region 4 profile · web viewin 2015, representing 20 percent growth over the period. the population...
TRANSCRIPT
Tshwane Socio-Economic Profile: Region 4
Overview
Region 4 is situated in the south-western portion of the Metropolitan area. The Region borders
on the area of jurisdiction of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Ekurhuleni
Metropolitan Municipality as well as Mogale City to the west.
Figure 1: Region 1 development overview
The main characteristics of Region 4 are:
The Region consists of a`n urban area to the east and a rural area to the west of which
both areas are currently under pressure for development.
The core area of Region 4 is located between two major highways, the Ben Schoeman
Highway (N14) and the N1 Highway (M1).
The N1 corridor represents one of the most sought after development strips in South
Africa. This corridor manifests primary within the Midrand and Centurion areas and it is
known as one of the high technology belts within the South African economy.
The region falls within the Economic Core identified for Gauteng Province with the legs
of the triangular core the N1 Highway on the western side and the R21 Highway with its
linkage to the Oliver Tambo International airport on the eastern side. This economic core
is the primary growth focus for Gauteng Province.
Region 4 is located at the southern gateway of the City of Tshwane and is easily
accessible from the Johannesburg financial and corporate district and the Oliver Tambo
International Airport.
The region includes and shares with other regions a number of conservancies within
reach of Johannesburg and the greater Tshwane area.
The Hennops River basin is situated within this region. The Crocodile River basin in
Region 3 also contributes water to this region. These are important natural resources
which provide opportunities for tourism and recreational activities.
The underlying dolomite in the region, the sensitive environmental areas and ridges tend
to direct and inform urban development.
Demographics
Figure 2: Population growth rate and actual numbers in Region 4, 2011 - 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 2Figure 2 indicates the total population in Region 4 and the associated percentage
growth rate since 2011 to 2015. In 2011, the total population was approximately 366 524 and
grew to 440 695 in 2015, representing 20 percent growth over the period. The population growth
is growing at declining rate, in 2011 the population growth rate was at 6,1 percent and this has
declined to 3,9 percent in 2015.
Figure 3: Region 4’s population pyramid, 2015
00-0405-0910-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-74
75+
30,000 20,000 10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000
Male Female
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 3 indicates the 2015 population pyramid for Region 4, from the figure, it can be noted
that there is a youth bulge in Region 4’s population i.e. it can be observed that a significant
portion of Region 4’s population is younger than 35. The majority of people in this region are
within the economically active age group (16 to 65 years of age). This means a relatively low
dependency ratio, as most people in this area should be able to access employment. The latter
however depends on the number of job opportunities and access to areas of economic activity.
Figure 4: Progress in education (20+), 2011-2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.2% 2.3%4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.4%
25.5% 25.7% 25.9% 26.0% 25.8%
1.1% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9%
33.2% 32.8% 32.6% 32.6% 32.4%
12.2% 12.1% 11.8% 11.6% 11.4%
14.2% 14.2% 14.6% 14.6% 15.0%
7.6% 7.8% 7.8% 7.9% 7.7%
No schooling Primary schooling Secondary schooling
Certificate / diploma without matric Matric only Matric & certificate / diploma
Matric & Bachelors degree Matric & Postgrad degree
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Error: Reference source not found indicates how the educational profile of the population that is
20 years or older in Region 4 has changed over the 2011 – 2015 period. As indicated in the
figure, the percentage of the people (20 years +) in Region 5 with no schooling has increased
from 2.0 percent in 2011 to 2.3 percent, whilst the percentage of people with at least matric
have marginally decreased from 33.2 percent in 2011 to 32.4 percent in 2015. The percentage
of people (20 years +) in Region 5 with certificates or a diploma without matric has since 2011
accounted the least, that is, 1.1 percent in 2011 and declined to 0.9 percent in 2015. Region
5’s GDP-R, 2011 – 2015
Economy
Figure 5: Region 5’s GDP-R (2010, Constant prices), 2011 -2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 201543,000,000
44,000,000
45,000,000
46,000,000
47,000,000
48,000,000
49,000,000
50,000,000
51,000,000
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 5 indicates the GDP-R in constant 2010 prices for Region 4 over the 2011 – 2015 period.
As indicated in the figure, the region’s GDP-R is estimated to have increased from R 45.9 billion
in 2011 to R 50.0 billion 2015. On the other hand, the average year on year growth rate over the
same period started to decline sharply in 2012 from 5.2 percent to 1.0 percent in 2015.
Figure 6: Average annual growth (%, Constant 2010 prices) of economic sectors in Region 4, 2011 – 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
Agriculture Mining Manufacturing ElectricityConstruction Trade Transport FinanceCommunity services Total Industries
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 6 indicates the average annual growth by economic sector for Region 4 over the 2011 –
2015 period. As indicated in the figure, most sectors over the 2011 – 2015 period appear to
have been quite volatile explaining the picture depicted by figure 6. To elaborate, the largest
contributors to the region’s economic output performed as follows;
community services sector’s (contributes approx. 31.1 percent to GVA-R in 2015)
average annual growth declined from 6.3 percent in 2011 to 0.3 percent in 2015;
finance sector’s (contributes approx. 28.4 percent to GVA-R in 2015) average annual
growth declined from 4.9 percent in 2011 to 1.8 percent in 2015; and
trade sector’s (contributes approx. 11.5 percent to GVA-R in 2015) average annual
growth declined from 5.3 percent in 2011 to 1.2 percent in 2015
Labour Market
Figure 7: Unemployment (official definition1) in Region 4, 2015
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
11.7%
11.8%
11.9%
12.0%
12.1%
12.2%
12.3%
12.4%
12.5%
12.6%
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 7 above indicates the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons in
actual terms in Region 4. It can be noted from the figure that the unemployment rate in Region 4
has increased slightly from 12.4 percent in 2011 to 12.5 percent in 2015. This represents an
increase from approx. 25 657 unemployed people in 2011 to approx. 42 752 unemployed
people in 2015.
1 According to Statistics South Africa (2016:xxi) Unemployed persons (official) are those (aged 15–64 years) who: a) Were not employed in the reference week; and b) Actively looked for work or tried to start a business in the four weeks preceding the survey interview; and c) Were available for work, i.e. would have been able to start work or a business in the reference week; or d) Had not actively looked for work in the past four weeks but had a job or business to start at a definite date in the future and were available.
Figure 8: Employment (official definition) in Region 4, 2011 - 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 8 above indicates the total employment in Region 4 disaggregated by formal or informal
sector. As indicated in the figure, employment (absolute terms) across both sectors in Region 4
has been steadily increasing over the 2011-2015 period. In 2011, total number of individuals
employed in the region were approximately 190 701 and have since increased to 266 976 in
2015. As one would expect, the largest composition of this growth can be attributed to growth in
formal sector employment, which was 167 316 in 2011 and has since increased to 236 635 in
2015. Informal sector employment has increased from 23 385 in 2011 to 30 635 in 2015.
Figure 9: Employment by economic sector, 2011 – 2015
2011 20150%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
3.4% 4.7%9.7% 8.9%
6.3% 6.7%
20.0% 18.6%
5.2% 5.7%
22.2% 23.3%
22.1% 22.8%
9.2% 7.7%
Agriculture Mining Manufacturing Electricity Construction Trade Transport
Finance Community services Households
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 9 indicates total employment in Region 4 disaggregated by economic sectors over the
period 2011 - 2015 period. As indicated in the figure, the finance sector and community services
sector have been among the largest contributors to employment in Region 4 over the 2011 –
2015 period, contributing approximately 23.3 percent and 22.8 percent in 2015 respectively.
Given that the two sectors are among the main contributors to the economic output of region 4,
this comes as no surprise. It worth noting however, that both sectors’ contribution has
marginally declined since 2011.
Service delivery
Figure 10: Households in Region 4 by type of dwelling, 2011 – 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
75.2% 74.2% 73.0% 71.5% 70.3%
22.3% 22.8% 23.1% 23.2% 23.2%
2.4% 2.8% 3.9% 5.3% 6.4%
Formal Informal Traditional Other dwelling type
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 10 above indicates households in Region 4 by type of dwelling (in proportion to the total
number of households in Region 4). As indicated in the figure, approximately 75.2 percent of the
households were occupying formal dwellings in 2011 and this has decreased to 70.3 percent in
2015. Approximately 22.3 percent of the households were occupying formal dwellings in 2011
and this has decreased to 23.2 percent in 2015. Traditional and other dwelling units contribute
an estimate of approximately 6.4 percent combined.
Figure 11: Households in Region 4 by type of toilet facilities, 2011-2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
84.7% 83.5% 82.5% 81.5% 80.8%
9.1% 10.1% 10.7% 11.5% 12.0%
5.0% 5.2% 5.6% 5.7% 5.9%
Flush toilet Ventilation Improved Pit (VIP) Pit toiletBucket system No toilet
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 11 above indicates households in Region 4 by the type of the accessible toilet facility (i.e.
in proportion to the total number of households in Region 4). As indicated in the figure, the
percentage of households with a flush toilet in Region 4 has slightly declined from 84.7 percent
in 2011 to 80.8 percent 2015, the percentage of households with a ventilation improved pit (VIP)
slightly increased from 0.7 percent in 2011 to 0.9 percent in 2015, the percentage of households
with pit toilets increased from 9.1 percent in 2011 to 12.0 percent 2015 and the percentage of
households with no toilets has declined from 5.0 percent in 2011 to 5.9 percent.
Figure 12: Households in Region 4 by water access level, 2011 - 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
77.5% 78.1% 78.5% 78.8% 79.0%
11.4% 11.2% 10.8% 10.5% 10.2%
7.1% 7.7% 8.3% 8.7% 9.0%
Piped water inside dwelling Piped water in yard Communal piped water(At RDP-level)
Communal piped water (Below RDP) No formal piped water
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 12 above indicates households in Region 4 by water access level (available water
infrastructure utilised by households in proportion to the total number of households in Region
4). As indicated in the figure, the percentage of households in Region 4 with access to piped
water inside dwelling has increased from 77.5 percent in 2011 to 79.0 percent in 2015, the
percentage of households with access to piped water in yard has declined from 11.4 percent in
2011 to 10.2 percent, the percentage of households with access to communal piped water at
RDP level has increased from 10.4 percent in 2011 to 11.2 percent in 2015, the percentage of
households with access to communal piped water below RDP level has declined from 2.5
percent in 2011 to 1.8 percent in 2015, and the percentage of households with no access to
formal piped water increased from 1.4 percent in 2011 to 0.0 percent in 2015.
Figure 13: Households in Region 4 by refuse removal service, 2011 - 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
89.7% 89.9% 90.2% 90.4% 90.6%
1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9%2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3%5.7% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.5%1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7%
Removed weekly by authority Removed less often than weekly by authority Removed by community members
Personal removal (own dump) No refuse removal
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 13 indicates the households in Region 4 by the type of refuse removal service accessed
over the 2011 – 2015 period. As indicated in the figure, the percentage of households in Region
4 with access to refuse removal service by authority on a weekly basis increased from 89.7
percent in 2011 to 90.6 percent in 2015, the percentage of households with access to refuse
removal service by an authority for less often than weekly declined from 1.3 percent in 2011 to
0.9 percent in 2015, the percentage of households with access to refuse removal service by
community members increased from 2.2 percent in 2011 to 2.3 percent in 2015, the percentage
of households utilising personal refuse removal efforts (own dump) decreased from 5.7 percent
in 2011 to 5.5 percent in 2015 and the percentage of households with no access to refuse
removal services declined from 1.1 percent in 2011 to 0.7 percent in 2015.
Figure 14: Households in Region 5 with electrical connections (%), 2011 - 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
85.9% 85.3% 84.3% 83.6% 83.1%
14.1% 14.7% 15.7% 16.4% 16.9%
Electrical connections (%) No electrical connections (%)
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
Figure 14 above indicates the share of households with electrical connections in Region 4. As
indicated in the figure, in 2011, 85.9 percent of the households were connected to electricity.
This number decreased to 83.1 in 2015, reflecting a decrease of 2.8 percentage points. The
share of households with no electrical connections increased from 14.1 percent in 2011 to 16.9
percent in 2015.
Welfare Indicators
Figure 15: Performance of welfare indicators (HDI, Gini coefficient and poverty gap rate) in Region 4, 2011 – 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 20150.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
24.0%
24.5%
25.0%
25.5%
26.0%
26.5%
27.0%
Human Development Index (HDI) Gini coefficient Poverty gap rate (from upper poverty line)
Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015
above indicates the performance of Region 4’s social welfare indicators (HDI, Gini coefficient
and poverty gap rate) for the period 2011– 2015.
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite relative index used to compare human
development across population groups or regions. HDI is the combination of three basic
dimensions of human development which are: long and healthy life; knowledge and a decent
standard of living. The region’s HDI improved from 0.76 in 2011 to 0.78 in 2015.
The Gini coefficient is a summary statistic of income inequality, which varies from 0 to 1. If the
Gini Coefficient is equal to zero it means that incomes are distributed in a perfectly equal
manner, indicating a low variance between high and low income earners in the population. If the
Gini coefficient is equal to one, income is completely inequitable, with one individual in the
population earning income, whilst everyone else earns nothing. The region’s Gini coefficient has
worsened, from 0.58 in 2011 to 0.60 in 2015.
The poverty gap rate is used as an indicator to measure the depth of poverty. The gap
measures the average distance of the population from the poverty line and is expressed as a
percentage of the upper bound poverty line, as defined by StatsSA2. As indicated in the figure,
the poverty gap rate has worsened from 25.2 percent in 2011 to 26.1 percent in 2015
2 The upper poverty line is defined by StatsSA as the level of consumption at which individuals are able to purchase both sufficient food and non-food items without sacrificing one for the other.