7.0 1.1 4.7 7.4 .4 1.3 3.4
Local Government Area
Banjul 93.3 83.3 90.0 96.7 15.0 51.7 5.0 0.0 1.7 3.3 8.3 33.3
Kanifing 85.7 75.1 81.4 96.5 7.8 54.9 6.5 5.9 2.6 7.4 14.9 42.9
Brikama 43.1 83.2 47.3 85.2 3.4 21.3 2.3 5.0 4.6 1.3 2.3 13.7
Mansakonko .7 81.4 8.6 93.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kerewan 25.1 70.3 29.1 90.5 1.2 9.2 .9 4.6 9.5 .3 .9 1.5
Kuntaur 8.0 69.5 20.7 89.7 1.1 4.6 1.1 6.3 9.2 .6 0.0 5.2
Janjanbureh 22.7 68.5 26.0 92.3 1.1 9.4 .6 5.0 3.9 0.0 2.2 6.1
Basse 30.3 74.2 33.3 88.5 5.5 15.0 1.3 7.0 3.3 .5 2.5 6.0
Household size
1-2 59.7 74.2 59.7 90.3 4.8 35.5 4.8 4.8 3.2 3.2 3.2 22.6
3-4 59.0 80.1 58.6 90.6 4.7 32.7 4.0 4.3 5.4 2.9 6.1 22.7
5-6 42.3 77.8 45.1 91.4 4.2 26.2 2.9 5.2 5.7 2.5 5.4 17.9
7+ 40.3 76.7 43.7 89.1 3.9 20.7 2.2 5.3 4.6 1.8 4.0 13.6
Socioeconomic
group
Government 55.7 81.3 60.6 91.3 4.2 34.9 3.8 4.8 4.5 2.1 8.0 23.9
Parastatal 75.0 83.9 71.4 98.2 12.5 46.4 10.7 5.4 3.6 5.4 27.3 27.8
Private business 73.5 84.7 71.4 92.6 5.8 41.8 7.9 7.9 5.3 5.8 15.9 36.5
Private person or
household 37.8 70.4 39.0 90.3 2.6 16.1 .7 4.5 4.5 1.5 3.0 7.9
Self-Employed 37.3 76.0 40.5 89.2 3.0 18.7 2.0 4.7 4.4 1.0 1.6 11.0
Table 5.5: Percentage distribution of household owing selected household items
Electricity Radio Television
Mobile
Telephone
Non
Mobile
Telephone Refrigerator
Air
conditioner
Electrical
Generator
Solar
Panel Microwave Computer
Cable
Satellite
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Industrial
classification
Agriculture 21.4 76.1 25.2 87.7 1.6 6.5 1.3 3.9 5.8 .3 0.0 2.9
Services 53.7 77.2 53.1 92.0 4.9 28.2 3.7 4.5 4.1 2.9 7.4 21.6
Administration 64.7 86.3 74.5 90.2 9.8 52.9 11.8 5.9 3.9 3.9 13.7 33.3
Trade /selling 49.9 76.2 49.4 90.6 3.8 28.4 2.9 4.3 4.3 1.8 3.0 17.1
Education 55.5 76.9 57.2 90.8 2.3 32.4 1.7 3.5 4.0 2.9 11.6 21.5
health 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hotels and
restaurants 76.7 79.1 74.4 93.0 2.3 44.2 0.0 7.0 4.7 2.3 7.0 25.6
Construction 31.1 78.0 38.2 89.9 2.4 12.2 2.4 7.8 2.7 1.0 2.0 7.1
Transport 29.5 75.6 43.9 91.1 4.9 14.6 1.6 8.1 7.3 0.0 3.3 9.0
Others 31.8 81.8 40.9 63.6 0.0 27.3 4.5 4.5 13.6 4.5 9.1 13.6
Sex
Male 40.1 77.6 44.4 90.1 3.6 21.1 2.4 5.3 5.1 1.8 4.2 14.2
Female 57.6 74.8 52.7 87.5 6.4 34.3 3.3 4.6 3.7 3.5 5.7 22.5
5.6 Main place use for cooking
Presented in Table 5.6 is the percentage distribution of the main place used for cooking by
households. Most of the households (55.1%) cook in a separate building in the compound,
followed by those that cook outdoors and in a separate room used as kitchen with 24.6 percent
and 17 percent respectively. By comparison, more households in the rural areas (64.4%) than the
urban areas (45.8%) use a separate building for cooking, whereas more households in the urban
areas cook outdoors (28.7%) and use a separate building as kitchen 20.7 percent.
More than half of the households in all the LGAs except Banjul (17.2%) and Kanifing (36.1%)
use a separate building for cooking and at least 3 in every 10 households in Banjul and Kanifing
use a separate room as kitchen.
Table 5.6: Percentage distribution of main place use for cooking
In a separate
room used as
kitchen
Elsewhere in
the house
In a separate
building
Outdoors Other
Total 17.0 2.7 55.1 24.6 0.6
Place of residence
Urban 20.7 4.1 45.8 28.7 .7
Rural 13.3 1.3 64.4 20.6 .4
Local Government Area
Banjul 37.9 1.7 17.2 43.1 0.0
Kanifing 32.9 1.8 36.1 29.3 0.0
Brikama 18.4 5.5 51.5 24.5 .2
Mansakonko 20.1 2.2 71.2 6.5 0.0
Kerewan 4.6 1.2 66.4 26.2 1.5
Kuntaur 11.2 1.2 73.5 12.4 1.8
Janjanbureh 23.6 .6 50.6 24.2 1.1
Basse 2.1 1.3 63.9 31.4 1.3
Household size
1-2 19.7 6.6 41.0 32.8 0.0
3-4 21.3 3.8 42.6 31.9 .4
5-6 18.0 1.2 54.5 25.5 .8
7+ 16.9 3.2 55.3 24.0 .6
Socioeconomic group
Government 19.0 1.8 56.9 20.8 1.5
Parastatal 18.4 2.0 46.9 30.6 2.0
Private business 24.6 4.5 46.9 24.0 0.0
Private person or
household
9.9 6.1 50.0 33.2 .8
Self-Employed 16.4 2.5 53.0 27.7 .5
Table 5.6: Percentage distribution of main place use for cooking
In a separate
room used as
kitchen
Elsewhere in
the house
In a separate
building
Outdoors Other
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Industrial classification
Agriculture 17.5 3.6 59.9 18.8 .3
Services 18.7 1.7 49.3 29.6 .7
Administration 21.6 3.9 47.1 23.5 3.9
Trade /selling 17.1 2.6 50.4 29.2 .7
Education 15.2 1.8 55.8 25.5 1.8
Health 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hotels and restaurants 20.9 0.0 48.8 30.2 0.0
Construction 13.4 4.1 54.5 27.9 0.0
Transport 12.9 6.0 55.2 25.9 0.0
Other 0.0 14.3 33.3 52.4 0.0
Sex
Male 16.9 2.8 54.6 25.0 .7
Female 20.7 3.8 48.9 26.4 .2
5.7 Items own by household members
Respondents were asked whether any of their household members own any of the following
items: laptop, mobile phone, bicycle, motorcycle or scooter, animal-drawn cart, car or truck or
boat with motor. About 93 percent of the households have a member of the household with a
mobile phone, followed by those with bicycles 51 percent. There are higher proportions of
households in Banjul and Kanifing with a laptop than the other LGAs with 23.3 percent and 31.7
percent respectively.
Table 5.7: Percentage distribution of items own by household members
Laptop Mobile
telephone Bicycle
Motorcycle
or scooter
Animal-
drawn cart
Car or
truck
Boat with
motor
Total 11.4 92.8 51.0 10.2 19.5 10.2 0.6
Place of residence
Urban 18.9 93.1 43.6 6.8 4.0 14.8 .8
Rural 3.9 92.5 58.3 13.7 35.0 5.6 .3
Local Government Area
Banjul 23.3 88.3 41.7 8.3 1.7 13.3 0.0
Kanifing 31.7 90.5 32.7 5.9 1.3 20.8 .4
Brikama 12.8 93.9 50.8 4.8 6.8 12.4 .9
Mansakonko 0.0 95.0 52.1 2.9 31.4 1.4 0.0
Kerewan 2.8 94.8 42.0 7.1 27.6 4.9 .3
Table 5.7: Percentage distribution of items own by household members
Laptop Mobile
telephone Bicycle
Motorcycle
or scooter
Animal-
drawn cart
Car or
truck
Boat with
motor
Kuntaur 2.9 90.2 43.7 10.9 37.4 5.2 0.0
Janjanbureh 5.5 89.0 65.2 15.5 26.5 5.5 2.2
Basse 4.8 94.5 72.4 29.5 40.4 7.0 .3
Household size
1-2 12.9 95.2 50.0 4.8 17.7 14.5 0.0
3-4 20.5 93.2 46.0 4.7 14.0 14.7 .7
5-6 14.9 93.3 47.6 11.5 16.4 12.6 .4
7+ 11.0 92.6 50.8 10.0 17.4 9.9 .7
Socioeconomic group
Government 23.5 95.8 43.6 13.5 7.6 14.2 .3
Parastatal 44.6 100 44.6 10.7 7.1 21.4 0.0
Private business 33.3 91.5 45.0 6.3 4.2 22.2 1.6
Private person or
household 9.7 93.3 44.9 5.6 10.5 9.0 0.0
Self-Employed 5.9 93.0 52.8 10.1 17.0 9.0 .8
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Industrial classification
Agriculture 1.9 87.7 57.6 11.7 26.3 2.3 .6
Services 16.9 95.3 45.4 8.9 8.0 14.2 1.0
Administration 27.5 100 37.3 9.8 3.9 25.5 0.0
Trade /selling 9.6 93.5 49.8 11.0 13.3 10.2 .6
Education 27.2 96.0 51.4 12.1 9.2 15.0 .6
health 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hotels and restaurants 27.9 95.3 44.2 7.0 2.3 11.6 0.0
Construction 7.5 93.9 50.5 7.1 16.6 5.4 .7
Transport 8.9 96.7 51.2 5.7 14.6 28.5 .8
Other 18.2 72.7 40.9 4.5 0.0 13.6 0.0
Sex
Male 11.6 93.6 52.3 10.7 19.3 11.0 .7
Female 18.3 89.0 35.9 4.0 4.0 10.8 .4
5.8A: Nearest Water Supply
During the survey, respondents were asked how long (in minutes) it takes them to get to the
nearest water supply. Most of the respondents reported it takes them between 0-14 minutes
(90.4% ) and 0.8 percent of the respondents reported it takes more than 60 minutes to get to the
nearest water supply which consist the least respondents. About 92 percent of respondents from
the urban areas have access to water supply within proximity of 0-14 minutes while 88.5 percent
of the respondents in the rural areas have access to water supply within 0-14 minutes. Most of
the respondents in all the Local Government Areas reported that they were able to get access to
water supply between 0-14 minutes, with Banjul recording the highest proportion of 99.7
percent. (See Table 5.8)
5.8B: Nearest Health Facilities
Majority of the respondents (26.9%) reported it takes them more than 60 minutes to access the
nearest health facility while 21.9 percent of the respondents reported it takes them 30-44 minutes
to the nearest health facility. Only 13.3 percent of the respondents reported that it takes them 0-
14 minutes to the nearest health facility. Of the respondents who reported that it takes them more
than 60 minutes to reach the nearest health facility, 16.8 percent live in the urban areas while
37.4 percent live in the rural areas. This means that majority of the respondents without easy
access to health facilities reside in the rural areas. (See Table 5.8)
Table 5.8: Percentage distribution of households by time (in minutes) to reach nearest water supply and health facility
Water Supply Health Facility
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK
Total 90.4 6.1 1.8 .5 .8 .4 13.3 20.1 21.9 14.1 26.9 3.6
Area of Residence
Urban 92.2 5.5 .9 .4 .3 .6 13.0 25.5 27.0 15.8 16.8 1.8
Rural 88.5 6.7 2.7 .5 1.2 .3 13.5 14.5 16.7 12.4 37.4 5.5
Local Government
Area
Banjul 99.7 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 32.9 23.5 16.0 8.8 0.0
Kanifing 94.2 3.0 .2 .5 0.0 2.2 11.8 30.7 26.0 15.9 10.8 4.7
Brikama 92.8 6.4 .8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 22.7 30.2 15.1 20.1 .7
Mansakonko 97.3 1.0 1.0 .7 0.0 0.0 20.2 22.1 25.7 8.5 23.5 0.0
Kerewan 79.9 9.4 3.0 2.1 4.4 1.2 15.5 13.0 13.8 15.4 40.9 1.5
Kuntaur 83.4 9.1 3.8 .9 2.8 0.0 18.7 12.4 8.0 11.7 33.9 15.4
Janjanbureh 85.9 10.2 2.9 0.0 .9 0.0 10.4 20.6 17.7 27.4 15.6 8.2
Basse 91.0 5.1 3.4 .4 .1 0.0 13.8 12.9 13.7 7.9 46.9 4.8
Household Size
1-2 90.3 6.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 11.9 29.4 24.5 13.2 17.1 3.9
3-4 92.3 5.5 1.7 .3 .2 0.0 14.4 17.5 27.8 18.3 18.6 3.3
5-6 91.0 5.5 1.4 .4 .6 1.1 13.9 23.6 24.8 14.8 18.6 4.4
7+ 90.2 6.2 1.9 .5 .9 .4 13.2 19.7 21.1 13.8 28.7 3.5
Socioeconomic Group
Government 93.4 4.2 1.4 0.0 .3 .7 18.7 21.1 24.2 12.5 20.4 3.1
Parastatal 91.1 5.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 33.9 21.4 14.3 17.9 0.0
Private business 96.3 2.6 .5 0.0 0.0 .5 15.3 22.8 22.2 15.3 22.8 1.6
Table 5.8: Percentage distribution of households by time (in minutes) to reach nearest water supply and health facility
Water Supply Health Facility
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK
Private person or
household
85.8 9.7 1.5 1.9 .4 .7 12.4 22.9 24.8 10.9 23.7 5.3
Self employed 90.8 6.3 1.6 .5 .5 .3 13.3 19.9 23.3 16.6 22.4 4.4
Industrial Group
Agriculture 89.0 7.8 2.3 .3 0.0 .6 18.4 13.9 24.3 16.2 20.1 7.1
Services 92.0 5.8 .8 .6 .2 .6 12.6 22.4 22.6 13.2 24.7 4.5
Administration 98.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.6 25.5 25.5 15.7 13.7 0.0
Trade /selling 91.1 5.6 1.8 .8 .6 .2 14.5 22.2 23.0 15.8 21.2 3.2
Education/ 94.9 4.2 .8 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 27.1 17.8 12.7 22.9 1.7
Health 90.9 5.5 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 23.6 20.0 12.7 12.7 30.9 0.0
Hotels and restaurants 88.4 9.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 18.6 30.2 27.9 14.0 7.0 2.3
Construction 89.5 7.1 2.7 .3 0.0 .3 8.4 18.6 27.0 15.2 24.7 6.1
Transport 88.6 6.5 1.6 0.0 1.6 1.6 7.4 23.8 28.7 20.5 19.7 0.0
Other 95.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 22.7 9.1 13.6 36.4 0.0
Sex
Male 90.5 6.2 1.7 .5 .8 .4 13.1 20.0 22.4 14.0 27.0 3.6
Female 90.2 6.1 1.9 .5 .8 .5 13.6 19.3 21.7 14.4 27.2 3.7
5.9A: Nearest Primary School
In the Gambia, the highest percentage (32.8%) of the respondents reported it takes them 0-14
minutes to reach the nearest primary school, while 25.7 percent reported it takes them 15-29
minutes to reach the nearest primary school. The lowest percentage of the respondents (7.8%)
reported that it takes them more than 60 minutes to reach the nearest primary school, while 2.2
percent reported that they do not know. Of the respondents who reported that it takes them 0-14
minutes to the nearest primary school, 26.3 percent reside in the urban areas whiles 39.5 percent
reside in the rural areas. (See Table 5.9)
5.9B: Nearest Secondary School
Unlike the case of the primary school, the highest proportion of respondents (22.5%) reported
that it takes them 60 minutes or more to reach the nearest secondary school whereas the lowest
proportion (11.2%) of respondents reported that it takes them 0-14 minutes to reach the nearest
Secondary School. This means that there is quicker access to primary schools in the Gambia than
secondary schools. In Banjul, 29.3 percent of the respondents reported that it takes them 15-29
minutes to reach the nearest secondary school. This is relatively high as compared to Basse in
which 10.5 percent of the respondents reported to reach the nearest secondary school in 15-29
minutes. (See Table 5.9)
Table 5.9: Percentage distribution of households by time (in minutes) to reach nearest primary school and secondary school
Primary School Secondary School
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK
Total 32.8 25.7 22.2 9.3 7.8 2.2 11.2 19.4 25.9 15.4 22.5 5.6
Place of Residence
Urban 26.3 28.7 25.0 9.9 7.1 2.9 10.5 24.0 29.7 16.5 13.9 5.4
Rural 39.5 22.5 19.3 8.6 8.6 1.5 12.0 14.6 21.8 14.1 31.6 5.9
Local Government
Area
Banjul 22.5 33.6 13.4 12.4 4.6 13.7 28.0 29.3 7.8 11.7 11.7 11.4
Kanifing 34.0 29.3 17.8 8.6 2.6 7.8 13.0 27.8 23.8 15.7 7.0 12.8
Brikama 24.5 28.2 27.2 9.5 10.0 .6 10.0 22.6 33.9 14.3 17.6 1.6
Mansakonko 52.4 20.5 21.9 1.5 3.8 0.0 14.0 21.1 27.2 9.7 28.1 0.0
Kerewan 22.5 22.9 23.6 14.2 15.4 1.3 13.1 16.5 19.2 19.4 30.8 .9
Kuntaur 30.2 25.4 23.0 10.5 9.5 1.5 7.6 13.6 13.2 14.7 36.7 14.1
Janjanbureh 26.6 25.1 23.0 15.4 6.3 3.6 7.2 16.5 18.9 29.0 20.8 7.6
Basse 52.9 20.9 15.1 5.6 4.3 1.3 12.2 10.5 23.8 11.8 33.5 8.2
Household Size
1-2 27.7 30.0 17.4 7.4 7.4 10.0 16.8 26.2 21.0 8.4 13.6 13.9
3-4 27.1 25.6 24.1 7.9 7.0 8.2 11.9 17.0 25.5 17.3 15.5 12.7
5-6 29.9 29.2 22.2 8.5 6.4 3.8 12.7 23.5 23.5 17.2 14.7 8.4
7+ 33.6 25.1 22.2 9.5 8.1 1.5 10.9 18.9 26.3 15.1 24.2 4.7
Socioeconomic Group
Government 33.6 26.3 20.8 9.3 7.3 2.8 15.6 25.3 20.8 17.0 14.9 6.3
Parastatal 25.0 32.1 19.6 10.7 10.7 1.8 16.1 30.4 19.6 5.4 21.4 7.1
Private business 29.6 29.6 21.2 7.9 8.5 3.2 11.6 22.8 26.5 14.3 16.9 7.9
Private person or
household
29.7 25.2 22.6 9.4 6.8 6.4 12.0 17.3 23.7 13.2 22.2 11.7
Self-Employed 32.8 26.1 22.7 8.6 6.3 3.5 12.8 19.4 26.3 15.9 17.9 7.8
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 5.9: Percentage distribution of households by time (in minutes) to reach nearest primary school and secondary school
Primary School Secondary School
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK
Industrial Group
Services 28.0 28.2 21.0 8.8 8.4 5.6 10.7 22.5 24.3 15.7 17.7 9.1
Administration 37.3 31.4 17.6 5.9 7.8 0.0 23.5 27.5 25.5 11.8 11.8 0.0
Trade /selling 33.5 26.6 21.5 7.8 6.9 3.7 15.6 19.6 25.5 14.0 16.9 8.3
Education 42.4 29.7 15.3 7.6 3.4 1.7 20.3 28.8 20.3 11.9 11.9 6.8
Health 20.0 25.5 29.1 12.7 12.7 0.0 9.3 20.4 20.4 14.8 33.3 1.9
Hotels and restaurants 34.9 27.9 23.3 9.3 0.0 4.7 11.6 20.9 32.6 11.6 9.3 14.0
Construction 30.2 23.7 26.8 10.5 5.4 3.4 7.9 14.4 25.7 18.2 25.7 8.2
Transport 30.1 26.0 22.0 13.0 5.7 3.3 10.6 19.5 26.8 17.9 20.3 4.9
Others 27.3 18.2 27.3 4.5 18.2 4.5 4.5 27.3 27.3 9.1 27.3 4.5
Sex
Male 32.5 25.6 22.4 9.3 8.0 2.2 11.3 19.4 25.5 15.1 23.0 5.6
Female 33.5 24.9 22.3 9.2 7.8 2.3 11.4 19.0 25.9 15.7 22.3 5.7
5.10A: Nearest Food Market
Half of the respondents reported that it takes them 0-14 minutes to reach the nearest food market.
The percentage is much higher in the rural areas than in the urban areas (63.3% compared to
37.1%). Of the respondents, 22.2 percent reported that it takes them 15-29 minutes to reach the
nearest food market whereas 6.8 percent reported that it takes them 60 minutes or more. Out of
the respondents who reported that it takes them 0-14 minutes to reach the nearest food market,
Mansakonko has the highest proportion of 83 percent. (See Table 5.10)
5.10B: Nearest Public Transport
When asked how many minutes it takes them to reach the nearest public transport, 50.9 percent
of the respondents reported that it takes them 0-14 minutes, while 6.6 percent reported that it
takes them 60 minutes or more to reach the nearest public transport. Out of the respondents who
reported that it takes them 0-14 minutes, 52.4 percent live in the urban area while 49.3 percent
live in the rural areas. Out of those who reported that it takes 60 minutes or more from their
homes to the nearest public transport, 4.5 percent live in the urban areas whiles 8.8 percent live
in the rural areas. (See Table 5.10)
Table 5.10: Percentage distribution of households by time (in minutes) to reach nearest food market and public
transportation
Food market Public Transportation
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK
Total 50.0 22.2 15.0 4.9 6.8 1.2 50.9 21.2 15.5 4.6 6.6 1.3
Place of Residence
Urban 37.1 27.7 20.0 6.0 8.2 1.0 52.4 23.6 14.6 3.6 4.5 1.3
Rural 63.3 16.4 9.8 3.7 5.4 1.3 49.3 18.8 16.3 5.5 8.8 1.3
Local Government Area
Banjul 23.1 46.3 19.5 3.3 2.9 4.9 41.7 38.4 18.6 .3 0.0 1.0
Kanifing 36.9 32.8 18.0 5.5 4.4 2.4 51.8 28.6 11.3 3.4 1.4 3.5
Brikama 44.0 23.6 18.8 5.5 7.8 .2 57.6 19.0 14.1 3.3 5.8 .3
Mansakonko 83.0 12.2 3.2 .7 .9 0.0 55.9 10.6 20.9 2.7 9.6 .3
Kerewan 40.6 27.8 11.4 8.2 11.4 .7 35.7 26.4 17.4 8.0 11.4 1.2
Kuntaur 52.0 14.9 18.8 3.8 8.5 2.0 40.7 24.1 11.2 11.1 12.9 0.0
Janjanbureh 38.0 22.8 16.1 9.1 8.2 5.8 38.2 22.0 26.3 7.3 3.0 3.2
Basse 73.1 11.4 8.6 1.6 4.6 .6 53.9 17.2 16.4 3.1 7.7 1.7
Household Size
1-2 46.1 24.7 16.9 5.2 5.2 1.9 50.6 23.5 14.5 3.9 3.9 3.5
3-4 44.1 24.4 18.7 5.2 6.1 1.5 56.4 21.2 13.1 2.7 4.5 2.0
5-6 46.1 25.9 14.8 4.7 6.5 2.0 55.6 23.1 13.1 3.6 3.0 1.7
7+ 50.9 21.5 14.8 4.9 6.9 1.0 49.9 20.9 15.9 4.8 7.3 1.1
Socioeconomic Group
Table 5.10: Percentage distribution of households by time (in minutes) to reach nearest food market and public
transportation
Food market Public Transportation
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ DK
Government 47.4 21.1 19.0 5.2 6.2 1.0 55.0 20.8 13.1 4.5 4.8 1.7
Parastatal 30.9 32.7 18.2 3.6 12.7 1.8 45.5 21.8 18.2 3.6 9.1 1.8
Private business 38.1 28.6 17.5 5.8 9.0 1.1 49.7 25.9 15.9 3.2 4.2 1.1
Private person or household 47.9 24.7 16.1 6.4 3.4 1.5 56.9 19.5 10.9 5.2 5.6 1.9
Self-Employed 49.7 22.2 15.2 5.0 6.4 1.4 53.8 20.9 14.7 4.2 5.3 1.1
Other Specify 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Industrial Group
Agriculture 49.8 22.0 16.5 4.5 4.9 2.3 45.6 21.4 17.8 6.8 7.1 1.3
Services 43.5 23.3 15.9 6.2 9.3 1.9 50.7 20.8 15.7 3.5 7.0 2.3
Administration 49.0 19.6 21.6 2.0 7.8 0.0 64.7 21.6 11.8 0.0 2.0 0.0
Trade /selling 50.5 21.2 14.9 6.2 5.8 1.4 56.1 22.0 13.6 3.8 3.3 1.1
Education 45.8 32.2 14.4 4.2 3.4 0.0 53.4 21.2 12.7 5.1 5.9 1.7
Health 41.8 21.8 20.0 9.1 7.3 0.0 56.4 18.2 18.2 1.8 5.5 0.0
Hotels and restaurants 39.5 32.6 23.3 2.3 2.3 0.0 58.1 25.6 9.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Construction 50.8 21.0 15.9 4.4 6.8 1.0 58.1 18.9 11.8 5.4 5.1 .7
Transport 43.4 27.9 20.5 3.3 4.9 0.0 56.1 21.1 11.4 4.1 6.5 .8
Other 45.5 40.9 4.5 4.5 4.5 0.0 54.5 31.8 9.1 0.0 4.5 0.0
Sex
Male 49.5 22.4 15.1 4.8 7.0 1.2 50.4 21.7 15.5 4.6 6.7 1.2
Female 50.5 21.7 15.0 5.0 6.7 1.2 50.8 21.1 15.6 4.5 6.6 1.4
5.11 Satisfaction of Food Needs
Table 5.11 shows that more than half of the households (52%) in the urban residence sometimes
encountered problems satisfying their food needs in the previous year. Similarly, majority of the
households (65%) in the rural residence also feel they sometimes have problems meeting the
food needs of their household. Only 33.6 percent of the households in the urban residence never
had problems in the previous year satisfying the food needs compared to 10.5 percent in the rural
residence. One in every two households in Banjul never experienced difficulty in satisfying their
food needs in the previous year. More than half of the entire households in Kanifing (52.3%),
which is urban, never had difficulty in meeting the food needs. The results also show that at least
one in every two households in the rest of the Local Government Areas sometimes experienced
difficulty in meeting their food needs in the previous year.
In The Gambia, at least one in every twenty households in the country always encountered
difficulty in satisfying the food needs a year before the survey. As the household size gets bigger,
the proportion of those who never experienced difficulty in satisfying the food needs also
diminishes; this is attributed to the fact that bigger households certainly have more mouths to
feed than smaller households across the country. Nearly three in every five households owning
land sometimes have problems in meeting food needs, while 55.2 percent without land
encountered similar conditions in the previous year. Households not owning livestock, 45.2
percent of households in the country have sometimes had difficulty in satisfying the food needs.
Among the socio-economic group, slightly more than half of the households working in the
government sometimes had difficulty and this trend is replicated among households working as
private, self-employed or unpaid family workers. The result shows that monogamous union
(58.6%), polygamous union (58.5%) and those divorced (61.8%) have sometimes experienced
problems in meeting their food needs. One in every two household members who are
vocationally trained never or sometimes have difficulty in satisfying the food needs of household
in the year before the survey. Those household members who attained University or College,
57.1 percent reported that they have never experienced difficulty in meeting food needs in the
previous year.
Table 5.11: Percentage distribution of households by difficulty in satisfying the food needs of the household during
the year before the survey
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
Place of residence Urban 33.6 5.9 52.0 3.7 4.9
Rural 10.5 9.1 65.0 10.3 5.1
Local Government
Area Total 24.0 7.2 57.4 6.4 5.0
Banjul 50.0 13.3 26.7 3.3 6.7
Kanifing 52.3 4.4 36.8 2.2 4.2
Brikama 19.7 4.0 67.7 3.2 5.4
Mansakonko 1.4 5.7 82.1 4.3 6.4
Kerewan 18.7 7.7 54.3 15.0 4.3
Kuntaur 7.5 15.5 52.3 17.8 6.9
Janjanbureh 10.5 11.6 56.9 16.6 4.4
Basse 18.6 13.1 58.8 5.5 4.0
Household size 1-2 40.4 10.4 39.9 5.7 3.6
3-4 36.3 7.8 44.3 4.7 7.0
5-6 26.3 5.8 56.8 5.3 5.8
7+ 18.8 7.2 62.4 7.3 4.4
Household own land No 26.6 6.1 55.2 6.1 5.9
Yes 21.9 7.9 59.2 6.8 4.2
Area of land owned by
household <1 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0
1-1.99 16.7 0.0 33.3 16.7 33.3
2-3.99 8.0 0.0 80.0 12.0 0.0
4-5.99 13.6 0.0 81.8 4.5 0.0
Table 5.11: Percentage distribution of households by difficulty in satisfying the food needs of the household during
the year before the survey
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always
6+ 22.1 8.4 58.7 6.6 4.1
Livestock holding
None 38.5 6.9 45.2 4.7 4.7
Large 9.2 9.0 68.1 9.0 4.8
Small 22.5 7.3 58.3 6.7 5.1
Both 9.2 8.9 68.4 9.0 4.5
Socioeconomic group Government 35.1 9.7 50.7 2.4 2.1
Parastatal 46.6 10.3 37.9 1.7 3.4
Private business 46.3 3.2 43.7 3.2 3.7
Private person or household 17.7 8.5 62.7 8.1 3.0
Self employed 19.8 7.7 60.5 6.8 5.3
Unpaid family worker/family
helper 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0
Other Specify 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sex Male 22.6 7.3 58.8 6.5 4.8
Female 31.4 6.8 49.8 5.9 6.1
Marital Status1 Never married 28.6 9.8 49.1 7.1 5.4
Married (monogamous) 25.0 6.4 58.6 5.5 4.5
Married (Polygamous) 20.5 8.6 58.5 7.8 4.5
Divorced/Separated 16.4 7.3 61.8 5.5 9.1
Widowed 29.9 6.8 44.6 8.5 10.2
Highest level of
education None 40.8 4.1 51.0 4.1 0.0
Primary 21.6 4.7 61.6 6.8 5.3
Secondary 30.3 6.3 56.9 2.6 4.0
Higher (College, University) 57.1 6.9 33.6 1.4 .9
Vocational 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
5.12: Housing tenure of the households
The Gambia’s population size has been increasing thus causing policy implications for all sectors
particularly the housing and agriculture sectors respectively. With the consistent increase in the
population there is increase in demand for residential and agricultural use of lands. Acquisition
of land for both housing and agricultural purposes; serve as a prestige for many Gambian
households. During the survey, respondents were asked whether the household or someone in the
household owns the dwelling. The results in Table 5.12 shows that more than nine in every ten
households in the rural residence in The Gambia owns the dwellings and 64.4 percent in the
urban residence owns the dwellings. Urbanization phenomenon has caused land scarcity in urban
areas and thus, 26.4 percent of households in these areas are renting. This phenomenon is
reflected in Banjul where more than seven in every ten households are renting and Kanifing with
40.7 percent.
Table 5.12 also shows that at least three quarter of the households in the rest of the other LGAs
owned the dwelling at the time of the interview. The proportion of households that own a
dwelling increases with increasing household size across the country. For those households who
are renting, the proportion decreases with increasing household sizes. The results also show that
at least one in every two households in the industrial class owns the dwelling during the survey
with those working in Agriculture, the biggest contributor to GDP, accounting the highest
(92.6%).
Table 5.12 : Percent distribution of households by the housing tenure
Total Own the
dwelling
Rents the
dwelling
Uses without
paying rent
Count % Count % Count % Count %
Place of
Residence Total 26874 100 21052 78.3 4048 15.1 1774 6.6
Urban 13727 100 8841 64.4 3626 26.4 1260 9.2
Rural 13147 100 12211 92.9 422 3.2 514 3.9
Local
Government
Area
Total 26874 100 21052 78.3 4048 15.1 1774 6.6
Banjul 307 100 68 22.1 224 73.0 15 4.9
Kanifing 3879 100 2071 53.4 1579 40.7 229 5.9
Brikama 9641 100 7271 75.4 1438 14.9 932 9.7
Mansakonko 1351 100 1291 95.6 8 .6 52 3.8
Kerewan 3117 100 2665 85.5 201 6.4 251 8.1
Kuntaur 1911 100 1774 92.8 21 1.1 116 6.1
Janjanbureh 1707 100 1544 90.5 103 6.0 60 3.5
Basse 4961 100 4368 88.0 474 9.6 119 2.4
Household size Total 26874 100 21052 78.3 4048 15.1 1774 6.6
1-2 310 100 61 19.7 184 59.4 65 21.0
3-4 1393 100 572 41.1 645 46.3 176 12.6
5-6 3057 100 1540 50.4 1123 36.7 394 12.9
7+ 22114 100 18879 85.4 2096 9.5 1139 5.2
Socioeconomic
group Total 18645 100 13760 73.8 3524 18.9 1361 7.3
Government 2352 100 1686 71.7 513 21.8 153 6.5
Parastatal 440 100 275 62.5 140 31.8 25 5.7
Private business 1474 100 963 65.3 442 30.0 69 4.7
Private person or household 2272 100 1506 66.3 500 22.0 266 11.7
Self employed 12084 100 9321 77.1 1915 15.8 848 7.0
Unpaid family worker/family
helper 23 100 9 39.1 14 60.9 0 0.0
Other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Industrial Total 18644 100 13765 73.8 3524 18.9 1355 7.3
Table 5.12 : Percent distribution of households by the housing tenure
Total Own the
dwelling
Rents the
dwelling
Uses without
paying rent
Count % Count % Count % Count %
Class Agriculture 3031 100 2806 92.6 109 3.6 116 3.8
Services 3884 100 2477 63.8 1099 28.3 308 7.9
Administration 390 100 232 59.5 92 23.6 66 16.9
Trade /selling 5712 100 4165 72.9 1216 21.3 331 5.8
Education 945 100 686 72.6 168 17.8 91 9.6
health 431 100 291 67.5 115 26.7 25 5.8
Hotels and restaurants 323 100 206 63.8 102 31.6 15 4.6
Construction/carpentry 2642 100 1877 71.0 466 17.6 299 11.3
Transport 1107 100 892 80.6 129 11.7 86 7.8
Others 179 100 133 74.3 28 15.6 18 10.1
Sex Total 26692 100 20953 78.5 3965 14.9 1774 6.6
Male 13069 100 10157 77.7 1991 15.2 921 7.0
Female 13623 100 10796 79.2 1974 14.5 853 6.3
Figure 5: Percentage distribution of household tenure by LGA.
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
Local Government Area
Percentage of household tenure by the LGAs
Own the dwelling
Rents the dwelling
Uses without paying rent
CHAPTER 6: POVERTY PREDICTORS
6.0 Introduction
Truly specified predictors of poverty are very paramount in the poverty reduction strategies. As
argued by Adam Smith (1776), “no society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which by far
the greater part of numbers are poor and miserable”.
As said by Juan Somavia, United Nations World Summit for Social Development, 1995 “the
unfinished business of the 21st century is the eradication of poverty”. The predictors of poverty
have drawn great attention for years.
The main objective of this module is to examine the predictors of poverty in the Gambia. This is
because so far there is little that is known on the predictors of poverty in The Gambia.
6.1 Poultry Ownership by Sex, LGA and Residence
As per the 2014 Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) survey, 16212 poultry were
accounted for among which were 15917 Chickens, 120 Guinea fowls, 147 Ducks and 28
Turkeys. Poultries belonging to male headed households equaled 14032, whereas 2067 belong to
female headed household. There were 113 poultries whose ownership cannot be linked to either
male or female headed households.
Brikama is the LGA with the highest total number of birds (6489), predominantly leading all
LGAs in the chicken and Guinea Fowl representing 6351 and 103 respectively.
Rural Gambia shows the largest share of poultries reared by household heads with a sum of 9929
as compare to urban Gambia. However, urban Gambia has the largest number of Ducks (80) and
turkeys (28) reared by household heads.
Table 6.1: Percentage distribution of different types of birds by household heads
Chicken Guinea fowl Duck Turkey Total Poultry
Male 13778 106 123 25 14032
Female 2026 14 24 3 2067
NS 113 0 0 0 113
Banjul 82 0 0 0 82
Kanifing 912 0 19 5 936
Brikama 6351 103 30 5 6489
Kerewan 1383 0 0 0 1383
Mansakonko 2320 0 28 15 2363
Kuntaur 1322 3 29 0 1354
Janjanbureh 1390 1 5 3 1399
Basse 2157 13 36 0 2206
Urban 6147 28 80 28 6283
Rural 9770 92 67 0 9929
Total 15917 120 147 28 16212
6.2 Selected Poverty Predictors by Sex, LGA, Age Group and Residences
Table 6.2A shows that about 44 percent of male respondents, had saving or easily convertible
assets, compared to a 45.5 percent of female respondents. When asked of any debt obligations
with constant reminder from the lender, 20.6 percent each, for males and female confirmed such
existence.
On the affordability of medical or dental care, about 56 percent of the males could afford
medical or dental care, whereas 57.6 percent of the females could. On the other hand, a higher
proportion of females (58%) could afford a meal with meat during the week preceding the survey
than male headed households (54.6%).
Exploring the result further by Local Government Area, Basse registered the highest proportion
of households’ who have savings or easily convertible assets with (57.4%), whereas Kerewan
accounted for the lowest with 32.5 percent. On debt obligation with inability to pay, Kuntaur had
the highest proportion with 35.2 percent, followed by Basse and Janjanbureh with 29.3 and 28.5
percent respectively. Brikama recorded the lowest of 11.1 percent.
Banjul registered the highest proportion of household heads/respondents that could afford
medical or dental care with 88.3 percent, followed by Kanifing with 76.4 percent whilst
Mansakonko registered the lowest proportion with 39.0 percent. Preparation of meal with meat
in the past week, Banjul has the highest percentage of 77.3 percent and Mansakonko registered
the lowest (26.9%).
Analysis across age groups shows that household heads in the age groups 55-59 years and 65-69
years have the highest proportions of those with savings or easily convertible assets with 53.1
percent and 53.2 percent respectively. Household heads in the age group 70-74 years have the
highest proportion of those who have debt obligations with 22.2 percent whilst those in the age
group 60-64 years constitute the highest proportion of those who could afford medical or dental
care with 66.8 percent.
Table 6.2A further shows that about 50 percent of rural dwellers had savings or easily
convertible assets, compared to 39.9 percent of urban dwellers. The proportion of urban
dwellers that owe or have debts (15.7%) is lower than that of the rural dwellers (25.5%).
Household heads who could afford medical or dental care is higher among urban dwellers
(67.9%) than it is among rural dwellers (44.9%).
Table 6.2A : Percentage distribution of household heads by sex, LGA, 5-year age group, residence and selected
poverty predictors
Savings or easily
convertible assets
Have debt and
ability to repay
Can afford medical
and dental care
Meal with meat
prepared
Sex Yes No NS Yes No NS Yes No NS Yes No NS
Male 44.4 54.8 0.8 20.6 79.0 0.4 55.9 43.8 0.4 54.6 45.1 0.3
Female 45.5 53.6 0.9 20.6 79.2 0.3 57.6 42.2 0.2 57.7 42.0 0.2
Not Stated 34.9 27.7 37.4 1.2 61.5 37.4 59.0 3.6 37.4 36.5 26.2 37.4
LGA
Banjul 42.9 57.1 0.0 13.9 86.1 0.0 88.3 11.7 0.0 77.3 22.7 0.0
Kanifing 42.3 57.4 0.4 19.4 80.2 0.4 76.4 23.2 0.4 72.7 26.9 0.4
Brikama 38.8 60.1 1.2 11.1 88.1 0.8 61.1 38.1 0.9 53.7 45.4 0.9
Mansakonko 42.3 57.7 0.0 16.4 83.7 0.0 39.0 60.4 0.6 26.9 72.1 1.0
Kerewan 32.5 65.1 2.4 19.6 79.4 1.0 49.0 50.0 1.0 43.2 55.8 1.0
Kuntaur 52.5 47.2 0.3 35.2 63.1 1.7 39.1 60.6 0.3 37.1 62.6 0.3
Janjanbureh 54.6 44.1 1.4 28.5 70.1 1.4 40.9 57.7 1.4 43.9 54.8 1.4
Basse 57.4 41.1 1.6 29.3 70.7 0.0 51.3 48.5 0.2 66.1 33.9 0.0
Age Group
20-24 48.0 51.2 0.9 18.7 81.1 0.3 63.2 36.6 0.2 59.7 40.1 0.3
25-29 48.4 50.5 1.1 18.8 81.0 0.3 63.1 36.6 0.3 62.6 37.2 0.2
30-34 45.7 53.5 0.8 18.8 81.1 0.1 59.5 40.4 0.1 54.0 45.7 0.3
35-39 40.2 58.9 1.0 19.9 79.5 0.7 61.5 37.9 0.7 60.4 39.1 0.6
40-44 49.2 49.9 0.9 21.2 78.3 0.5 60.6 38.8 0.7 62.6 36.9 0.5
45-49 47.9 51.7 0.4 21.9 78.0 0.1 60.1 39.9 0.0 55.9 44.1 0.1
50-54 42.7 56.5 0.7 15.7 84.4 0.0 52.9 47.1 0.0 58.1 41.9 0.0
55-59 53.1 46.9 0.0 20.6 79.0 0.5 61.4 38.3 0.3 61.7 38.3 0.0
60-64 43.4 56.3 0.3 20.4 79.6 0.0 66.8 33.2 0.0 59.5 40.4 0.1
65-69 53.2 46.8 0.0 15.0 85.0 0.0 53.0 46.3 0.7 58.9 41.1 0.0
70-74 44.3 54.6 1.1 22.2 77.3 0.5 45.1 54.9 0.0 48.9 51.1 0.0
75-79 46.3 53.7 0.0 21.5 78.5 0.0 56.5 43.5 0.0 63.3 36.7 0.0
80-84 37.9 62.1 0.0 21.6 78.5 0.0 54.3 45.7 0.0 48.3 50.9 0.9
85+ 36.3 38.2 25.5 5.8 68.8 25.5 57.7 16.8 25.5 38.4 36.1 25.5
Residence
Urban 39.9 58.9 1.2 15.7 83.5 0.8 67.9 31.2 0.9 62.8 36.2 0.9
Rural 50.2 48.7 1.1 25.5 74.1 0.4 44.9 54.8 0.3 48.8 51.1 0.2
Total 44.9 54.0 1.2 20.4 78.9 0.6 56.8 42.6 0.6 56.0 43.4 0.6
The sum percentage of possessing of savings or easily convertible assets by marital status is 44.9
percent. Those who are married (polygamous) and widowed, have the highest proportion of
people with savings or easily convertibles to assets with 53.5 percent and 47.9 percent
respectively.
Marital status in relation to debt owed shows that, those who are widowed have the highest
proportion compared to all other marital status with about 25 percent. However, respondents that
reported to be never married, widowed and married (monogamous) had the most affordability to
medical or dental care with 61.0 percent, 60.2 percent and 60.0 percent respectively.
Respondents who are married (polygamous) reported the highest proportion with regard to
cooking a meal with meat in household within the 4 past weeks with 61.4 percent.
Table 6.2B : Percentage distribution of households by marital status and selected poverty predictors
Savings or easily
convertible assets
Have debt and
ability to repay
Can afford medical
and dental care
Meal with meat
prepared
Marital Status Yes No NS Yes No NS Yes No NS Yes No NS
Never married 45.6 53.6 0.9 20.3 79.5 0.3 61.0 38.7 0.3 59.4 40.4 0.2
Married (monogamous) 42.7 56.7 0.6 18.9 80.8 0.3 60.0 39.8 0.2 55.6 44.2 0.3
Married (Polygamous) 53.5 45.3 1.2 20.2 79.5 0.3 53.6 46.1 0.3 61.4 38.4 0.3
Divorced/Separated 42.0 58.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 0.0 57.3 42.7 0.0 49.5 49.5 1.0
Widowed 47.9 51.9 0.2 24.6 75.4 0.0 60.2 39.6 0.2 52.8 47.2 0.0
Not Stated 42.9 55.3 1.8 21.3 77.4 1.3 52.4 46.3 1.3 52.6 46.2 1.2
Total 44.9 54.0 1.2 20.4 78.9 0.6 56.8 42.6 0.6 56.0 43.4 0.6
6.3 Selected Poverty Predictor and Food, Clothing and Water
Overall, safe drinking water is the most accessible to households in the survey with 89.1 percent,
followed by two decent meals per day with 79.6 percent and then clothing with 78.7 percent.
Table 6.3A also shows that 79.0 percent of male headed households and 80.4 percent of female
headed households can afford two decent meals per day. The table further shows that the
proportions of male and female headed households who cannot afford two decent meals per day
are almost the same with 20.6 and 19.3 percent respectively.
About 78 percent of male headed households indicated that their households could afford decent
clothing; whereas 80.1 percent of their female counterparts confirm so. Asked about access to
drinking water for the most part of the year, 89.1 percent of all households do have access
whereas 10.3 percent do not access.
The age groups 25-29 years and 20-24 year have the highest proportion of those who could
afford two decent meals per day with 83.3 percent and 83.2 percent respectively. Whereas age
groups 85+ have the lowest proportion of those households that can afford two decent meals with
62.2. The same age cohorts (25-29 years and 20-24 years) have the highest proportions with
regard to affordability of decent clothing with 84.1 percent and 84.3 percent respectively whilst
age group 80-84 years with (67.2%) is the lowest affordability for decent clothing.
Table 6.3A: Percentage distribution of households by sex, LGA, 5-year age groups, residence and selected
poverty predictors
Affordability of 2 decent
meals per day
Affordability of decent
clothing
Access to safe drinking water
for the moat part of the year
Sex Yes No NS Yes No NS Yes No NS
Male 79.0 20.6 0.4 77.6 22.1 0.3 89.7 10.1 0.3
Female 80.4 19.3 0.3 80.1 19.6 0.3 89.0 10.8 0.3
NS 62.1 0.6 37.4 61.5 1.2 37.4 62.7 0.0 37.4
LGA
Banjul 89.0 11.0 0.0 92.4 7.6 0.0 98.1 2.0 0.0
Kanifing 89.8 9.8 0.4 94.2 5.4 0.4 93.2 6.4 0.4
Brikama 79.3 19.6 1.1 85.8 13.4 0.8 90.1 9.1 0.8
Mansakonko 55.8 44.2 0.0 62.8 37.2 0.0 96.1 3.9 0.0
Kerewan 78.2 20.8 1.0 69.6 29.4 1.0 86.0 12.7 1.4
Kuntaur 73.0 26.7 0.3 58.6 41.0 0.3 81.5 18.2 0.3
Janjanbureh 72.1 26.6 1.4 60.9 37.8 1.4 82.4 16.3 1.4
Basse 80.5 19.5 0.0 74.7 24.9 0.4 88.8 11.2 0.0
Age Group
0-4 77.1 22.5 0.4 76.3 23.4 0.4 89.1 10.5 0.4
5-9 76.3 23.3 0.4 75.1 24.4 0.5 88.8 10.8 0.4
10-14 79.8 19.9 0.4 77.2 22.5 0.3 88.2 11.5 0.3
Table 6.3A: Percentage distribution of households by sex, LGA, 5-year age groups, residence and selected
poverty predictors
Affordability of 2 decent
meals per day
Affordability of decent
clothing
Access to safe drinking water
for the moat part of the year
15-19 79.2 20.5 0.3 78.2 21.5 0.3 89.8 10.0 0.2
20-24 83.2 16.5 0.3 84.3 15.5 0.2 88.6 11.2 0.2
25-29 83.3 16.5 0.2 84.1 15.7 0.2 90.1 9.7 0.2
30-34 82.3 17.7 0.1 80.7 19.3 0.1 86.3 13.6 0.1
35-39 82.3 17.2 0.6 80.2 19.3 0.6 91.3 8.3 0.5
40-44 82.4 17.0 0.7 81.8 17.7 0.5 90.8 8.7 0.5
45-49 80.5 19.5 0.0 79.3 20.5 0.2 91.1 8.9 0.0
50-54 81.6 18.2 0.2 80.0 19.9 0.2 92.3 7.5 0.2
55-59 82.6 17.4 0.0 83.2 16.8 0.0 92.9 7.2 0.0
60-64 77.9 22.2 0.0 76.8 22.9 0.3 92.8 7.2 0.0
65-69 78.8 21.2 0.0 75.6 24.4 0.0 87.7 12.3 0.0
70-74 74.3 25.7 0.0 72.7 26.8 0.5 90.5 9.5 0.0
75-79 79.7 20.3 0.0 79.7 20.3 0.0 85.3 14.7 0.0
80-84 74.1 25.9 0.0 67.2 32.8 0.0 88.8 11.2 0.0
85+ 62.2 12.3 25.5 67.8 6.8 25.5 71.5 3.1 25.5
Residence
Urban 83.8 15.3 1.0 89.6 9.5 1.0 90.5 8.6 0.9
Rural 75.2 24.6 0.2 67.2 32.6 0.2 87.6 12.1 0.2
Total 79.6 19.8 0.6 78.7 20.7 0.6 89.1 10.3 0.6
Households were ask if they can afford two decent meals per day, afford decent clothing and
have access to safe drinking water for most part of the year. Those who were never married
registered the highest proportion of affording two decent meals per day and decent clothing with
82.1 percent and 82.5 percent respectively. Table 6.3b further shows that Divorced/separate and
widowed have most accessibility to drinking water than the rest of the other marital statuses at
91.9 percent and 91.6 percent respectively.
Table 6.3B: Percentage distribution of households by marital status and selected poverty predictors
Affordability of 2 decent
meals per day
Affordability of decent
clothing
Access to drinking water for
the moat part of the year
Marital Status Yes No NS Yes No NS Yes No NS
Never married 82.1 17.6 0.4 82.5 17.2 0.3 89.9 9.9 0.2
Married (monogamous) 80.3 19.6 0.1 80.8 19.0 0.2 89.2 10.6 0.2
Married (Polygamous) 81.5 18.1 0.4 76.4 23.1 0.4 88.6 11.0 0.4
Divorced/Separated 77.0 23.1 0.0 78.3 21.7 0.0 91.9 8.1 0.0
Widowed 77.5 22.5 0.0 79.1 20.0 0.9 91.6 8.4 0.0
Not Stated 77.0 21.8 1.2 75.4 23.4 1.2 88.4 10.4 1.2
Total 79.6 19.8 0.6 78.7 20.7 0.6 89.1 10.3 0.6
6.4 Selected Poverty Predictors by Highest Level of Educational Attainment
Taken from the level of education of the household members, those with vocational and
university/college education had greater possession of savings or easily convertible assets with
61.9 percent and 59.5 percent respectively. Table 6.4 further shows that the lowest possession
rate was those who have secondary 4th with 36.8 percent. Also the household heads with
primary madrassa had greater debt obligation with (31.5%) as compared to other categories and
those with vocational education had the lowest debt obligation with 13.5 percent.
University/College cohort had better access to medical or dental care at 81.5 percent and the least
access was reported by those with Pre-school madrassa (51.5%). Secondary 4th had better quality
meals at 79.9 percent and least was reported by those in pre-school cohort (51.8%).
Table 6.4: Percentage distribution of households by educational attainment and selected poverty predictors
Education level Savings or easily
convertible assets
Have debt and
ability to repay
Can afford
medical and
dental care
Meal with meat
prepared
Affordability of
2 decent meals
per day
Affordability of
decent clothing
Access to drinking
water for the moat
part of the year
Yes No NS Yes No NS Yes No NS Yes No NS Yes No NS Yes No NS Yes No NS
PRE-SCHOOL 44.7 54.6 0.7 21.8 78.0 0.3 58.3 40.9 0.8 51.8 47.9 0.3 78.2 21.6 0.3 76.1 23.6 0.3 90.7 9.1 0.3
PRIMARY 45.8 53.2 1.1 22.4 77.1 0.5 52.9 46.7 0.4 52.5 47.1 0.4 78.0 21.4 0.6 77.0 22.6 0.4 88.8 10.8 0.4
UPPER BASIC 44.8 53.9 1.3 20.5 78.7 0.8 60.6 38.5 0.8 55.2 44.1 0.7 79.8 19.3 0.9 83.9 15.4 0.7 89.4 9.9 0.7
MADRAS. SECOND 50.0 48.5 1.5 29.2 69.9 0.9 58.9 40.8 0.3 76.8 22.9 0.3 89.9 8.6 1.5 86.3 13.4 0.3 87.8 11.9 0.3
VOCATIONAL 61.9 37.7 0.5 13.5 86.1 0.5 76.7 22.8 0.5 73.5 26.1 0.5 90.7 8.8 0.5 93.0 6.5 0.5 91.2 8.4 0.5
PRE-SCHOOL MADRASSA 40.4 58.8 0.7 27.2 72.1 0.7 51.5 47.8 0.7 65.4 33.8 0.7 85.3 14.0 0.7 86.8 12.5 0.7 92.7 6.6 0.7
PRIMARY MADRASSA 42.5 56.3 1.2 31.5 68.5 0.0 53.4 46.6 0.0 63.2 36.8 0.0 88.4 11.3 0.3 84.3 15.8 0.0 86.8 13.2 0.0
SENIOR Secondary 49.4 50.3 0.4 17.7 82.1 0.2 67.2 32.7 0.1 66.1 33.6 0.3 86.5 13.4 0.1 89.6 10.3 0.1 92.5 7.2 0.3
UNIVERSITY,COLLEGE) 59.5 40.0 0.5 18.1 81.7 0.2 81.5 18.1 0.5 76.5 23.3 0.2 91.7 8.1 0.2 93.5 6.2 0.2 90.9 8.9 0.2
SECONDARY 4TH 36.8 63.0 0.2 30.0 69.8 0.2 77.9 21.5 0.6 79.9 19.9 0.2 91.2 8.7 0.2 92.6 7.2 0.2 96.2 3.6 0.2
Don’t Know 67.0 31.0 2.0 14.0 86.0 0.0 65.0 35.0 0.0 57.0 43.0 0.0 59.0 41.0 0.0 82.0 18.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 0.0
Not Stated 43.7 55.0 1.3 19.5 79.8 0.8 54.6 44.7 0.7 54.0 45.3 0.7 78.0 21.3 0.7 76.1 23.1 0.8 88.6 10.7 0.7
Total 44.9 54.0 1.2 20.4 78.9 0.6 56.8 42.6 0.6 56.0 43.4 0.6 79.6 19.8 0.6 78.7 20.7 0.6 89.1 10.3 0.6
Table 6.4 further shows that persons with university/college and secondary 4th level of
education had better affordability rates of two decent meals (91.7% and 91.2% respectively),
followed by persons with vocational education (90.7%). Affordability of decent clothing was
highest among persons with university/college and vocational education with 93.5 percent and
93.0 percent respectively. Persons with pre-school madrassa and senior secondary educational
attainment registered the highest rates of access to drinking water at 92.7 percent and 92.5
percent respectively.
Chapter 7: Agriculture
7.0 Introduction
Agriculture has been and still continues to be a reliable and viable source of food for most
people in The Gambia as 70 percent of the labor force is engaged in this sector for their
livelihood. The sector contributes 22% to GDP for the past three years (2011-2013) and also
generates about 91.7 percent 1of total domestic export earnings. These attributes make the
sector vital for both public and private investments, if the nation's socio-economic
development policy objectives of poverty alleviation and household food security are to be
achieved.
The Gambia government revamped the sector in order to address the challenges faced by
farmers and farming institutions and hence enhance their general welfare status through
ensuring sustainable food security and remunerative incomes. As a consequence, the
government over the years has instituted agricultural policies and strategies aimed at
eradicating poverty through multi-Sectoral interventions enabling people in rural areas to
improve their livelihoods in a sustainable manner. More specially, government's current
agricultural policy direction is to shift away from subsistence agriculture to a more vibrant,
commercially oriented production system that is aimed at making farming a more viable
business entity.
In addition, support by development partners in terms of projects and programs, has actively
engaged the sector in the realization of the objectives set forth by the government. The sector
underwent a plethora of reforms and advancements, the offshoots of which culminated into
the realization of tangible achievements. These achievements can be broadly categorized into
food self-sufficiency and security, input and output marketing, agricultural mechanization,
program/project interventions, processing and storage and farmer training and empowerment.
7.1 Households engaged in agricultural activities
Table 7.1 shows the percentage distribution of households engaged in agricultural activities. It
is evident from the table that households predominantly in the rural areas are more involved in
agriculture as oppose to their urban counterparts. The proportion of rural dwellers engaged in
agricultural activities accounted for 88.5 percent while urban dwellers engaged in agricultural
activities accounted for 29.9 percent.
As would be anticipated, none of the households in Banjul were involved in agricultural
activities. From table 7.1 it can be deduced that the highest proportions of agricultural
activities are in Basse (89.6%), followed by Kuntaur, Mansakonko, Janjanbureh and Kerewan
with proportions of (87.9%), (87.8%), (83.0%) and (70.1%) respectively.
1 Gambia Bureau of Statistics (GBoS), External Trade Statistics Unit
Table 7.1. Percentage distribution of households involved in agricultural activities
LGA Yes No
Banjul 0.0 100
Kanifing 9.0 91.0
Brikama 46.4 53.6
Mansakonko 87.8 12.2
Kerewan 70.1 29.9
Kuntaur 87.9 12.1
Janjanbureh 83.0 17.0
Basse 89.6 10.4
Residence
Urban 29.9 70.1
Rural 88.5 11.5
7.2 Households that encounter difficulties in marketing their farm produce
All households interviewed during the survey that reported to be engaged in agricultural
activities were asked if they had difficulties in marketing their produce. Slightly more than
half of the households (51.2%) reported to have difficulties in marketing their farm produce.
The higher proportion of those that reported to have difficulties in marketing was rural
dwellers (57.6%). Basse LGA reported to have the highest proportion of those engaged in
agricultural activities; Basse also reported to have the highest proportion of those that
encounter difficulties in marketing their farm produce (64.4%), followed by Kerewan
(64.2%). In Kanifing, a high proportion (41.2%) of households that are engaged in
agricultural activities reported to have difficulties in marketing their farm produce even
though they are closer in terms of proximity to the markets than those residing in the other
LGAs.
Table 7.2: Percentage distribution of households that encounter difficulties in marketing their farm produce
Yes No
Total 51.2 48.8
Local Government Area Banjul 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 41.2 58.8
Brikama 32.4 67.6
Mansakonko 49.8 50.2
Kerewan 64.2 35.8
Kuntaur 43.7 56.3
Janjanbureh 53.2 46.8
Basse 64.4 35.6
Residence Urban 33.5 66.5
Rural 57.6 42.4
7.3 Households that encounter difficulties in marketing their farm produce and
problems encountered
Table 7.3 presents data on the percentage distribution of households that reported to have
difficulties in marketing their produce. Respondents were asked of the problems they
encountered; the highest proportion of problems encountered in marketing farm produce
was unfavorable market prices (38.8%), followed by late or untimely payments (25.0%)
and limited sales (20.9%). In Basse LGA, 40.9 percent of the households reported to have
encountered unfavorable market prices for their commodities, followed by late and
untimely payments and limited sales (24.6% and 24.0% respectively). It is evident that
Kanifing has more access in terms of proximity to roads and transportation facilities, yet it
has the highest proportion of respondents who reported transportation problem (33.3%) as
a difficulty encountered in marketing farm produce. Respondents in Kanifing also reported
high supply of product as a factor that reduces market prices (33.3%).
Table 7.3: Percentage distribution of difficulties households encounter in marketing their farm produce
Limited
sales
Late or
untimely
payment
Unfavorable
market
price.
No
fixed
price
High
supply of
the
products
reduces
the
prices
Late
buying
of
produce,
Transportation
problem
Not
stated
Local Government Area
Total 20.9 25.0 38.8 2.0 0.3 1.70 12.9 5.90
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00
Kanifing 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.00 33.3 0.00
Brikama 18.5 6.1 53.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 15.8 21.50
Mansakonko 10.4 40.3 10.9 0.0 0.0 10.90 22.8 6.60
Kerewan 14.0 33.3 31.8 0.0 0.0 0.00 26.1 1.00
Kuntaur 28.4 19.4 44.8 14.9 0.0 0.00 14.9 13.40
Janjanbureh 26.3 29.9 45.3 0.0 0.0 0.00 9.9 5.80
Basse 24.0 24.6 40.9 2.7 0.0 1.80 4.4 1.60
Residence
Urban 21.4 13.0 44.6 0.0 2.1 0.00 13.3 22.90
Rural 20.8 27.0 37.9 2.3 0.0 2.00 12.8 3.10
7.4 Households acquisition of farming implements and inputs
Presented in table 7.4 below are the means through which households interviewed during the
survey, that are engaged in agriculture get access to farming implements. The highest reported
means of accessing farming implements were own/buy (74.3%) followed by hiring (9.1%),
and borrowing/loan (8.5%). The least proportion was through government (0.2%).
The highest proportion of own/buy of farming implements across all LGAs was reported in
Basse (84.1%) and the least in Mansakonko (57.2%) with the exception of Banjul were no
household was involved in agriculture. Kuntaur and Mansakonko have the highest proportions
of acquiring farming implements through borrowing or loans accounting for 11.1 percent and
10.7 percent respectively. NGO interventions were reported to be highest in Janjanbureh
where 6.6 percent of the households reported to access farming implements through NGO’s.
Table 7.4: Percentage Distribution of households by way of acquiring farming implements.
Farming Implements
Own/Buy Governmen
t
NGO Borrowed/Loa
n
Hired None
Local government area
Total 74.3 .2 2.0 8.5 9.1 6.0
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 82.6 0.0 0.0 8.4 9.0 0.0
Brikama 65.7 0.0 1.8 9.9 9.5 13.1
Mansakonko 57.2 0.0 3.2 10.7 9.9 19.0
Kerewan 77.5 .3 2.2 7.0 10.0 3.0
Kuntaur 80.6 0.0 .7 11.1 7.1 .5
Janjanbureh 69.6 .6 6.6 9.1 12.3 1.7
Basse 84.1 .2 .8 6.0 8.0 .8
Residence
Urban 72.1 .2 1.9 5.3 8.2 12.2
Rural 75.0 .1 2.0 9.6 9.4 3.9
7.5 Households using and not using fertilizers
Figure 5A shows the percentage distribution as to whether or not fertilizer is used in farming
by LGA. It could be established from the figure below that, out of all the farmers in the
various LGAs, who responded that they use fertilizer in their farming activities, the highest
proportion was found to be in Basse LGA (71.2%). This is followed by Brikama and Kanifing
LGAs with 68.4 percent and 67.6 percent respectively. It is critical to observe that in Kerewan
LGA, of all the farmers interviewed, those who use and don’t use fertilizer in their farming
activities are almost equal in proportions (50.7% and 49.3% respectively).
Figure 6A: Percentage distribution of whether or not fertilizer is used in farming by
LGA
In addition, figure 6B shows the scenario by residence. It can be seen that, in urban areas,
68.6 percent of the farmers use fertilizer in their farms as opposed to 62.9 percent in areas
classified as rural.
Figure 6B: Percentage distribution of whether or not fertilizer is used in farming by
residence
7.6 Reasons for not using fertilizer in farming by LGA and Residence
Table 7.6 shows the percentage distribution of the reasons for not using fertilizer in farming
by LGA and residence. The table below indicates that, of all the farmers interviewed in the
various LGAs, inability to afford fertilizer is the principal reason why farmers do not use it in
their farming activities. This scenario is common in Kerewan, Janjanbureh, and Basse; where
almost all (97.9%, 91.6% and 97.7% respectively) of the farmers interviewed responded that
they do not use fertilizer in their farms simply because they cannot afford the price at which it
is sold at any point in time.
It is evident from the table below that, majority of farmers (90.4%) who reside in the rural
areas cannot afford to buy fertilizer for their farming activities. Similarly, 78 percent of
farmers in the urban areas cannot afford to buy fertilizer for their agricultural activities.
Table 7.6: Percentage distribution of the reasons for not using fertilizer in farming by LGA and residence
LGA/Residence Animal
Remains
Not
affordable
Never use
before
unnecessary to
type of
cultivation
Not
available
Others
LGA
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 23.6 70.9 16.5 5.5 0.0 0.0
Brikama 8.9 74.4 3.5 8.7 1.1 3.4
Mansakonko 19.1 77.1 0.4 1.5 .8 1.0
Kerewan 1.7 97.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kuntaur 1.2 85.3 1.2 0.0 12.7 2.8
Janjanbureh 0.0 91.6 2.4 2.4 6.3 0.0
Basse 2.2 97.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Residence
urban 8.9 78.0 4.5 7.0 0.0 3.4
rural 4.3 90.4 1.0 1.3 3.3 0.6
7.7 Households using draft animals and those that do not them
Fig. 7A below shows the percentage distribution of whether or not draft animals are used in
farming by LGA. It can be seen in the graph that, of all the farmers who responded in the
various LGAs, as to whether or not draft animals are used in their farming activities, majority
of the farmers in Kuntaur and Basse reported that they use draft animals in their farming
activities with proportions of 94.6 and 91.0 percent respectively. This is followed by farmers
in the Kerewan, Mansakonko and Janjanbureh LGAs with proportions of 84.3 percent, 80.5
percent, and 79 percent respectively. It is interesting to see in the graph that, farmers who do
not use draft animals (56.3%) exceeds those (43.7%) in the Brikama LGA.
Figure 7A: Percentage distribution of whether or not draft animals are used in farming
by LGA
It is demonstrated in figure 7B that farmers in the rural areas are more heavily dependent on
draft animals (87.7%), for their farming activities than their counterparts in the urban areas
(35.4%).
Figure 7B: Percentage distribution of whether or not draft animals are used in farming
by residence
7.8 Reasons for not using draft animals in farming by LGA and Residence
Table 7.8 shows the percentage distribution of the reasons for not using draft animals in
farming by LGA and residence. The analysis shows that, the main reason why farmers in
Kanifing do not use draft animals in their farming activities is because of lack of animals for
agriculture in the area (74.3%). Also, it can be seen in the table that, in Basse LGA, 59.1
percent of the farmers interviewed are not using draft animals for agricultural purposes
because they cannot afford them. In Janjanbureh, 30.5 percent of the farmers interviewed
responded that draft animals are not needed for agriculture because it is considered
unnecessary to the type of agricultural activities conducted in the area.
In addition, it is worth noting that, 51.5 percent of the farmers in the rural areas reported that
they do not use draft animals for their agricultural activities because they cannot afford them,
compared to 26.4 percent of those in the urban areas.
Table 7.8: Percentage distribution for the reasons of not using draft animals in farming by LGA and residence
LGA/Residence Not
Available
Not
Affordable
Not
Necessary
Small Scale
Farming
Use Tractor Others
LGA
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 74.3 5.4 7.8 12.6 0.0 0.0
Brikama 32.2 31.7 25.7 8.4 0.9 1.0
Mansakonko 35.5 52.1 4.6 7.8 0.0 0.0
Kerewan 38.3 34.0 6.3 21.5 0.0 0.0
Kuntaur 37.4 26.4 17.6 13.2 0.0 5.5
Janjanbureh 26.5 43.0 30.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Basse 34.5 59.1 0.3 6.1 0.0 0.0
Residence
Urban 33.2 26.4 26.4 12.0 0.9 1.2
Rural 37.5 51.5 7.5 3.5 0.0 0.0
7.9 Households using farm implements and those that do not and reasons for not using it
Figure 8A above shows the percentage distribution of the use of farm implements in farming
by LGA. The figure shows that almost all the farmers in the various LGAs use farm
implements in their agricultural activities. The highest percentage, 98.1 percent was registered
in Basse, while the lowest proportion, 78.5 percent, registered in Mansakonko.
Figure 8A: Percentage distribution of the use of farm implements in farming by LGA
Figure 8B demonstrates the scenario of the use of farm implements in farming by residence.
Almost all the farmers in both urban (84.3%) and rural (94%) use farm implements in their
agricultural activities.
Figure 8B: Percentage distribution of the use of farm implements in farming by
residence
7.10 Reasons for not using farm implements in farming by LGA and Residence
Table 7.10 shows the percentage distribution of the reasons for not using farm implements in
farming by LGA and residence. The table further shows that all farmers in Kanifing reported
that farming implements are expensive (100%). Similarly, farmers in Brikama (79.7%),
Mansakonko (89.2%), and Basse (82.8%) reported not using most farming implements in
their agricultural activities due to affordability. In Janjanbureh (26.7%) and Kuntaur (30.2%)
farmers reported not using farm implements because of lack of availability in the area. While
32.6 percent of farmers in Kerewan and 22.6 percent in Kuntaur reported that it was not
necessary to use farm implements.
We can see a similar trend by residence. Not been able to afford farm implements in the rural
areas (73.7%) and urban areas (75.8%) are the principal reasons why farmers are not using all
the required farming implements.
Table 7.10: Percentage distribution for the reasons of not using farm implements in farming by LGA and
residence in The Gambia
LGA/Residence Not
affordable
Not available Possession of
Non Usable
Implements
Not
necessary
Others
LGA
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brikama 79.7 5.7 1.2 7.4 6.0
Mansakonko 89.2 5.8 0.0 0.0 4.9
Kerewan 51.1 4.3 0.0 32.6 12.0
Kuntaur 47.2 30.2 0.0 22.6 0.0
Janjanbureh 51.1 26.7 12.6 0.0 9.6
Basse 82.8 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Residence
Urban 75.8 4.7 1.3 10.9 7.3
Rural 73.7 14.1 2.8 4.4 5.0
7.11 Households encountering problems in accessing farm inputs and the problems
encountered
Figure 9A shows the percentage distribution of farmers who encounter problems in accessing
farm inputs by LGA. The figure shows that, 86.1 percent of farmers in Basse reported
experiencing problems in accessing farm inputs for their farming activities. This is followed
by Kerewan Kuntaur and Janjanbureh, registering 84.6 percent 82.4 percent and 80.9 percent
respectively. The lowest proportion of farmers experiencing such a problem was found in
Kanifing (47.5%).
Figure 9A: Percentage distribution of farmers who encounter problems in accessing farm inputs by LGA
Figure 9B shows the percentage distribution of farmers who encounter problems in accessing
farm inputs by residence. The figure shows that, the majority of farmers having problems in
accessing farm inputs are found in the rural areas (81.2%) as compared to the urban areas with
60.1 percent.
Figure 9B: Percentage distribution of farmers who encounter problems in accessing farm inputs by
residence
7.12 Households acquisition of Fertilizers
All households that engaged in agricultural activities were asked how they acquired
fertilizers. About 60 percent of households using fertilizers bought or owned them, while
the least means of households acquiring fertilizers was reported to be government and
hiring with proportions of 0.4 percent each. Of all the households engaged in agricultural
activities, 34.2 percent reported that they do not use fertilizer. Across LGAs, the most
common means of acquiring fertilizers is by “own/buy” with proportions ranging from 45.9
percent in Kerewan to 81.5 percent in Kanifing.
Table 7.12: Percentage Distribution of Households by way of acquiring Fertilizer
Fertilizer
Own/Buy Governmen
t
NGO Borrowed/
Loan
Hired None
Local
Government
Area
Total 60.3 .4 1.1 3.5 .4 34.2
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 81.5 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4
Brikama 63.0 .2 1.0 3.0 1.2 31.5
Mansakonko 49.6 3.8 2.3 1.5 0.0 42.8
Kerewan 45.9 0.0 .4 3.0 0.0 50.7
Kuntaur 65.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 31.3
Janjanbureh 55.9 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 36.8
Basse 65.6 0.0 2.1 3.8 .2 28.2
Residence Urban 65.4 .4 .9 1.5 .8 31.0
Rural 58.6 .4 1.2 4.3 .3 35.3
7.13 Households ways of acquiring Seeds
Table 7.13 shows means through which households get their seeds for cultivation. It is clear
from the information that almost all the farmers buy or keep part of their harvest for the next
cropping season. All households engaged in agriculture were asked how they acquire their
seeds, 92.3 percent reported to own or buy the seeds while the lowest reported getting the
seeds through NGO’s (1.4%) and Government (1.5%). The highest proportion of households
who own seeds they use were in Kuntaur (94.7%), followed by Kerewan (94.1%). Slightly
more rural households (92.6%) reported to own the seeds they use than urban dwellers
(91.4%).
Table 7.13: Percentage Distribution of Households by way of acquiring Seeds
Own/Buy Government NGO Borrowed/
Loan
Hired None
Local
Government
Area
Total 92.3 1.5 1.4 3.1 0.0 1.8
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 86.8 7.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.7
Brikama 91.4 .3 .9 3.6 0.0 3.7
Mansakonko 92.7 1.7 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.1
Kerewan 94.1 3.3 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.0
Kuntaur 94.7 0.0 1.9 1.8 0.0 1.6
Janjanbureh 92.7 .1 3.1 3.2 0.0 .8
Basse 91.7 2.2 .9 4.7 0.0 .5
Residence Urban 91.4 1.4 .6 2.7 0.0 3.8
Rural 92.6 1.5 1.6 3.2 0.0 1.0
7.14: Households by way of acquiring draft animals
Table 7.14 Shows that 58.6 percent of households reported that they own the draft animals
used in their agricultural activities, followed by those who reported that they do not use draft
animals (23.2%). The lowest reported were those households who got their draft animals
through government interventions which accounts for 0.2 percent.
Ownership of draft animals as expected is predominantly high in the rural areas (71.1%) as
opposed to their urban counterparts (21.6%). However, most households in the urban areas
reported that they do not use draft animals (63.7 %), compared to 9.4 percent in the rural
areas.
Table 7.14: Percentage Distribution of Households by way of acquiring draft animals
Own /Buy Governme
nt
NG
O
Borrowed/Lo
an
Hired None
Local Government
Area
Total 58.6 .2 2.4 6.3 9.4 23.2
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 25.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 63.1
Brikama 27.2 .5 1.3 6.9 7.8 56.4
Mansakonko 60.9 0.0 4.3 10.0 7.7 17.1
Kerewan 73.1 0.0 3.6 7.7 5.5 10.1
Kuntaur 71.6 0.0 4.9 5.4 13.6 4.4
Janjanbureh 63.9 0.0 2.8 12.8 10.1 10.5
Basse 77.5 .2 1.4 2.7 11.3 6.9
Residence Urban 21.6 .5 1.2 3.8 9.2 63.7
Rural 71.1 .1 2.8 7.2 9.4 9.4
7.15 Reasons for not being able to access Farm implements.
Data was collected from all households who reported to encounter problems in accessing farm
implements. As shown in table 7.15, 75.1 percent of households reported that farm
implements are too expensive, followed by households who reported that the farm implements
are scarce (15.1%). Those who reported that they encounter problems in accessing farm inputs
because it’s too costly ranged from 60.3 percent in Mansakonko to 90.3 percent in Kanifing.
None of the households in the urban areas reported to have any difficulty in getting spare
parts for their implements but 0.9 percent of the rural dwellers reported to have problems of
spare parts which renders their implements non-usable.
Table 7.15: Percentage Distribution of reasons households are not able to access farm implements
Farm
implement
s are
scarce.
Too
expensive
to buy farm
implements
Long waiting time
when someone else
is using the farm
implements
Expensive
Rental fee of
farming
implements.
Lack of spare
parts of
farming
implements
Others
Local
Governmen
t Area
Total 15.1 75.1 9.8 1.9 0.8 1.2
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 0.0 90.3 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brikama 11.8 74.6 9.8 3.1 0.7 0.1
Mansakonko 17.6 60.3 13.9 2.3 5.8 0.0
Kerewan 28.7 66.7 7.4 0.0 0.0 2.8
Kuntaur 29.5 69.0 4.6 1.2 0.8 4.9
Janjanbureh 20.5 75.6 11.1 2.3 1.7 1.9
Basse 4.1 83.5 11.7 2.0 0.0 0.0
Area Urban 11.6 80.4 8.0 0.3 0.0 0.1
Rural 15.8 73.9 10.3 2.2 0.9 1.5
7.16 Dry/Rainy season agriculture
7.16.1 Households that either or don’t engaged in dry season agricultural production
Table 7.16.1 shows that most of the households (68.4%) were not engaged in dry season
agricultural activities. The majority of households engaged in dry season agricultural
activities were in Mansakonko (54.7%), followed by Janjanbureh (48.0%) and Kerewan
(40.0%). The lowest proportion was in Kanifing (4.2 %) where the agricultural activity even
during the rainy season is at a small scale.
Analysis from the information below also shows that the proportion of dry season agriculture
is higher in the rural areas (45.7%) compared to urban areas (18.1%).
Table 7.16.1: Percentage Distribution of whether or not households engage in dry season agriculture
by LGA and Residence
Engage in dry season agricultural production
YES NO
Local Government
Area
Total 31.6 68.4
Banjul 0.0 100
Kanifing 4.2 95.8
Brikama 31.1 68.9
Mansakonko 54.7 45.3
Kerewan 40.0 60.0
Kuntaur 34.3 65.7
Janjanbureh 48.0 52.0
Basse 37.6 62.4
Residence Urban 18.1 81.9
Rural 45.7 54.3
7.17 Types of crops grown by households As shown in the table 7.17., all households that reported to engage in agricultural activities
were asked what type of crops they cultivated, 61.8 percent reported to grow vegetables,
followed by those that cultivated rice (13.4%). The proportion is higher in the former mainly
because most women are engage in it all year round. The latter is cultivated in both the rainy
and dry season in swamp and inland areas.
At LGA level, Mansakonko has the highest proportion (98.9%) of households that reported to
be engaged in growing vegetables, followed by Basse (91.5%) and Kanifing (81.4%). The
proportion of households who reported growing rice is highest in Janjanbureh with 58.3
percent. The share of households engaged in vegetable cultivation is slightly higher in the
urban areas 63.6 percent than rural areas (61.1%).
Table 7.17: Percentage distribution of households by type of crops grown by LGA
Rice Groundnu
t
Millet Maize Sorghu
m
Sesam
e
Find
o
Vegetabl
es
Local Government
Area
Total 13.4 3.7 3.5 2.6 0.4 0.4 1.0 61.8
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 6.8 6.8 6.8 12.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 81.4
Brikama 9.8 9.2 8.5 6.0 0.3 0.0 2.2 75.5
Mansakonko 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.9
Kerewan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2
Kuntaur 38.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 32.0
Janjanbureh 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7
Basse 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.0 .7 91.5
Residence Urban 4.8 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.6 63.6
Rural 17.1 5.2 4.9 3.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 61.1
7.18 Comparison of rainy/dry season in terms of income and importance
Table 7.18 shows the production level of households in the dry season compared to rainy
season in terms of income and importance. Analysis shows that 54.5 percent of households
reported that their income is more and important in the rainy season than the dry season.
Moreover, 30.5 percent of the households reported that the dry season is better than the rainy
season in terms of income and importance. About 6 percent households reported that the rainy
and dry seasons are the same in terms of income and importance and 9.2 percent cannot
compare the two seasons.
The proportion of households that reported their agricultural activities in terms of income and
importance as more in the rainy season than dry season is higher in the rural areas (60.6%)
than urban areas with 39.9 percent.
Across all LGAs, the highest proportion of households that reported rainy season was better in
terms of income and importance is Basse with 82.2 percent. Whilst the lowest agricultural
activities in the rainy season compared to the dry season in terms of income and importance is
reported in Kanifing (30.5%).
Table 7.18: Comparing dry to rainy seasons in terms of income/importance
Less now More now Same Don't know
Local
Government
Area
Total 54.5 30.5 5.8 9.2
Banjul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kanifing 30.5 33.6 3.8 32.1
Brikama 48.2 38.1 7.9 5.8
Mansakonko 69.7 16.2 10.9 3.2
Kerewan 41.8 47.9 7.2 3.1
Kuntaur 31.4 32.0 2.9 33.7
Janjanbureh 40.2 34.6 1.9 23.4
Basse 82.2 10.8 2.3 4.8
Residence
Urban 39.9 43.6 6.9 9.7
Rural 60.6 25.1 5.3 9.0
7.19 The reasons why dry season/rainy season agriculture is better in terms of income and importance
Table 7.19A, 7.19B and 7.19C respectively below shows the percentage distribution of the
reasons why dry season agricultural production is less, the same and more than rainy season
agricultural production in terms of income and importance by LGA.
Analysis in table 7.19A shows the reasons why the dry season agricultural production is less
than the rainy season agricultural production in terms of income and importance in the various
LGAs. The farmers in Brikama (39.6 %), Mansakonko (33.7%), Kerewan (48.2% ) and
Kuntaur (33.8% ) reported having less farm produce in the dry season as compare to the rainy
season; while farmers in Janjanbureh (38.6%) and Basse (68.6%) reported unavailability of
abundant water during the dry season.
Table 7.19A: Percentage distribution of the reason why dry season agricultural production is less than rainy season
agricultural production in terms of income and importance by LGA
Unavailabi
lity of
abundant
water
supply
Pest
and
disease
Do not
conduct
rainy
season
farming
Small
scale
farming
Unavailabi
lity of
fertilizer
Unavailabilit
y of farm
input
Less
farm
produce
Lack of
financial
capital
Less
human
labor
Others
Banjul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kanifing 27.9 0 34.9 16.3 0 20.9 0 0 0 0
Brikama 28.7 10.6 2.9 8.5 5 0.3 39.6 1.8 1.7 1
Mansakonko 28 18.6 0 10.9 0 0 33.7 1.5 17.8 1.9
Kerewan 13.7 13.7 1 2.8 0 0 48.2 1.6 2.8 16.3
Kuntaur 26.8 20.7 0 14.6 0 4.2 33.8 0 0 0
Janjanbureh 38.6 7.7 0 0 0.7 2.1 18.9 24.9 0 9.8
Basse 68.6 3.2 0 2.3 3.1 0 17.2 0 0.9 6.7
7.19B: The reasons why dry season/rainy season agriculture is the same in terms of
income and importance by LGA
Analysis in Table 7.19B shows the scenario where farmers reported experiencing that the dry
and rainy season agricultural production is the same in terms of income and importance and
hence considered both season as equally significant. Farmers in Kanifing (78.3%) reported
that in the rainy season most of their draft animal contract infections and hence they cannot be
very productive in the season; and those in Brikama (44.4%) are normally engaged in
subsistence vegetable production in the dry season. The farmers in Kerewan (52.7%) reported
having equal farm produce in both seasons.
Table 7.19B: Percentage distribution of the reason why dry and rainy season agricultural production is
the same in terms of income and importance by LGA
LGA Draft animal
contract
infections In
rainy season
Subsistence vegetable
production in dry
season
Equal production in
both seasons
Others
Banjul 0 0 0 0
Kanifing 78.3 0 21.7 0
Brikama 0 44.4 33.1 22.6
Mansakonko 0 100 0 0
Kerewan 4.1 14.9 52.7 28.4
Kuntaur 0 0 33.3 66.7
Janjanbureh 0 0 0 100
Basse 0 0 55 45
7.19C: Distribution of the reason why dry season agricultural production is more than
rainy season agricultural production by LGA
Analysis in table 7.19C shows that dry season agricultural production is more than rainy
season agricultural production in the various LGAs. In Kanifing 40.9 percent of farmers
responded that, in the dry season, they reserve more time for farming. In Brikama (20.7%)
and Kerewan (28.1%) farmers responded that they are heavily engaged in farming for
commercial purposes in the dry season. It is critical to note that in Basse 51.2 percent of
farmers reported that in the dry season they are only engaged in vegetables production.
Table 7.19C: Percentage distribution of the reason why dry season agricultural production is more than rainy season agricultural production by LGA
LGA spend more
time on
farming
activities
minimal
farming
activities in
dry season
have control
over water
supply/
abstinence of
flooding
application of
sufficient
fertilizer
vegetable
production
in dry season
large scale
farming in
dry season
cultivated
many variety
of crops
commercial
farming in dry
season
increase seed
application
low production
due to flooding
in rainy season
others
Banjul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kanifing 40.9 40.9 0 27.3 27.3 20.5 0 11.4 0 0 0
Brikama 12.8 2.9 3.4 13.1 13.1 10.6 12.5 20.7 3 0.8 20.2
Mansakonko 0 0 23.1 6.5 6.5 26.9 0 20.4 0 0 23.1
Kerewan 12.3 0 2 13.9 13.9 6.2 6.2 28.1 0 0 28.7
Kuntaur 6.6 0 13.8 9.7 9.7 4.6 15.8 5.1 6.1 16.3 21.9
Janjanbureh 0 0 11 18.2 18.2 17.4 8.1 9.7 4.2 4.7 29.7
Basse 0 0 0 51.2 51.2 12.2 12.7 10.8 0 0 13.1
CHAPTER 8: HYPERTENSION
8.0 Introduction
Hypertension like diabetes is a non-communicable health condition. To control or curb its
prevalence will require massive sensitization and awareness campaign on causes as well as its
preventive methods. It may be caused by an underlying problem such as kidney disease or
hormonal disorders. Though the exact causes of hypertension are usually unknown, several
factors have been highly linked with the condition: smoking, being overweight, lack of
physical activity, high level of salt intake, e.tc. There is no guarantee that a person with
hypertension will present any symptoms of the condition, however, extremely high blood
pressure may lead to some symptoms: severe headaches dizziness, problems with vision, etc.
Hypertension can best be prevented by changing one’s lifestyle. It is important to maintain a
healthy weight, reduce salt intake, reduce alcohol intake, and reduce stress. This can also be
accomplished by increasing public awareness and increasing the frequency of screenings for
the condition.
8.1 Respondents Source of Information and whether they ever heard about
Hypertension by LGA
Fig.10 illustrates the percentage distribution of the respondents’ source of information and
whether they ever heard about hypertension by LGA. At national level about 87 per cent of
the respondents have reported to have heard about hypertension. The proportion is highest in
Banjul (94.5 %), followed by Basse and Kanifing registering 93.7 percent and 90.1 percent
respectively. In the Janjanbureh, Kuntaur and Brikama awareness of the disease ranges from
85.3 percent to 89.1 percent. The LGAs with the lowest awareness of hypertension are
Kerewan and Mansakonko with a proportion of about 72 percent each. (See Fig.10)
8.2 Respondents source of information about hypertension by LGA
From Table 8.2 analysis shows that information about hypertension is mainly spread by
Friends and Family members accounting for about 71.8 percent, followed by the radio
(56.9%). Other media reported as sources of information about hypertension are Television
and Health Service Provider with proportions of 24.1 percent and 15.3 percent respectively.
The other category of sources of information about hypertension includes Health Advocacy
programs, Schools, Victims of the disease and Internet. These, however, are not regarded as
effective media in the spread of information about the disease as the proportions ranges from
0.5 percent to 6.9 percent.
Further analysis shows that friends and family play a major role in the spread of information
about hypertension. Across LGAs friends and family continues to be the most notable
medium for spreading information about the disease. The proportion is highest in Basse
(78.9%), followed by Mansakonko (74.5%) and Kuntaur with 74.0 percent. Information about
hypertension is also spread through the radio. This is very much evident in Kerewan (72.4%),
Banjul (70.1%), and Mansakonko (65.0%). On the other hand, the spread of information
about hypertension through the television tend to be most effective in Banjul (74.7%) than all
the other LGAs.
Table 8.2.: Percentage distribution of respondents source of information about hypertension by LGA
LGA
Sources of Information
Radio Television
Health
service
Provider
Health
Advocacy
Program Newspaper
Friends
and
Family School Internet
Victims
of
disease
Banjul 70.1 74.7 27.6 21.8 2.3 60.9 1.1 1.1 0.0
Kanifing 46.4 43.7 17.4 23.0 2.5 68.7 3.2 0.5 3.6
Brikama 58.6 24.4 14.2 9.2 1.4 71.6 2.3 0.6 1.8
Kerewan 72.4 27.1 33.3 14.1 0.0 58.9 1.0 0.0 4.2
Mansakonko 65.0 10.0 12.0 4.2 0.9 74.5 1.6 0.2 4.9
Kuntaur 57.6 10.8 11.1 6.9 0.7 74.0 3.5 0.7 4.2
Janjanbureh 60.2 18.4 21.0 6.1 1.9 69.9 3.2 0.0 0.6
Basse 52.8 8.8 10.6 4.7 0.6 78.9 0.4 0.7 0.8
Total 56.9 24.1 15.3 6.9 1.4 71.8 2.2 0.5 2.4
Percentages and totals are based on respondents.
8.3 Respondents source of information about hypertension by education level
Respondents who reported to have heard information about hypertension from the various
media outlets, a proportion of about f (55%) have attained secondary education, 44.6 percent
have attained primary school education and 0.8 percent have no formal education at all.
Analysis has shown that Friends and Family members tend to be one of the main sources of
information about the disease. Out of those who reported that Friends and Family are their
main source of information, more than 70 percent have attained either primary or secondary
education, and 65.0 percent have no formal education.
However, of the respondents who have heard about hypertension through the radio 60.0
percent did not have any formal education, 56.5 percent have attained primary education and
57.1 percent have secondary education. The above analysis shows that awareness about
hypertension is not based on the individual’s educational attainment.
Respondents who have heard about hypertension through the television (33.4%) had primary
education, followed by those with no formal education (25.0%) and those with secondary
education (16.4%).
Furthermore, Health Advocacy programs, Schools, Newspapers, Internet and e as shown in
the Table 8.3 were not considered as effective tools for spreading information about
hypertension.
Table 8.3: Percentage distribution of respondents by source of information about
hypertension and education level
Source of information
Education Level
None Primary Secondary
Radio 60.0 56.5 57.1
Television 25.0 33.4 16.4
Health Service Provider 27.5 15.1 15.3
Health Advocacy Programs 2.5 6.3 7.4
Newspaper 0.0 2.6 0.4
Friends and Family 65.0 71.4 72.2
Schools 2.5 4.4 0.3
Internet 0.0 1.1 0.0
Others 0.0 2.4 2.5
Total 0.8 44.6 54.6
8.4 Respondents source of information about hypertension by wealth quintile
Table 8.4 shows the percentage distribution of respondents by source of information about
hypertension according to wealth quintile. Across household wealth quintile, respondents in
the middle wealth quintile tend to be more informed about the disease (74.2%) through
friends and family compared to those in the richest category (69.7%). At least five in every
ten respondents across the various wealth quintiles, with exception to the second wealth
quintile have reported radio as their main source of information about the disease.
Table 8.4: Distribution of respondents by source of information about hypertension and
wealth quintile
Source of information Wealth Quintile
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Radio 59.8 61.4 56.6 54.2 52.3
Television 12.1 15.3 17.9 29 45.3
Health service provider 18.4 17.9 14.2 10 16
Health Advocacy programs 7.6 8.5 6.1 4.8 7.3
Newspaper 0.2 1.2 0.8 1.4 3.1
Friends and family 71.3 70.6 74.2 73.2 69.7
Schools 1.5 1.6 2 2.7 2.9
Internet 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 1.1
Others (specify) 1.8 3.6 1.6 2.8 2.2
Total 20.5 20.6 17.9 20.7 20.3
Percentages and totals are based on respondents.
8.5 Respondents perception on things that can lead to hypertension by LGA
Respondents were asked to name things that they thought could lead to persons developing
hypertension. Across LGAs the overall perception of respondents are that: ‘eating too much
fat’ (34.5%) and ‘stresses’ (31.1%) are the main causes of hypertension. In addition, about 20
percent of the respondents stated that ‘lack of exercise’ is a possible cause for the disease,
while 23.6 percent did not know what actually causes hypertension.
Out of the respondents who believed that eating too much fat is a possible cause for the
disease the highest (45.1%) are in Mansakonko; whereas the highest proportion of
respondents who reported stress as one of the main causes of hypertension are found in Banjul
69.8 percent. Further details classified under ‘others specify’ and considered as ‘Life style’
and reported as possible a cause of hypertension include: too much jumbo in the food, type of
food we eat, too much salt, eating too much, and starchy food/too much starch. Other possible
causes are: pregnancy period, sunlight, sickness from God, and too much blood in the body.
(See the Table 8.5)
Table 8.5: Percentage distribution of respondents perception on things that can lead to hypertension by LGA
LGA
Family
history of
hyper-
tension
Age
ove
r 40
Over-
weig
ht
Eatin
g too
much
sugar
Eatin
g too
much
fat
Old
age Stress
Lack of
exercise
Ethnic
origin
Smokin
g/Alcoh
ol
Don't
Know Others
Banjul 7.0 2.3 7.0 4.7 17.4 35.0 69.8 10.5 0.0 9.3 19.8 7.2
Kanifing 7.1 0.6 4.6 5.4 34.0 2.0 48.8 14.2 1.3 1.4 17.5 4.8
Brikama 15.6 6.0 12.0 7.6 38.0 8.9 31.6 21.6 2.0 0.6 16.7 7.7
Kerewan 22.8 9.3 10.9 8.8 34.7 2.1 14.0 15.5 1.6 0.0 39.4 6.7
Mansakonko 5.8 0.5 3.7 7.2 45.1 2.1 22.0 28.2 0.2 0.5 32.4 4.7
Kuntaur 1.4 1.0 8.7 4.5 27.9 13.9 34.1 26.1 0.7 0.0 18.8 10.4
Janjanbureh 5.5 3.6 10.7 7.5 22.1 10.4 23.8 21.8 2.6 0.0 21.2 12.4
Basse 5.0 1.4 4.1 5.5 29.7 2.8 15.7 14.8 1.5 0.4 42.0 6.8
Total 10.1 3.4 8.2 6.7 34.5 6.1 31.1 19.7 1.6 0.7 23.6 7.6
Percentages and totals are based on respondents. *Others (LIFESTYLE) include: too much jumbo, type of food we eat, too much salt,
eating too much, starchy food, etc. and pregnancy period, high blood and sunlight
8.6 Percentage distribution of respondents’ perception on things that can lead to
hypertension by Education Level
According to Table 8.6 most of the things that might lead to a person developing hypertension
as reported by the respondents include among others: stress, eating too much fat, etc.
Of those who reported that ‘eating too much fat’ could lead to hypertension, 32.2 percent
attained secondary education while 37.3 percent have primary education. It is important to
note that even those without any formal education (37.5%) concurred that the consumption of
fatty foods can lead to hypertension.
Those who reported that ‘stress’ is a possible cause to developing hypertension the highest
proportion reported was among those who attained primary education (39.8%) and just about
a quarter (24%) attained secondary education.
Further analysis shows that lack of exercise could lead to hypertension. This was reported by
a proportion of about 21 percent and 19 percent of the respondents who attained primary and
secondary education respectively.
Others though identified as things that could lead to a person developing hypertension
accounted for a very small proportion.
Table 8.6: Percentage distribution of respondents perception on things that can
lead to hypertension by education level
Cause of hypertension Education
None Primary Secondary
Family history of hypertension 5.0 10.2 10.2
Age over 40 7.5 3.2 3.5
Overweight 7.5 8.6 8.0
Eating too much sugar 12.5 6.8 6.5
Eating too much fat 37.5 37.3 32.2
Old age 5.0 6.1 6.1
Stress 30.0 39.8 24.0
Lack of exercise 10.0 20.7 19.0
Ethnic origin 0.0 1.5 1.6
Smoking/Alcohol 0.0 0.9 0.6
Don't Know 30.0 17.7 28.2
Others (specify) 5.0 7.8 7.7
Total 0.9 44.3 54.8
Percentages and totals are based on respondents. *OTHERS include: too much
jumbo/salt in the food, type of food we eat, eating too much, pregnancy period,
starchy food, sunlight, etc.
8.7 Perception of respondents by perception on things that can lead to hypertension by
Wealth Quintile
Analysis of Table 8.7 shows that ‘stress and ‘eating too much fat’ most often could lead to
someone developing hypertension. Across wealth quintiles the data shows that respondents in
the richest quintile are the most vulnerable to developing hypertension through stress (46.9%),
followed by the fourth quintile (35.3%) and the poorest quintile have the least chance of
developing hypertension through stress (18.5%). This means that the probability for the rich
developing hypertension is higher than that of the poor.
The proportions of respondents who reported ‘eating too much fat’ also is a potential cause
for someone developing hypertension are virtually the same between the second (36.9%) and
middle (36.8%) wealth quintiles. Generally, there is not much variation from the poorest
quintile to the richest wealth quintile as one in every three persons is likely to develop
hypertension through the consumption of fat. (See Table 8.7)
Table 8.7: Percentage distribution of respondents by perception on things that can lead to
hypertension by Wealth Quintile
Causes of hypertension Wealth Quintile
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Family history of hypertension 7.9 13.6 10.1 9.5 9.4
Age over 40 2.8 6.1 3.2 2.0 2.9
Overweight 6.8 9.1 10.7 7.9 7.0
Eating too much sugar 6.7 7.9 6.0 5.9 6.6
Eating too much fat 28.9 36.9 36.8 36.0 34.2
Old age 6.2 6.8 7.8 5.2 4.7
Stress 18.5 23.8 31.4 35.3 46.9
Lack of exercise 19.1 18.7 21.8 21.1 18.0
Ethnic origin 1.3 2.1 1.3 1.0 2.0
Smoking/Alcohol 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 2.4
Don't Know 33.8 26.4 20.0 21.1 15.9
Other (specify) 9.5 7.7 9.8 6.4 5.2
Total 20.7 20.7 17.7 20.6 20.3
Percentages and totals are based on respondents. * OTHERS include: too much jumbo/salt, type
of food we eat, eating too much, pregnancy period, starchy food, sunlight, sickness from God and
too much blood
8.8 Respondents’ opinion on what are the early symptoms of hypertensions by LGA
Table 8.8 presents some of the early symptoms of hypertension as reported by respondents.
Overall, 60 percent of the respondents reported that ‘dizziness’ is an early symptom for
someone developing hypertension in the future. Of this, the highest proportion was registered
in Kuntaur (70.9%), Janjanbureh (65.4%), Brikama (64.5%) and Mansakonko (64.7%). The
lowest proportion of respondents who reported dizziness as an early symptom were in Basse
(43.3%) and Kerewan (45.1%).
About a quarter (25%) of respondents reported that they don’t know’ the symptoms of
hypertension and a higher proportion of them reside in Basse (43.1%), followed by Banjul
(32.1%) and Kerewan (34.7%).
Other symptoms of hypertension are: tiredness/lethargy and vision problem. The ‘Other’
category specified by the respondents includes: headache, too much sweating, and
temperature’.
TABLE 8.8: Percentage distribution of respondents opinion on what are the early symptoms of hypertensions LGA
LGA
Symptoms of hypertension
Passing
lots of
urine
Excess
thirst
Tiredness/
lethargy
Loss of
appetite
Weight
loss
Vision
problem
Skin and
genital
infections Dizziness
Don't
know Others
Banjul 13.1 0.0 27.4 10.7 4.8 25.0 0.0 47.6 32.1 4.8
Kanifing 1.8 1.7 18.0 2.0 5.2 23.0 1.0 60.1 23.4 7.1
Brikama 5.9 4.2 21.4 4.8 6.3 10.6 1.6 64.8 19.6 8.8
Kerewan 6.2 13.5 26.9 6.2 9.8 19.7 1.0 45.1 34.7 5.2
Mansakonko 3.2 3.2 11.1 2.3 3.9 14.1 1.6 64.7 24.2 11.8
Kuntaur 3.5 0.7 8.4 1.8 5.6 13.7 3.9 70.9 14.4 12.3
Janjanbureh 2.9 2.0 6.5 3.6 3.9 10.8 2.3 65.4 19.0 8.5
Basse 0.8 0.3 5.1 3.1 9.6 17.2 0.1 43.3 43.1 5.4
Total 3.9 3.0 15.9 3.7 6.3 15.0 1.4 60.0 24.8 8.2
Percentages and totals are based on respondents. *OTHER includes: headache, too much sweating, high blood pressure and temperature
8.9 Respondents’ opinion on what are the early symptoms of hypertension by
educational level
According to the respondents interviewed some of the early symptoms of hypertension among
others include dizziness, vision problem, tiredness/lethargy, passing lots of urine, etc. Out of
the respondents who reported ‘dizziness’ as an early symptom of hypertension, a proportion
of 57.5 percent have attained secondary education, 63.2 percent have primary education and
45.0 percent are without any formal education. This is an indication that the educated
individuals tend to be more aware about the early symptoms of the disease than the
uneducated.
Furthermore, those who reported of ‘tiredness/lethargy’ (19%) have primary education while
just 13.4 percent attained secondary education. And for those who highlighted ‘vision
problem’ as a symptom (17% and 13%) attained primary and secondary education
respectively. This shows that knowledge about early symptoms of hypertension is indeed low
at these categories.
Other symptoms reported accounted for a very small proportion: headache; too much
sweating, skin and genital infection, temperature. (See Table 8.9)
Table 8.9: Percentage distribution of respondents opinion on what are the early
Symptoms of hypertensions by Educational level
Symptoms of hypertension
Education
None Primary Secondary
Passing lots of urine 5.0 5.1 3.0
Excess thirst 5.0 3.1 2.9
Tiredness/ lethargy 17.5 19.0 13.4
Loss of appetite 10.0 3.9 3.4
Weight loss 12.5 6.3 6.1
Vision problem 12.5 17.3 13.2
Skin & genital infections 0.0 1.6 1.3
Dizziness 45.0 63.2 57.5
Don't know 25.0 19.9 28.7
Others (specify) 10.0 9.8 6.9
Total 0.8 44.6 54.6
Percentages and totals are based on respondents. *OTHERS include: headache, too much
sweating, high blood pressure, and temperature
8.10 Percentage distribution of respondents’ opinion on what are the early Symptoms of
hypertensions by wealth quintile
Table 8.10 illustrates some of the early symptoms of hypertension as reported by respondents.
Dizziness as a symptom of hypertension is well visible across the wealth quintiles. The
highest proportion is registered among respondents in the fourth quintile (63.4%), followed by
the middle and second quintiles with 61.9 percent and 60.5 percent respectively. Another
early symptom reported by respondents is vision problem with the highest proportion under
the fourth and poorest quintiles accounting for 19.1 percent and 14.4 percent respectively.
Respondents who reported that they don’t know the early symptoms of hypertension have
higher proportions in the poorest and middle quintiles than the other wealth quintiles.
Table 8.10: Percentage distribution of respondents’ opinion on what are the early symptoms of
hypertensions by Wealth Quintile
Symptoms of hypertension Wealth Quintile
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Passing lots of urine 2.7 3.8 4.1 4.1 5.1
Excess thirst 3.3 4.7 2.1 2.7 2.1
Tiredness/ lethargy 9.2 17.2 14.9 18.4 19.9
Loss of appetite 3.2 4.8 3.9 3.1 3.4
Weight loss 5.6 7.1 6.1 6.6 6.0
Vision problem 14.4 12.5 13.9 15.1 19.1
Skin and genital infections 1.7 1.2 1.8 1.3 1.0
Dizziness 54.9 60.5 61.9 63.4 59.3
Don't know 30.7 25 23.9 21.5 22.8
Others 7.8 7.9 8.4 7.9 8.7
Total 20.5 20.6 17.9 20.7 20.3
Percentages and totals are based on respondents. * OTHERS include: headache, too much sweating, high blood pressure, and
temperature
8.11 Respondents’ perception on the most likely gender and age group to be affected
with hypertension by LGA
Table 8.11 shows the distribution for the perception of respondents on the most likely gender
and age group to be affected by hypertension. Overall 58 percent of respondents reported that
both sexes are equally vulnerable to the disease. In terms of LGA, the highest proportion was
recorded in Banjul (62.6%), followed by Basse and Kuntaur LGAs which accounted for 61.1
percent and 60.9 percent respectively. However, further analysis has shown that females are
more vulnerable to the disease (15.7%) than their male counterparts (4.3%).
Analysis across age groups shows that anyone can be affected by hypertension. This was
reported by about 36 percent of the respondents. Of that nearly one half of them (47.2%)
reside in Kerewan and 38.4 percent in Kanifing. The proportion is the same for Banjul and
Brikama LGAs, (36.3%) each. However, those in the age group of 40-49 years tend to be less
likely affected by hypertension (11.8%) than the older age group 50 years and above (18.7%).
Fourteen percent could not state which gender is most likely to be affected by the disease
while about 12% reported they ‘don’t know’.
Table 8.11: Percentage distribution of respondents’ perception on the most likely gender and age group to be affected by
hypertension by LGA
SEX Local Government Area Total
Banjul Kanifing Brikama Kerewan Mansakonko Kuntaur Janjanbureh Basse
Male 2.2 5.1 2.8 0.0 1.5 8.1 7.5 8.3 4.3
Female 20.9 21.3 19.9 3.0 7.1 11.3 11.7 11.9 15.7
Both sexes 62.6 56.5 58.0 59.9 53.1 60.9 58.9 61.1 58.0
Don't know 9.9 7.8 8.2 8.6 9.7 5.1 7.5 13.2 8.8
Not stated 4.4 9.3 11.1 28.6 28.6 14.6 14.4 5.5 13.1
AGE GROUP
< 20 years 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4
20-24 years 12.1 4.0 1.4 0.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 2.2 2.0
30-39 years 2.2 7.9 6.3 1.1 5.4 5.1 2.2 7.9 6.0
40-49 years 16.5 13.2 17.1 1.9 7.4 7.8 7.5 5.8 11.8
50+ years 16.5 15.2 16.8 8.9 9.4 28.7 31.9 28.7 18.7
Anyone 36.3 38.4 36.3 47.2 35.9 35.2 28.3 31.1 35.8
Don't know 11.0 11.4 9.9 11.9 11.2 6.3 12.5 17.6 11.5
Not stated 4.4 9.5 11.9 28.6 28.8 15.5 16.1 6.3 13.8
8.12 Respondents perception on the most likely gender and age group to be affected by
hypertension by Educational level
Table 8.12 shows the percentage distribution of respondents’ perception on the most likely
gender and age groups to be affected with hypertension by educational attainment. According
to the findings 57.3 percent of the respondents who attained secondary education reported that
both gender are vulnerable to the disease and those that attained primary education (61.4%)
shared a similar view. In addition, about 72 percent of the respondents did not state which
gender is most likely to be affected and these are the people with no formal education at all.
Further analysis shows that 3 out of every 10 person interviewed reported anyone can be
affected by the disease; and these are the respondents who attained either primary or
secondary education. (See Table 8.12)
Table 8.12: percentage distribution of respondents’ perception on the most likely gender
and age group to be affected by hypertension by educational level
None Primary Secondary
Sex
Male 0.7 4.6 4.3
Female 2.8 19.8 13.2
Both sexes 19.9 61.4 57.3
Don’t know 5.0 6.7 10.6
Not stated 71.6 7.4 14.7
Age Group
< 20 years 0.0 0.3 0.5
20-24 years 0.7 2.9 1.4
30-39 years 0.7 8.1 4.7
40-49 years 2.8 14.1 10.5
50+ years 6.4 18.3 19.6
Anyone 12.8 39.3 34.3
Don’t know 5.0 9.0 13.6
Not stated 71.6 8.0 15.5
8.13 Respondents perception on the most likely gender and age group to be affected by
hypertension by wealth quintile
Table 8.13 shows the distribution of respondents by perception on the most likely gender and
age groups to be affected with hypertension by wealth quintile. Analysis shows that both
sexes 958.5%) have equal chances of getting the disease. Generally there is not much
variation between the household wealth quintiles. The proportions range from 52 percent to
62.8 percent which clearly indicates that no particular gender is vulnerable to hypertension.
In addition, anyone can be affected by hypertension regardless of their age or socioeconomic
status. The data indicates that one in every three persons across wealth quintiles is likely to be
affected by the disease. (See Table 8.13 and Fig.11)
Table 8.13: Percentage distribution of respondents perception on the most likely gender and age
group to be affected by hypertension by wealth quintile
Wealth quintile
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Sex
Male 5.1 3.2 4.4 3.7 5.3
Female 9.6 10.8 16.0 21.5 21.3
Both sexes 59.8 62.8 52.0 56.6 58.5
Don’t know 10.1 9.3 8.8 8.3 7.4
Not stated 15.4 13.9 18.8 9.9 7.6
Age Group
< 20 years 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3
20-24 years 1.7 0.4 1.4 2.2 4.5
30-39 years 4.5 3.7 5.9 7.8 8.4
40-49 years 7.2 10.5 12.7 15.7 13.1
50+ years 22.6 18.1 18.3 17.7 16.5
Anyone 34.1 39.7 31.6 35.6 38.1
Don’t know 12.6 12.9 10.1 10.4 11.1
Not stated 16.9 14.3 19.4 10.1 8.0
Total 21.1 20.7 19.2 19.9 19.1
8.14 Respondents perception on preventive measures against hypertension by LGA
Overall, the most likely actions that can be taken to prevent someone from developing the
disease in the future as reported by the respondents includes: doing exercises (17%) and
checks-up/screening (18.9%), The need to do exercises for prevention against hypertension
was reported also by nearly one in every five of the respondents in Brikama (20%) and one in
four of those in Mansakonko LGAs (25.8%).
However, in Kanifing, Kuntaur and Basse the perception is different; a proportion of 14.2
percent, 16 percent and 18.4 percent respectively reported that “healthy diet/eating habit’’ will
make it less likely to develop hypertension. In Brikama about 21 percent of the respondents
reported that limiting fatty foods will reduce the chances of getting hypertension.
The ‘others (specify)’ category includes: avoid stress, eat food with lime, avoid too much salt,
and avoid eating too much bread has a very low proportion (5.5%).
Table 8.14: Percentage distribution of respondents perception on preventive measures against hypertension by LGA
Preventive measures Local Government Area
Banjul Kanifing Brikama Kerewan Mansakonko Kuntaur Janjanbureh Basse Total
No action 6.9 1.5 0.8 1.6 0.0 10.1 12.7 0.8 2.4
Weight control 2.3 1.6 4.4 2.2 1.9 1.0 1.5 0.2 2.5
Weight loss 1.1 0.8 2.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.3
Exercise 9.2 11.6 19.5 14.0 25.8 13.2 18.0 15.1 17.0
Healthy diet/eating
habits
8.0 14.2 12.8 3.2 9.2 16.0 13.1 18.4 13.1
Limit sugar 4.6 2.0 2.2 3.2 2.7 1.7 4.9 1.7 2.4
Limit fatty foods 11.5 16.3 20.8 15.6 12.3 6.3 4.5 9.8 15.4
Health checks/
screening
36.8 28.9 12.5 18.8 14.2 29.6 24.0 14.6 18.9
Don't know 10.3 15.7 15.3 37.1 29.2 6.6 11.6 32.2 18.7
Herbal Medicine 0.0 0.1 3.6 0.5 1.0 8.7 5.6 2.9 2.8
Others 9.2 7.3 6.1 3.2 3.1 5.9 3.3 3.1 5.5
Percentages and totals are based on respondents. *OTHERS include: avoid stress, eat food with lime, avoid too much salt, avoid eating too much bread
8.15 Respondents perception on preventive measures against hypertension by education
level
Table 8.15 shows the percentage distribution of respondents’ perception on preventive
measures to be taken against hypertension by educational attainment. Overall, more than half
of the respondents have secondary education (53%), whereas about 46 percent have attained
primary education and less than one percent have no formal education. Further analysis shows
that a proportion of (34.3%) who did not have any formal education reported that they did not
know of any preventive methods, while about 26 percent reported that doing health
checks/screening can reduce the risk of getting the disease.
Among those with primary education, 20 percent reported Health checks/screening as a
preventive method and 19.8 percent reported physical exercise. Those with secondary
education (17.9%) reported health checks/screening and 22.6 percent reported they ‘don’t
know any preventive measure against hypertension.
Table 8.15: Percentage distribution of respondents perception on preventive measures
against hypertension by education level
Preventive measures Education
None Primary Secondary
No action 0.0 1.6 3.2
Weight control 0.0 2.7 2.5
Weight loss 0.0 1.1 1.4
Exercise 11.4 19.8 14.7
Healthy diet/eating habits 14.3 13.6 12.6
Limit sugar 5.7 1.6 3.0
Limit fatty foods 2.9 16.7 14.4
Health checks/ screening 25.7 20.0 17.9
Don't know 34.3 14.0 22.6
Herbal Medicine 2.9 1.8 3.7
Others 2.9 7.2 4.0
Total 0.8 46.3 52.9
Percentages and totals are based on respondents. *OTHERS include: stress, avoid too much salt, eat with lime,
avoid eating too much bread
8.16 Respondents perception on preventive measures against hypertension by wealth
quintile
The most likely actions that can be taken to make it less likely that one will develop
hypertension in future include among others is: to be involved in exercise, conduct health
checks/screening, reduce the consumption of fats, etc. This is distributed across all the wealth
quintiles without following any specific pattern. However, those in the richest quintile are
most likely to go for health checks/screening (24.5%) than the other wealth quintiles.
On the other hand those in the fourth quintile are more likely to be involved in doing exercises
(19.5%) than the rest of the wealth quintiles.
Table 8.16: Percentage distribution of respondents perception on preventive measures against
hypertension by wealth quintile
Preventive measures Wealth quintile
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
No action 5.3 2.3 1.8 1.7 1.2
Weight control 1.6 1.8 3.6 3.3 2.4
Weight loss 0.5 2.0 1.5 0.9 1.6
Exercise 13.4 19.4 17.1 19.6 15.5
Healthy diet/eating habits 14.7 10.5 13.3 12.3 14.6
Limit sugar 2.7 2.8 2.6 1.7 2.2
Limit fatty foods 10.1 17.0 16.0 17.8 15.7
Health checks/ screening 19.3 16.6 16.2 17.5 24.5
Don't know 25.1 19.3 18.3 16.6 14.6
Herbal Medicine 4.8 3.2 3.8 2.0 0.7
Others 2.6 5.1 5.8 6.6 7.2
Total 19.6 20.4 17.5 21.3 21.2
Percentages and totals are based on respondents. *OTHERS include: avoid stress, eat food with lime, avoid too much salt,
avoid eating too much bread
CHAPTER 9: DIABETES
9.0 Introduction
The Gambia has witnessed a significant increase in the prevalence of one most common
health conditions namely diabetes. Controlling and reversing this trend requires a lot of effort
and resources to sensitize the population and raise awareness not only on the factors that
increase the risk of getting them but also on managing them. It is evident, from the results of
the CWIQ 2014 that the general diabetes knowledge is extremely high. However, change in
the population in terms of the dietary practice and life-style is still a major challenge. There is
some evidence to show that a combination of exercise diet and body weight control could be
some means of getting rid of the symptoms without medication.
9.1 Knowledge of Diabetes
During the survey two household members aged 20 years or more were randomly selected
and interviewed on their knowledge about diabetes. As illustrated in Figure 12A below, out of
the 5,346 respondents interviewed 88.7% percent indicated that they have heard about
diabetes and only 11.3 percent did not. The highest proportions of respondents that have heard
of diabetes were recorded in Basse, Banjul and Kanifing LGAs with 94.7 percent. 94.5
percent and 92.4 percent respectively and the lowest were reported in Mansakonko 72.5
percent and Kerewan 76.6 percent.
94.5 92.4 90
72.576.6
87.8 90.194.7
88.7
5.57.6 10
27.523.4
12.2 9.95.3
11.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Figure 12A: Respondents Awareness of Diabetes
Yes No
Analysis of the data by wealth status of households shows that respondents in the richest
quintile (93.4) are more likely to hear about diabetes than those from households in the
middle quintile (80.5%).
82.7 84.2 80.589.7 93.4
86
16.8 15.211 9.5 5.7
11.8
0.5 0.58.5
0.8 0.9 2.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Figure 12B Respondent by awareness of Diabetes by wealth quintile
Yes No NS
The percentage of respondents who have heard about diabetes seem to rise from 81.2 percent
among those with no education to 88.3 percent among respondents with primary education
and to 95.7 percent among respondents with higher education.
Table 9.1: Percentage distribution of respondents whether they ever heard about
diabetes, source of information and highest level of education
None Primary Secondary Higher Vocational Missing Total
Yes 81.2 88.3 93.8 95.7 96.8 92.3 86
No 15.4 11.3 5.8 3.3 3.2 7.7 11.8
Not Stated 3.4 0.4 0.4 1 0 0 2.2
9.2 Main source of information about diabetes
Respondents who have heard about diabetes were further asked about their source of
information about diabetes. It can be seen from the Table 9.2 that overall, about seven in ten
(72.5%) of those who have heard of diabetes reported that friends and family was their main
sources of information. This is followed by radio with 59.0 percent and television with 24.8
percent. Health service providers and Health Advocacy programs/ Instruments /Drama
accounted for 14.4 percent and 6.7 percent respectively. The other important sources of
information on diabetes are Schools (2.1%) and Victims of the disease/Patient (1.3%).
Analysis of the data by LGA shows that Friends and family as a source of information on
diabetes is highest in Basse (81.2%), Kuntaur (79.7%) and Mansakonko (74.7%). The lowest
proportions were observed in Kerewan and Banjul with 61.1 percent and 62.2 percent
respectively.
Among the respondents who mentioned radio as a source of information on diabetes, the
highest proportions were recorded in Kerewan with 73.6 percent, followed by Mansakonko
with 68.6 percent. Banjul (73.3%) and Kanifing (46.1%) have the highest proportions of
respondents who reported television as the source of information about diabetes. Basse (8.8%)
and Mansakonko (10.7%) reported the lowest proportions that mentioned television as source
of information about diabetes.
Table 9.2: Respondents by source of information on diabetes
Local Government Area Source of information about diabetes
Radio Television Health
service
provider
Health
programs
News-
papers
Friends/
family
Schools Internet Diabetic
patient
Others
Banjul 65.6 73.3 24.4 20.0 1.1 62.2 3.3 1.1 .0 .0
Kanifing 50.2 46.1 16.1 3.5 2.7 68.3 3.3 1.0 1.9 .0
Brikama 58.9 24.7 13.0 9.2 1.8 71.8 2.1 .4 1.0 .1
Mansakonko 68.6 10.7 7.7 4.9 .9 74.7 2.3 .0 3.7 .0
Kerewan 73.6 23.8 25.9 10.9 .0 61.1 .5 .0 1.6 .0
Kuntaur 61.6 12.5 14.6 6.0 2.1 79.7 2.8 1.4 .0 .0
Janjanbureh 64.3 17.5 25.1 7.9 1.0 69.4 2.7 .0 .3 .0
Basse 56.5 8.8 10.9 2.5 .4 81.2 .3 .7 .6 .0
Total 59.0 24.8 14.4 6.7 1.6 72.5 2.1 .6 1.3 .0
9.3 Respondents’ knowledge about diabetes and source of information by wealth quintile
Respondent from households in the second wealth quintile (63.9%) are more likely to get
information about diabetes from the radio than those from the middle (59.3%) wealth quintile.
On the other hand respondents from households in the fourth wealth quintile (74.7%) are
more likely to get information from friends and family than those in the second wealth
quintile (71.3%).
Table 9.3: Percentage distribution of respondents whether they ever heard about diabetes, Source of
information and wealth levels
Wealth quintile
Source of information about diabetes Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Radio 62.7 63.9 59.3 55.1 54.3
Television 10.6 16.0 17.4 30.9 47.2
Health service provider 16.6 16.0 13.0 10.5 15.7
Health Advocacy program 7.7 8.3 5.8 4.6 7.3
Newspaper 0.3 .9 1.3 1.2 4.0
Friends and family 73.0 71.3 73.0 74.7 70.6
Schools 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.2 3.1
Internet 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.1 1.7
Diabetic patient 0.6 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.1
Others (specify) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
9.4 Knowledge of things that may lead to developing diabetes
There are differences in terms of LGA with regards to perception on the things that may lead
to diabetes. Respondents from Banjul, Kanifing and Kuntaur are more likely to state eating
too much sugar and sweet foods as some of the things that can lead to diabetes with 76.4
percent, 72.3 percent and 69.9 percent respectively. Kerewan and Mansakonko have the
lowest proportions of respondents that are of the view that eating too much sugar and sweet
foods can lead to developing diabetes. Banjul (36.0%) and Kanifing (23.0%) registered the
highest proportions of respondents who reported that eating too much fat can lead to
developing diabetes, while the lowest proportions were recorded in Kuntaur (6.7%) and
Kerewan (6.8%). Respondents who reported that they don’t know the things that can lead to
developing diabetes have a higher proportion in Kerewan and Mansakonko with about 42
percent each. (See Table 9.4)
9.5 Knowledge on the causes of diabetes by wealth quintile
According to the results of the survey, knowledge about the things that can lead to getting
diabetes seem to increase with the wealth status of the household of respondents. The
respondents from richer household are more likely to mention eating too much sugar and
Table 9.4: Percentage distribution of respondents’ knowledge on the things that may lead to
developing diabetes by Local government area
Causes of diabetes Banjul Kanifi
ng
Brika
ma
Kerewa
n
Mansakonk
o
Kuntau
r
Janjanbure
h
Basse
Family history of diabetes 16.9 9.0 15.4 15.6 3.3 3.9 4.5 4.5
Age over 40 4.5 0.2 5.1 4.2 0.9 0.7 2.7 0.4
Overweight 4.5 3.0 4.2 3.6 1.4 2.1 3.8 1.3
Eating too much sugar 76.4 72.3 67.8 47.4 50.0 69.9 56.5 52.0
Eating too much fat 36.0 23.0 11.0 6.8 10.5 6.7 9.9 7.2
Old age 4.5 0.6 9.6 6.8 0.9 4.3 5.8 1.4
Stress 4.5 2.4 4.1 1.6 2.6 2.1 3.1 1.1
Lack of exercise 15.7 14.3 18.1 12.5 14.5 15.2 14.4 17.2
Ethnic origin 1.1 1.7 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.1
Smoking/Alcohol 2.2 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.4 1.4 0.0
Don't Know 12.4 15.4 15.5 41.1 41.8 20.2 25.3 38.1
Jumbo 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.6
Rice 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.3
Eating fruits 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1
High blood pressure 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Too much starch in the body 2.2 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Frozen food 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
High rib level 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.4
sweet foods (72.0 %) than those from poorer households (57.1%). On the other hand,
respondents from poorer households (32.7%) are more likely to lack knowledge about things
that can lead to developing diabetes than those from richer households (12.6%).
9.6 Distribution on the causes of diabetes by educational attainment
The distribution of respondents by perception of things that can lead to diabetes is presented
in Table 9.6 below. Respondents with primary (69.7%) and those with no formal education
(60.5%) are more likely to state eating too much sugar and Sweet foods as things that can lead
to developing diabetes. Family history as a cause of diabetes is more likely to be reported by
respondents’ with no formal education (18.4%) than those with primary (10.8%) and
secondary (9.5%) education. The same trend can be observed with other causes of diabetes:
age over 40, overweight, eating too much fat, old age and lack of exercise.
Causes of diabetes Table 9.5: Percentage distribution on the knowledge of the causes of
diabetes by wealth quintile
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Family history of diabetes 5.6 12.4 10.3 9.3 13.1
Age over 40 1.8 4.3 2.7 2.4 2.1
Overweight 2.7 3.3 2.6 2.7 4.1
Eating too much sugar 57.1 57.2 65.6 65.0 72.0
Eating too much fat 7.5 7.8 8.7 14.7 23.4
Old age 4.5 7.4 7.0 3.5 3.6
Stress 1.3 2.9 3.0 4.0 3.4
Lack of exercise 13.3 14.5 19.0 17.1 17.5
Ethnic origin 1.4 0.4 1.4 0.7 1.8
Smoking/Alcohol 0.4 0.2 .4 0.8 0.7
Don't Know 32.7 29.2 20.7 20.7 12.6
Jumbo 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.0
Rice 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6
Eating fruits 0.1 0.0 o.0 0.4 0.2
High blood pressure 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2
Too much starch in the body 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 1.6
Frozen food 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
High rib level 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Others 0.5 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.9
Table 9.6: Percentage distribution on the causes of diabetes by educational attainment
Educational Attainment
Causes of diabetes None Primary Secondary
Family history of diabetes 18.4 10.8 9.5
Age over 40 10.5 3.0 2.2
Overweight 5.3 3.9 2.4
Eating too much sugar Sweet foods 60.5 69.7 58.1
Eating too much fat 18.4 16.7 9.0
Old age 10.5 5.1 5.0
Stress .0 4.0 2.1
Lack of exercise 23.7 19.9 13.1
Ethnic origin .0 1.2 1.1
Smoking/Alcohol .0 .7 .4
Don't Know 21.1 15.7 29.5
Jumbo .0 .2 .3
Rice .0 .4 .4
Eating fruits .0 .2 .1
High blood pressure .0 .1 .0
Too much starch in the body .0 .9 .2
Cold food. Frozen food .0 .0 .0
High rib level .0 .0 .0
Others .0 .9 .7
Total .8 45.2 54.0
9.7 Knowledge of the early symptoms of diabetes
Respondents’ perception on the early symptoms of diabetes by local government area is
presented in Table 9.7 below. Banjul and Kanifing LGAs have the highest proportions of
respondents who reported passing lots of urine as an early symptom of diabetes with 40.4
percent and 36.1 percent respectively; while Kuntaur LGA has the lowest proportion of 5.7
percent. The lack of knowledge about the early symptoms of diabetes in highest in Basse with
about 63.4 percent, followed by Kerewan with about 62.7 percent and lowest in Banjul and
Brikama with 33.7 percent and 34.9 percent respectively.
Table 9.7: Percentage distribution on the perception of the early symptoms of diabetes by LGA
Symptoms of diabetes Local Government Area
Banjul Kanifing Brikama Kerewan Mansakonko Kuntaur Janjanbureh Bass
e
Passing lots of urine 40.4 36.1 31.8 14.0 15.1 5.7 10.3 11.0
Excess thirst/Drink too much
of water
1.1 3.2 5.1 5.7 4.4 1.1 3.4 1.0
Tiredness/ lethargy 21.3 12.5 16.2 8.8 6.5 3.6 3.8 5.4
Loss of appetite 11.2 3.2 6.0 9.3 5.3 1.1 2.1 4.0
Weight loss 28.1 22.9 15.9 11.9 7.4 17.4 11.3 15.3
Vision problem 5.6 2.6 2.7 4.1 3.0 6.0 6.5 4.1
Skin and genital infections 10.1 6.2 17.1 4.7 21.4 18.9 15.8 2.3
Don't know 33.7 37.2 34.9 62.7 54.4 54.8 58.8 63.4
Injury/wound that does not
easily get healed
2.2 3.2 4.6 2.6 4.4 6.0 2.7 6.1
Stomach ache .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .7 .3
Swelling 1.1 .6 .4 1.6 .2 .4 1.4 1.8
Headache .0 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1
Holding body joints/aching
body joints
.0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .7 .0 .3
Others .0 1.1 .7 .0 .2
.7
1.0 .4
Total 1.9 18.7 39.0 4.1 9.1 6.0 6.2 15.1
9.8 Distribution of respondents’ perception on the early symptoms of diabetes
Table 9.8 shows the distribution of respondents’ perception on the early symptoms by Wealth
quintile. Passing lots of urine as an early symptoms of diabetes is more likely to be reported
by respondents from rich households (38.0%), than those from poor households (9.1%). On
the contrary skin and genital infections as an early symptom of diabetes is more likely to be
reported by respondents from middle class households (15.4%), than those from rich
households (9.8%). Weight loss is another early symptom of diabetes that is more likely to be
reported by respondents from fourth (18.4%) and richest (23.4%) wealth quintiles than
respondents from the other wealth quintiles.
Table 9.8: Distribution of respondents’ perception (most important) on the early symptoms by Wealth quintile
Early symptoms Wealth quintile
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
Passing lots of urine 9.1 21.1 24.3 29.5 38.0
Excess thirst / Drink too much of water 3.6 3.9 2.8 3.9 4.0
Tiredness/ lethargy 5.9 10.5 10.6 14.2 14.8
Loss of appetite 5.0 5.1 4.6 4.1 5.2
Weight loss 12.2 13.3 13.2 18.4 23.4
Vision problem 3.8 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.6
Skin and genital infections 11.2 13.2 15.4 13.8 9.8
Don't know 59.2 49.7 45.3 39.8 32.4
Injury/wound that does not easily get healed 5.9 4.4 5.1 3.3 3.4
Stomach ache .2 .1 .0 .2 .1
Swelling 1.5 .4 .8 .5 .5
Headache .0 .0 .0 .2 .2
Holding body joints/aching body joints .3 .0 .2 .0 .0
Others .4 .4 .4 .9 1.1
Total 20.3 20.2 17.9 20.8 20.8
9.9 Distribution of respondents’ perception on the early symptoms of diabetes by educational attainment
Analysis of the data by the educational attainment shows that respondents with primary
education (19.6%) are more likely to report weight loss as an early symptom of diabetes than
those with secondary education (13.3%). Tiredness/lethargy as an early symptom of diabetes
is more likely to be reported by respondents with no formal education (18.4%) than those with
secondary education (7.5%). The same can be observed with skin and genital infections as an
early symptom of diabetes.
Table 9.9: Percentage distribution of respondents’ perception on the early symptoms by level of education
Educational Attainment
Early symptoms None Primary Secondary
Passing lots of urine 26.3 33.8 16.7
Excess thirst / Drink too much of water 7.9 4.0 3.3
Tiredness/ lethargy 18.4 15.6 7.5
Loss of appetite 10.5 4.9 4.6
Weight loss 18.4 19.6 13.3
Vision problem 2.6 3.8 3.2
Skin and genital infections 18.4 13.9 11.5
Don't know 39.5 33.8 54.8
Injury/wound that does not easily get healed 5.3 4.2 4.5
Stomach ache .0 .2 .1
Swelling .0 .7 .8
Headache .0 .2 .0
Holding body joints/aching body joints .0 .1 .1
Others .0 .8 .6
Total .8 45.2 54.0
9.10 Knowledge of the most likely to be affected
Presented in Table 9.10 below is the perception of respondents on the most vulnerable group
to diabetes. According to findings of the survey, In terms of sex 57.7 percent of respondents
felt that both sexes have equal chances of getting diabetes, of which 20.9 percent of females
have a higher chance of being affected than males with 12 percent.
According to the data from the respondents, about 37 percent reported that anyone regardless
of age could be affected by diabetes, while 24.1 percent think that the people aged 50 years or
more are the most likely to be affected and 16.3 percent mentioned people aged 40-49 as the
most vulnerable to the diseases. About 12 percent of the respondents could not tell the most
likely age group to be affected.
Table 9.10: Percentage distribution on the mostly likely gender and age group to be affected by diabetes
Pre-
school
Pre-school
Madrassa
Primary Primary
madrassa
Upper
Basic
Senior
Secondary
Secondary
4th
Madrassa
Secondary
Higher Vocational DK Total
Male 0.0 13.8 13.1 14.3 9.8 12.5 11.1 11.8 13.1 7.1 0.0 11.8
Female 10.0 17.7 18.7 15.6 36.1 12.5 18.9 22.3 24.5 21.8 8.3 20.9
Both sexes 70.0 52.5 57.6 57.1 47.5 75.0 53.3 60.0 55.5 63.2 87.5 57.7
Don't know 20.0 16.0 10.6 13.0 6.6 0.0 16.7 5.9 6.9 8.0 4.2 9.6
< 20 years 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.7
20-24 years 0.0 2.3 3.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.5 2.5 0.0 4.2 2.5
30-39 years 0.0 7.9 5.3 3.9 6.6 12.5 5.6 9.3 8.4 5.4 8.3 7.3
40-49 years 30.0 10.7 15.2 15.6 13.1 12.5 8.9 16.8 24.8 19.3 8.3 16.3
50+ years 10.0 26.7 25.1 18.2 45.9 12.5 26.7 24.5 19.9 21.3 4.2 24.1
Anyone 40.0 34.8 36.5 41.6 26.2 37.5 35.6 35.1 36.0 46.0 66.7 37.0
Don't know 20.0 17.7 14.2 18.2 6.6 25.0 20.0 9.8 7.7 7.5 8.3 12.1
9.11 Knowledge of actions to take to reduce risk of developing diabetes
Knowledge of the actions to reduce risk of developing diabetes is important to
effectively control the disease. Brikama (65.8%) has the highest proportion of respondents
who reported limiting sugar and other sweet foods as a way of reducing the risk of
getting diabetes, followed by Kuntaur (63%). The lowest proportion was observed in
Kerewan with 38.9 percent.
Exercise is the second highest response given as a way of reducing the risk of getting
diabetes reported by the respondents. Brikama has the highest (29.9%) proportion of
respondents who reported Exercise as a way of reducing the risk of getting diabetes,
followed by Banjul with 26.7 percent. Kuntaur and Kerewan have the lowest proportions with
17.2 percent and 15.3 percent respectively.
Respondents interviewed said Health checks/ screening can also help in reducing the risk
of getting diabetes. Kuntaur LGA has the highest (37.0%) percentage of respondents who
reported Health checks/screening and Kerewan had the lowest percentage (18.9%).
Table 9.11: percentage distribution on the knowledge of actions to take to reduce risk of
developing diabetes by LGA
Preventive measures Local government area
Banjul Kanifi
ng
Brika
ma
Kerewa
n
Mansakonk
o
Kunta
ur
Janjanbure
h
Basse
No action 5.6 .9 1.7 1.6 .0 .4 2.8 .0
Weight control 5.6 1.4 3.1 4.2 2.1 1.8 1.4 .3
Weight loss 4.4 1.6 2.5 4.2 .9 1.8 1.4 .9
Exercise 26.7 25.6 29.9 15.3 23.7 17.2 21.2 22.6
Healthy diet/eating habits 14.4 17.8 13.9 4.2 10.4 13.9 14.8 16.4
Limit sugar and others 50.0 52.2 65.8 38.9 49.3 63.0 57.6 40.9
Limit fatty foods 30.0 20.2 8.8 3.7 6.6 3.3 3.2 2.6
Health checks/ screening 25.6 24.7 24.2 18.9 21.1 37.0 25.4 20.1
Don't know 14.4 13.3 14.4 45.8 36.7 9.2 12.7 37.4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
HEALTH
The Government should work towards improving the health care services at the
various health centers and hospitals in the country.
Adequate medical drugs should be made readily available at affordable prices to the
general populace as most of the people especially those in the rural areas cannot afford
these drugs.
It typically takes an hour for people to reach the nearest hospital or health facility for
medical care for those in the rural areas. Thus the provision of additional health
facilities in the country especially in the rural areas is greatly recommended to ensure
that every one have easy access to basic medical care.
EMPLOYMENT
There were high underemployed and unemployment rates in the country and this is
one of the causes of poverty in The Gambia as in most developing countries. More job
opportunities need to be created to reduce unemployment and a minimum wage rate
need to be set and increase in salaries should be made to reduce underemployment.
HOUSEHOLD AMENITIES, ASSETS AND ACCESS TO SERVICES
Generally, in The Gambia, access to electricity is still out of reach for many
communities especially in the rural areas. This is the main reason why most residences
do not possess the household assets which uses electricity such as Television,
Refrigerators, and Mobile Phones and so on. Therefore, it is recommended that the
government expand its coverage of electricity to the rural areas as a means of giving
them the opportunity to own basic household assets and hence improving their
standard of living to march that of their counterparts in urban areas.
Safe drinking water supply is very accessible in The Gambia. The majority of
households in both the rural and urban areas takes approximately fourteen minutes to
reach the nearest available safe water supply. However, it will be recommended that
let this facility be expanded further to cover all of the households in the country.
Markets and public transport are generally accessible by most households in The
Gambia especially those in the urban areas. However, the government is encouraged
to invest more resources into providing such facilities especially for those in the rural
areas.
Most of the households visited during the survey believed that the economic situation
of their communities and households was worse during the survey period compared to
a year preceding the survey. This is a call for concern as it shows the existence of an
economic downturn of the country due to rising inflation and depreciation of the
Gambian dalasi. The Government should encourage private investment in businesses.
World Food Program (WFP), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) and other
stakeholders should help in aiding the food needs of the population or increase the
supply of food aid especially for those in the rural areas so as to reduce the difficulty
of the food needs of the people.
AGRICULTURE
Government should make it a priority to create market opportunities for farmers to be
able to sell their farm produce after every harvest period. This will help farmers avoid
the high cost of storing produce or the huge loss they encounter when crops perish.
Farming implements, especially fertilizers should be made available by government to
farmers and at affordable prices; especially for farmers in the rural areas. This will
make accessing farm implements for farmers easy.
Cultivation of crops such as rice and groundnut should be encouraged on a larger
scale, so as to reduce importation of rice and improve groundnut exports.
Majority of people who are engaged in farming as a source of livelihood do not earn
enough to improve their residential facilities. The government should enhance the
occupational activity of those involved in agricultural production so as to improve
their income earnings and hence promote decent standard of living for agricultural
households.
HYPERTENSION AND DIABETES
Hypertension and Diabetes are two diseases that have lately been rampant around the
country and regardless of age anyone could be affected. Therefore knowledge about
these diseases should be widespread, so that people are able to either detect the early
symptoms or have preventive measures against them.
APPENDIXES: