This dataset shows the distribution of households based on their age group, gender and household head.

A majority of households across India between 2019 and 2021 were headed by men. Women accounted for about ** percent of the household headship during the measured time period. The mean household size was *** in the same period.

Nearly ** percent of the household heads in Angola were involved with agriculture, animal production, hunting, forestry, and fishery between 2018 and 2019. Agricultural activities concentrated the largest share of households, followed by retail and wholesale, and repairs of automobiles. Roughly ** percent of Angolan household heads had these as the main areas of occupation.

Vietnam HSS: HS: Household Head Gender: Female data was reported at 3.200 Person in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 3.240 Person for 2014. Vietnam HSS: HS: Household Head Gender: Female data is updated yearly, averaging 3.415 Person from Dec 2002 (Median) to 2016, with 8 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3.710 Person in 2002 and a record low of 3.200 Person in 2016. Vietnam HSS: HS: Household Head Gender: Female data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by General Statistics Office. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Vietnam – Table VN.H021: Household Living Standard Survey (HSS): Household Size .

Household Internet use survey, household Internet use by location of use and education level of household head for Canada from 1997 to 2003. (Terminated)

Vietnam HSS: HS: Quintile 4: Household Head Gender: Female data was reported at 3.390 Person in 2014. This records a decrease from the previous number of 3.410 Person for 2012. Vietnam HSS: HS: Quintile 4: Household Head Gender: Female data is updated yearly, averaging 3.660 Person from Dec 2002 (Median) to 2014, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3.780 Person in 2002 and a record low of 3.390 Person in 2014. Vietnam HSS: HS: Quintile 4: Household Head Gender: Female data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by General Statistics Office. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Vietnam – Table VN.H021: Household Living Standard Survey (HSS): Household Size .

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures. The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview. The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income. In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience. With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992. The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995. The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.

Household Head Survey in Biu, Upper East Region (2013) Topics: - demographics - income sources - land-use (esp. traditional crops, tomato, chili, rice, shea) - environmental and agronomic constrains in farming - natural hazards - development aid (esp. MOFA and USAID) - climatic dynamics - livelihood dynamics - gender - pro-poor engagement of relevant actors - opinion polling

The number of urban households in Morocco amounted to around *** million as of 2020. Roughly *** million of them had a man as head of the household, while female heads of the household stood at approximately *** million. In proportion, around ** percent of the urban households were headed by women. In rural areas, in comparison, women headed only **** percent of the households.

Between 2021 and 2022, around ** percent of female respondents from Kuwait believed that the female household head is responsible for helping children study. At the same time, only ** percent of male Kuwaiti respondents shared the same opinion.

1. New Taipei City's economic household head ratio (including gender)2. Unit: number of people3. For detailed explanations of each field, please refer to the electronic file of New Taipei City's gender statistics (website: http://www.bas.ntpc.gov.tw/home.jsp?idMTI5) or inquire with the Department of Budget, Accounting and Statistics.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures. The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview. The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income. In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience. With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992. The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995. The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.

*Other occupation includes: government, student, self-employed, public or private company and others.

84.9 (percent) in 2021.

This service shows gender of household head data aggreagted on village, district and lanscape level. Results are based on BNS surveys inMaiko-Tayna-Kahuzi-Biega Landscape by WCS for 2015 and 2017. In the table: Ratio = percentage of households with female or male head of household; N = sample.

Household Internet use survey, household Internet use by location of use and age of household head for Canada from 1997 to 2003. (Terminated)

20.1 (percent) in 2020.

Ethiopia Age of the Household head per cluster , dataset in the susceptibility component , a spatial reolution of 0.05 pixels about 5000 metres , from the Demographic Health Survey (DHS)

Food insecurity is a major concern for the developing world and around 37% of the population of Pakistan is food insecure. This paper utilizes the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) to assess the population prevalence of food insecurity and to identify their risk factors and determinants at the household level in Pakistan. This study employs a multi-level random coefficient model, using the Pakistan Panel Household Survey (PPHS-2010) dataset; representative data from 4,130 households. Factors like; income of the household, gender, education, household size, land ownership, and shocks of food insecurity allow the incidence of idiosyncratic shocks (injuries and/or casualties) at the community level, which affects the food insecurity situation of the community, rather differently were included. The study confirms a statistically significant inverse relationship between household income, household size, and household head education with food insecurity and a positive association of shocks and inflation with food insecurity at the household level. Specifically, with increasing per capita income of the household, food insecurity declines (coefficient: -0.083, statistically significant at 1%) and food insecurity increases with shocks (coefficient: 0.058, statistically significant at 1% significance level). The study also reveals a significant heterogeneity at a one percent significance level in the determinants of food insecurity at the district, community, and household levels. The income of the household, household head gender and education level, household size, household assets, shocks, injuries, and inflationary pressure are important determinants of food insecurity in Pakistan.

In 2022, nearly ** percent of Indonesian households led by unmarried individuals owned houses with certificates of ownership. In comparison, about ***** percent of married or divorced household heads owned a house with certificate.