GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 PRESS RELEASE Quality of Life Survey 2015 Kate Joseph, kate.joseph@wits.ac.za, 072 229 9613 Christina Culwick, christina.culwick@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7296 A month before the August local government elections, new data from the Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO) shows that satisfaction with municipalities in Gauteng has declined very slightly since 2013, but dissatisfaction has also dropped significantly. These results suggest a greater middle-ground of potentially ‘undecided’ voters. municipal and ward levels. The survey asked questions on a range of factors that shape the quality of daily life in the city-region, including provision of basic services, satisfaction with government, transport and mobility, livelihoods, local community and neighbourhood dynamics, health and well-being, migration, as well as political and social values and attitudes. It is also clear that respondents increasingly distinguish between government performance at national and local levels. Recently increasing levels of dissatisfaction with national government seem to go hand-in-hand with positive perceptions of local government. Asking some probing questions, the survey was able to explore the nuances of key issues. For example results show that people who have had a positive interaction with a government department in the three months prior to being interviewed are much more likely to be satisfied with local government. Those who are satisfied with their local councillor are dramatically more likely to be satisfied with local government more generally. “Personal experience with government services plays a powerful role in shaping attitudes towards government as whole,” observed Moore. The results are from a massive Quality of Life Survey conducted every two years by the GCRO, with the 2015 survey based on 30 000 respondents from across Gauteng. The results of the 2015 Survey were launched by GCRO Executive Director Rob Moore, and responded to by Gauteng Premier David Makhura and SALGA Gauteng chairperson Parks Tau, on Tuesday, 28 June 2016. According to Dr Rob Moore, “The GCRO’s 2015 Quality of Life Survey is the largest social attitudes survey ever conducted in the Gauteng province. Over 200 questions are asked of residents from all parts of the province and every walk of life.” “Many of the questions asked in the Survey relate to satisfaction with services and satisfaction with government,” said Moore, “and here we see key trends relevant to the August local elections. In 2013, 37% of respondents were satisfied with local government. In 2015 this is down to 34%. However, in 2013 51% were firmly dissatisfied with local government, which has dropped to 45%. It appears that more people are undecided, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”. Interestingly, at 43%, whites are more satisfied with local government than Africans at 33%. During the period in which the survey was conducted (July 2015 to May 2016), satisfaction with local government improved while, by contrast, national government took a big knock in levels of satisfaction – both since 2013, and over the course of the survey – especially as a result of ‘Nenegate’. The 2015 survey is the fourth in the series, running every two years with the first conducted in 2009. This iteration, the largest ever, interviewed 30 000 residents, sampled to provide robust results at provincial, The survey provides a holistic assessment of life in the Gauteng City-Region and zooms in to identify key areas and groups needing intervention and support. “It gives rich information to policy makers and the public wanting to track where progress is being made and where concerns remain,” said Moore. Some of the key areas of focus and key results from the 2015 Quality of Life Survey include the following: 1. • • • • Current levels of satisfaction with key services such as water, electricity, waste, health and education: In general there have been high and stable levels of satisfaction with services since the 2013 survey. There is continued and relatively high satisfaction with basic services, health and education. By way of example 83% of Gauteng respondents are satisfied with water services, 65% with public health services and 71% with local education services. However there has been a drop in satisfaction with energy services from 78% (2013) to 72% (2015), possibly reflecting the impact of load-shedding. There is significantly lower satisfaction – at only 22% – with government initiatives to grow the economy. 1 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 PRESS RELEASE • 2. • • • • 3. • • • • 4. • • High levels of service satisfaction do not translate into high levels of satisfaction with government. On an index of 13 services typically provided by local government, 59% of Gauteng residents are satisfied. However only 34% are satisfied with the performance of local government generally. Changing levels of satisfaction with national, provincial and local government since 2009: There are slightly lower levels of satisfaction with national, provincial and local government in 2015 compared with 2013. However there has also been a significant decline in levels of dissatisfaction. There were big gains in local government satisfaction over the period of the survey. When the survey started in July/August 2015, dissatisfaction with local government hovered around 55%. When fieldwork ended in April/May 2016, dissatisfaction with local government had declined to less than 40%. By contrast, satisfaction with national government was clearly knocked by national political events such as ‘Nenegate’ during the course of the survey. Starting at around 39%, dissatisfaction with national government climbed to 48% in February 2016, then recovered. Some municipalities have seen increases in local government satisfaction since 2013, notably Ekurhuleni, Mogale City and Westonaria. Others such as Tshwane, Emfuleni and Merafong have seen declines. Key reasons for dissatisfaction with local government: Lower levels of satisfaction with local government are a concern because they impact negatively on respondents’ intention to vote. Various factors seem to account for higher or lower levels of satisfaction with local government. For example, 37% of those who feel they were treated with dignity and respect in recent interactions with government are satisfied with their municipality. Satisfaction with local government drops to 20% for those who felt they were not well treated. The performance of councillors clearly has a large impact: 58% of those who were satisfied with their councillor were also satisfied with local government generally; amongst those dissatisfied with their councillor only 16% were satisfied with local government. Economic conditions in Gauteng Income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient (where a score of ‘0’ reflects perfect equality and ‘1’ perfect inequality), has fallen slightly from0.75 in 2013 to 0.70 in 2015. The proportion of current business owners among Gauteng respondents fell from 11% in 2011 and 2013, to 8% in 2015. • Of those who had tried to start a business, 45% said that their business had failed, up from 34% in 2013. 5. Key social attitudes, notably with regards to trust between races, prejudice and hostilities: In general racial attitudes softened between 2013 and 2015. In 2013, 66% of respondents agreed with the statement that ‘blacks and whites will never really trust each other’. In 2015 this dropped to 58%. These results differ noticeably by race. 62% of African respondents agreed that blacks and whites will never trust each other, hearteningly down from 73% in 2013. However, the proportion of white respondents agreeing that blacks and whites will never trust each other increased from 40% in 2013 to 44% in 2015. Despite the xenophobic attacks in Gauteng in 2015, the proportion of South Africans who agreed with the statement ‘Gauteng belongs to South Africans only, send all foreigners home’ fell to 24% in 2015 from 38% in 2013. Disturbingly, 14% of residents think it is acceptable to be violent towards gay and lesbian people. • • • • 6. • • 7. • • • Key political opinions on the state of politics in South Africa: 61% of respondents agree with the statement ‘The country is going in the wrong direction’ The 2015 results show that only 52% agree that the upcoming municipal elections will be free and fair, dropping from 66% who agreed that the 2011 elections were free and fair. Using an index of over 50 indicators, overall quality of life in Gauteng has improved: The quality of life index for Gauteng shows continued overall improvement since 2011; however the index varies significantly across race groups with Africans being the only group that falls below the provincial average. The average for Gauteng, out of 10, is now 6.20, up from 6.10 in 2013. The three municipalities with the highest recorded quality of life on the index are Randfontein, Mogale City and Johannesburg. The GCRO is a partnership between the University of Johannesburg, the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, the Gauteng Provincial Government and organized local government in Gauteng. The Gauteng City-Region – which includes the whole of Gauteng and key outliers such as Rustenburg and Sasolburg – is the beating heart of the national economy, contributing over 40% to the country’s GDP, and holding a quarter of its population. www.gcro.ac.za 2 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 ANALYTICS & VISUALISATION 1. Quality of life indexes Christina Culwick, christina.culwick@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7296 The range of objective and subjective questions included in the Quality of Life survey provides an opportunity to assess overall trends through combining various indicators into indexes. The Quality of Life (QoL) and Marginalisation indexes both provide insight into the state of the Gauteng City-Region. Quality of Life index The QoL index for 2015 draws on 58 indicators that can either be weighted by ten dimensions (global life satisfaction, family, community, health, dwelling, infrastructure, connectivity, work, security and sociopolitical attitudes) or by the full set of indicators. Traditionally the QoL index has only been calculated using the dimension weighting, but we see value in providing both options of weighting by dimensions and indicators. Both versions of the index (Figure 1) indicate continued overall improvement since 2011. As in previous years, Gauteng’s QoL mean score for 2015 (6.20 out of 10) is driven up by dimensions such as ‘infrastructure’, ‘dwelling’ and ‘health’, but pushed down by others including ‘global life satisfaction’, ‘work’ and ‘socio-political attitudes’ (Figure 2). Continued high scores for ‘infrastructure’ (access to services, selfreported improvement in community and water cleanliness, and evictions for non-payment of bills) reflect the impact of good service provision. However, factors that are more difficult for government to address, such as ‘community’ and ‘socio-political attitudes’, remain low, despite small improvements in these dimensions since 2013. QoL means vary significantly across race groups with Africans being the only race group in 2015 that fall below the provincial average (6.20), with a score of 5.98 (Figure 3). Whites consistently had the highest QoL – always above average – with a mean score of 7.04 in 2015. Quality of Life index by municipality Figure 4 presents the spatial distribution of QoL means by ward. Although areas of higher QoL concentrate in the three metros, they also contain some of the starkest differences between adjacent wards. The ward QoL means range from 4.18 in Tshwane (west of Attridgeville) to 7.71 in Johannesburg (including and around Bryanston). The QoL index means for each municipality are shown in Figure 5. The 2015 data positions Randfontein with the highest score (6.36) followed by Mogale City (6.28) and Johannesburg (6.27). All other municipalities fall below the provincial average, although only fractionally by Ekurhuleni (6.19). Of concern is the drop in Tshwane from having the highest quality of life score in 2013 to falling below the provincial average in 2015. This deterioration has been driven primarily by drops in ‘global life satisfaction’, ‘family’, and ‘security’, despite increases in ‘health’ and ‘infrastructure’ dimensions. Although still well below the provincial average, Westonaria shows a consistent trend of increasing quality of life since 2009, driven in part by increases in the ‘infrastructure’ and ‘socio-political attitudes’ dimensions. This is in contrast to Lesedi, which has deteriorated over time principally as a result of low ‘global life satisfaction’, ‘socio-political’ and ‘work’ scores. More information regarding the QoL index can be found in the table of ‘QoL index indicators and dimensions 2009-2015’ for each municipality. Marginalisation index The Marginalisation index provides a measurement of the psycho-social status of Gauteng residents. The index combines 29 variables, which are grouped into ten dimensions, including relationships, housing, connectivity, crime/safety, participation, health, hunger, alienation/extreme views, government and life satisfaction. Similarly to the QoL index, these dimensions are combined into a single score out of 10. In contrast to the QoL index higher scores out of 10 reflect higher marginalisation and thus a negative result. The overall 2015 marginalisation score for Gauteng is 2.48, which is worse than all previous years (Figure 6). The key drivers of this negative trend were the deteriorating level of reported participation in clubs, societies and other community organisations, and worsening of the health dimension (poor health affecting work or social activities) (Figure 7). All other dimensions showed improvements since 2013. The marginalisation scores can be grouped into four categories including ‘fine’, ‘OK’, ‘at risk’ and ‘marginalised’. Figure 8 shows that there has been a 1 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 ANALYTICS & VISUALISATION steady decrease in the proportion of people in the top category (‘fine’), with 2015 (10%) nearly half the size of this group compared to 2009 (18%). This deterioration is evident in the increase in people falling into the ‘OK’ category, but most concerning are the increases in the ‘at risk’ and ‘marginalised’ categories. These trends highlight an increasing need for psycho-social support. Marginalisation index by municipality Figure 9 presents the Marginalisation index means for each municipality. Remembering that high scores reflect a negative result and low scores are positive, Mogale City has the lowest mean (2.19) and Westonaria maintains the highest Marginalisation index score (2.75). Of concern is that all three metros saw a worsening of their respective means since 2013, and now all fall above the 2013 provincial average (2.39). Merafong is the only municipality whose marginalisation has consistently deteriorated since 2011 – besides the metros, all other municipality have seen an improvement since 2013. The municipalities with the highest proportion of residents falling into the ‘marginalised’ and ‘at risk’ categories are Westonaria (9% marginalised, 13% at risk), Ekurhuleni (6% marginalised, 9% at risk) and Merafong (6% marginalised, 11% at risk). Mogale City has a significantly higher proportion of people in the top ‘fine’ category (18%), followed by Westonaria (12%) and Randfontein (12%). 6,13 6,20 6,01 6,10 5,90 6,00 6,02 6,11 7,00 6,23 8,00 5,00 Dimension weighted 4,00 Indicator weighted 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 2009 2011 2013 2015 Figure 1: Quality of life Gauteng means (out of 10): 2009, 2011, 2013 & 2015. 2 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 ANALYTICS & VISUALISATION 0,50 0,55 0,60 0,49 0,49 0,55 0,70 0,64 0,80 0,76 0,70 0,72 0,90 0,80 1,00 0,50 0,40 2009 0,30 2011 0,20 2013 0,10 2015 Socio-political attitudes Security Work Connectivity Infrastructure Dwelling Health Community Family Global life satisfaction 0,00 Figure 2: Quality of life index dimension means (2009, 2011, 2013 & 2015). 2015 Gauteng mean = 6.20 African 5,98 2009 Coloured 6,35 2011 2013 Indian/Asian 2015 6,91 White 7,04 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 Figure 3: Quality of life index means by race (2009, 2011, 2013 & 2015). 3 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 ANALYTICS & VISUALISATION Figure 4: Quality of life index means by ward. The spatial distribution of QoL means shows stark contrasts between adjacent wards across the province. QoL scores tend to be higher in core areas, whereas the peripheral areas have lower mean scores. The distribution continues to reflect apartheid spatial patterns. 2015 Gauteng mean = 6.20 Lesedi 5,77 Emfuleni 5,90 Westonaria 5,92 Merafong 6,03 Midvaal 6,15 Tshwane 6,17 Ekurhuleni 6,19 Johannesburg 6,27 Mogale City 6,28 Randfontein 5,40 6,36 5,50 5,60 5,70 5,80 5,90 6,00 6,10 6,20 6,30 6,40 6,50 Figure 5: Quality of life index means by municipality (Gauteng mean = 6.20) In 2015 Randfontein scored the highest in the Quality of life index, followed by Mogale City and Johannesburg. All other municipalities’ Quality of Life scores fell below the provincial average, with Lesedi significantly lower than all other municipalities. 4 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 ANALYTICS & VISUALISATION 8,00 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,40 2,23 2,32 2,48 2009 2011 2013 2015 2,00 1,00 0,00 Figure 6: Marginalisation index means (out of 10): 2009, 2011, 2013 & 2015. 1,00 0,90 0,80 0,57 0,70 0,32 0,10 2009 0,17 0,28 0,11 0,20 0,06 0,30 0,19 0,25 0,40 0,29 0,50 0,25 0,60 2011 2013 2015 Life satisfaction Government Alienation/extreme views Hunger Health Participation Crime/safety Connectivity Housing Relationships 0,00 Figure 7: Marginalisation index dimension means (2009, 2011, 2013 & 2015). 5 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 ANALYTICS & VISUALISATION 2015 10 2013 77 13 8 76 5 7 Fine 4 OK 2011 19 2009 18 0 10 70 7 67 20 30 40 9 50 60 70 80 At risk 4 Marginalised 6 90 100 Figure 8: Marginalisation index categories (2009, 2011, 2013 & 2015). 2015 Gauteng mean = 2.48 Westonaria 2,75 Merafong City 2,66 Ekurhuleni 2,60 Emfuleni 2,58 Johannesburg 2,43 Lesedi 2,43 Tshwane 2,41 Randfontein 2,38 Midvaal 2,37 Mogale 0,00 2,19 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 Figure 9: Marginalisation index means by municipality (Gauteng mean = 2.48). 6 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 ANALYTICS & VISUALISATION OTHER RECENT RESEARCH IN THIS THEME: Clusters of dissatisfaction with local governance performance (January 2016) by Koech Cheruiyot et al., GCRO Map of the Month Quality of life survey 2013 city benchmarking report (2015) by all GCRO staff, GCRO Research Report Quality of life survey and service delivery protests (July 2015) by Samy Katumba et al., GCRO Map of the Month Marginalisation in the GCR (March 2014) by Prof David Everatt, GCRO Vignette A composite index of quality of life for the Gauteng city-region: a principal component analysis approach (2013) by Talita Greyling, GCRO Occasional Paper www.gcro.ac.za • • • • • 7 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 2. Livelihoods & poverty Darlington Mushongera, darlington.mushongera@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7295 Samkelisiwe Khanyile, samkelisiwe.khanyile@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7280 Christian Hamann, christian.hamann@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7280 The challenge of poverty (and people’s associated livelihoods) remains high on South Africa’s development agenda. The National Development Plan, for example, aims to eliminate poverty by 2030. Here we unpack initial insights into dynamics of livelihoods and poverty in Gauteng, as reflected in the GCRO’s 2015 Quality of Life (QoL) survey. Do Gauteng residents frequently go hungry? Food security (referring to economic and physical access to the food required to maintain a healthy lifestyle for all people) is an important indicator of relative poverty. It remains a challenge in Gauteng. In the 2013 QoL survey, 14% of respondents said they or another adult in the household had skipped a meal sometime in the last year because of a lack of money. 11% of households that had children in them said a child had skipped a meal sometime in the last year. In 2015 the food security question was asked slightly differently. This time, 13% of respondents said that adults in their households ‘always’, ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ skipped a meal. A further 6% said ‘seldom’, making up a total of 19% of households that were food insecure on this measure. In 2015 11% of households with children in them said that children ‘always’, ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ skipped a meal. This is equivalent to 2013, but a further 5% said that children in the household ‘seldom’ went hungry, making up 16% who were food insecure on this measure. Growing own food Food security can be increased by growing one’s own food, although it does need to be recognised that growing food itself takes financial and other resources, and is often a risky proposition. Cultural and circumstantial factors – such as whether the household can access land – also intervene, which means the choice whether or not to grow food is not simply a matter of economically rational decision-making, and in turn the growing of food is not a neat indicator of poverty. In the 2015 QoL survey 11% of respondents said they grow their own food, compared to 7% in 2013. People are more likely to grow their own food for eating rather than selling it to raise incomes (Figure 1). Only in a few municipalities in Gauteng, such as in Lesedi, do a larger proportion of respondents also grow food to sell, but even here they are in a minority. Figure 2 shows the distribution of wards where high concentrations of respondents grow their own food. People are more likely to grow their own food in areas like Sebokeng, Bronkhorstspruit and Soshanguve, compared to people in areas like central Johannesburg, Tembisa and Hammanskraal. We find that in some areas, like Sebokeng, high proportions of respondents growing their own food coincide with high proportions of people who skip meals. However, this relationship is not consistent throughout the province and highlights again the complex interaction between food insecurity and households’ own-production of food. Various factors need to be considered in understanding people’s choice and ability to grow their own food. One such factor worth noting is the significant impact of school feeding schemes, which according to the 2015 QoL results benefit over 2 million children in Gauteng (Figure 3). Coverage varies across municipalities, indicating the relative depth of poverty in different parts of the province. 26% of Johannesburg respondents say they have children benefitting from school feeding schemes. The percentage rises to 39% in Merafong and 40% in Randfontein. The impact of social grants One of the most prominent government interventions aimed at alleviating poverty and inequality is social grants. 41% of respondents indicated that someone in their household receives a social grant. This is marginally up from 38% in the 2013 QoL survey. Despite their importance, it is clear that social grants do not yet provide comprehensive assurance that primary needs are met in all vulnerable households. Figure 4 shows that in households where someone received a social grant 74% of respondents said it was never the case that they or another adult skipped a meal. In households that did not get a social grant, 86% of respondents said no adult had skipped a meal. Two issues are highlighted here. First, even where social grants are received about a quarter (26%) of households are still affected by food insecurity. Second, while it is logical that the large majority of households not receiving social grants are also not affected by food insecurity, there remain a significant 14% of food insecure households that are not covered by social grants. 1 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC Investing in unlikely bonanzas Nearly a quarter of Gauteng’s population (23% of respondents) buy lotto tickets on a regular basis (either ‘every week’ or a ‘couple of times a month’). This suggests that many people continue to invest in the remote chance of a financial windfall to alter their circumstances, and that this faith is remarkably consistent across income brackets (Figure 5). Although lower income levels do inhibit lotto purchases, 21% to 24% of households in the lowest income brackets still buy lotto tickets regularly, with mid-level earners being the most likely chancetakers. In the more affluent households, just less than 20% of respondents buy lotto tickets regularly. Debt, saving and asset ownership About 40% of respondents have some form of debt against their names or households. This has significantly increased, by 10%, since 2013. Households who earn more money are more likely to also be in debt, presumably due to asset investments, but more concerning is that the uptick in incidence of debt in 2015 over 2013 is most marked in lower income groups (Figure 6). 100 90 6 3 3 2 5 8 2 For the first time respondents in the 2015 QoL survey were asked whether they found it easy or difficult to save money (Figure 7). Only 22% said it was easy or very easy. 78% said it was difficult to impossible. It is important to note that responses differ markedly by race. Only 18% of African respondents said it was easy or very easy to save money, compared to 37% of white respondents. Asset ownership is an important indicator of relative levels of material sufficiency and deprivation. Figure 8 shows once again the primacy placed on cell-phones as a means of personal and societal connectivity. Furthermore the 2015 QoL survey shows positive improvements in access to telecommunication devices and infrastructure. Some of the biggest increases were in ownership of a personal computer, laptop or tablet, from 28% in 2013 to 34% in 2015, and in an internet connection from 19% to 30%. Along with almost universal access to cell-phones, these gains suggest potentially enhanced access to opportunities available in the broader environment. 9 20 80 7 3 7 6 7 3 6 1 8 Eat & Sell 70 Sell 60 % 50 40 90 95 95 98 72 92 91 90 87 90 92 Eat 30 20 10 Tshwane Johannesburg Ekurhuleni Merafong Westonaria Randfontein Mogale City Lesedi Midvaal Emfuleni GAUTENG 0 Figure 1: Households w ho grow their own fruit or vegetables. In Gauteng, 90% of all the people who grow food do so for their own consumption. This holds across municipalities in the province, with the exception of Lesedi, where more than 20% of people who grow their own food also sell the food. 2 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC Figure 2: Spatial distribution of households growing their own food. There are patches of high and low concentrations of people growing their own food at the core and periphery of the province. In central Johannesburg, Hammanskraal, Tembisa and Daveyton less than 8% of respondents say they grow their own food. By contrast, 29-47% of respondents grow their own food in areas around Sebokeng, Bronkhorstspruit and parts of Randburg. 100 90 80 70 60 71 67 75 72 63 60 65 61 68 74 71 No % 50 Yes 40 30 20 29 37 33 25 40 35 39 32 28 26 29 10 Tshwane Johannesburg Ekurhuleni Merafong Westonaria Randfontein Mogale City Lesedi Midvaal Emfuleni GAUTENG 0 Figure 3: Children in this household benefit from a school feeding scheme. 29% of children benefit from school feeding schemes in Gauteng. Randfontein (40%), Merafong (39%), Mogale City (37%) and Westonaria (35%) have the largest proportions of children who benefit from school feeding schemes. Only Midvaal, Lesedi and Johannesburg have smaller proportions of children who benefit from school feeding schemes, compared to the provincial average. 3 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 100 86 90 80 74 70 60 Social grant % 50 No social grant 40 30 20 15 8 10 8 4 2 1 1 1 0 Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always Figure 4: Social grants and frequency of respondent or other adult skipping a meal. In slightly more than a quarter (26%) of households where someone receives a social grant there is also an adult who had to skip a meal at some point during the past year. 15% say this happens ‘sometimes’ and 2% say this happens ‘often’. On the other hand 14% of households that are affected by food insecurity are not covered by a social grant. R102 401 or more 7 11 11 R38 401 - R102 400 7 12 R12 801 - R 38 400 11 71 13 68 Every week 16 13 61 Couple of times a month Couple of times a year R1601 - 12 800 9 R0 - 1600 6 0 15 15 10 11 10 20 30 Never 65 69 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Figure 5: Investment in lotto tickets by income groups. Of those respondents in households that earn less than R1 600 a month (including those people who said they earned no income), 21% buy lotto tickets regularly (every week or a couple of times a month). Almost a quarter (24%) of those in households earning between R1 600 and R12 800 also buy lotto tickets regularly, but the people who are most likely to buy lotto tickets regularly are those with household income between R12 801 and R38 400 (26%). 4 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 70 60 61 60 54 55 52 52 50 40 40 % 31 31 2013 30 2015 20 20 2013 avg 2015 avg 10 R102 401 and more R38 401 - R102 400 R12 801 - R38 400 R1 601 - R12 800 R0 - R1 600 0 Figure 6: Proportions of indebtedness per income group (2013 & 2015). Those in middle-income brackets tend to carry the highest likelihood of indebtedness. However, the sharp increase in proportions of indebtedness (between 9 – 11%) in Gauteng is carried by respondents in lower income groups. How easy or difficult do respondents find it to save money? (%) Very easy - easy Difficult - impossible African 18 82 Coloured 22 78 Indian/Asian 37 63 White 37 63 Figure 7: The ease of saving money (by race). 5 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 100 92 94 90 86 85 74 80 66 70 60 % 43 45 50 40 37 38 28 30 34 30 19 20 14 12 10 16 9 2013 2015 Bicycle Telephone or landline Internet connection PC, laptop, tablet Car Satellite TV Radio, CD player, music system Television Cell phone 0 Figure 8: Household assets – Owned and in working order. There have been numerous changes in access to assets since 2013. Most notable changes occurred in access to PCs, laptops or tablets (up by 6%), internet connections (up by 11%) and bicycles (up by 7%). Note that 82% of respondents in the 2015 QoL survey own a fridge in good working order but this was not recorded in 2013. OTHER RECENT RESEARCH IN THIS THEME: Poverty and inequality in the Gauteng City-Region (2016 forthcoming) by Darlington Mushongera, GCRO Research Report Hungry City-Region (2016 forthcoming) by Caryn Abrahams, GCRO Occasional Paper A multidimensional poverty index for Gauteng (February 2015) by Darlington Mushongera et al., GCRO Map of the Month The GCRO Barometer (2014) by Darlington Mushongera, GCRO Interactive website www.gcro.ac.za • • • • 6 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 3. Health Christian Hamann, christian.hamann@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7280 Mncedisi Siteleki, mncedisi.siteleki@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7280 Darlington Mushongera, darlington.mushongera@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7295 Public healthcare plays a significant role in the functioning of the Gauteng City-Region and the wellbeing of its residents. According to the Gauteng Provincial Government budget for 2016/17, the health sector has the second largest share of budgeted expenditure at 36%, or R37,4 billion, and hospital patient fees contribute 10% of provincial own revenue. Local government in Gauteng also devotes many hundreds of millions of Rands to primary health care services, with the metropolitan municipalities in particular continuing to run local clinics. This brief unpacks some initial insights into the ways in which Gauteng residents access and experience healthcare facilities. Accessing public healthcare According to the 2015 Quality of Life (QoL) survey 37% of respondents contacted or visited a government department in the three months before the interview. This equates to approximately 3,2 million adults. An overwhelming majority of these – 71% – interacted with either a clinic, hospital or other healthcare facility. Public healthcare facilities are therefore an important contact point between residents and government, one which undoubtedly also influences residents’ perception of government more generally. As Figure 1 shows, public healthcare facilities remain the cornerstone of health provision in Gauteng. 60% of respondents say they usually go for healthcare at a public facility, only marginally down from 62% in 2013. The percentage of respondents who say they usually use private healthcare is also down, from 28% in 2013 to 22% in the current survey. What is up is the percentage of those who use both public and private facilities, from 6% in 2013 to 9% now, and those who don’t usually need healthcare, from 4% to 7%. The limited use of traditional and spiritual healers (1% each) is insignificant, further highlighting the salience of public healthcare facilities. The healthcare service that residents typically access is partly a reflection of whether they have medical aid or medical insurance cover. A majority of respondents (69%) indicated that they do not have medical insurance (Figure 2), although this was a decline in the proportion without cover, down from 73% in 2013. However, concerning fault lines appear when medical insurance coverage, and correspondingly the access to private healthcare, is disaggregated by population group (Figure 3). 82% of African respondents do not have medical insurance compared to the 21% of white respondents. Correspondingly, only 11% of African respondents make use of private healthcare facilities, compared to 68% of white respondents. Figure 4 shows the geographic distribution of respondents without medical insurance. Poorer and more peripheral municipalities have a relatively higher proportion of respondents without cover. This suggests that unequal access to top quality healthcare compounds other dimensions of socio-economic and spatial inequality across the province. But from another perspective it highlights the vital role that good public healthcare has to play in balancing unequal access in poorer parts of the province. Satisfaction with healthcare facilities Generally, 72% of respondents are satisfied (either ’very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’) with the care they receive at the facilities they usually use. Figure 5 shows how satisfaction varies across different healthcare types. Those who usually go to a traditional healer are least satisfied at only 49%. There is a notable – though understandable – disparity between levels of satisfaction with public healthcare facilities (at 65%) and private healthcare facilities (at 92%). Although Gauteng residents are generally satisfied with public healthcare facilities, disparities do occur between municipalities (Figure 6) and within municipalities (Figure 7). Interestingly, satisfaction levels with public healthcare is lower in Johannesburg and Tshwane than it is in some of the local municipalities on the periphery, perhaps reflecting which sphere of government manages primary health care facilities in different parts of the province. Also notable is that Figure 7, which maps satisfaction by ward, shows an arc of very satisfied wards in Ekurhuleni. The map also suggests that in general township residents are less satisfied with public healthcare than residents in more affluent suburban areas. This could be attributed to the quality of service at particular public healthcare facilities. 1 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC Healthcare facility choices The 2015 Quality of Life survey provides a simultaneously complex and interesting perspective on why respondents choose the healthcare facilities that they use. Health problems The 2015 QoL asked respondents whether they or any other member of their household had had any of a range of medical conditions. As shown in Figure 10, the most prevalent self-reported health problems affecting Gauteng residents are hypertension (15%) and diabetes (11%). On the one hand Figure 8 shows that many respondents choose to avoid public healthcare facilities due to perceptions or experiences of lower quality of care (38%) or simply because they have medical aid which allows them access to private healthcare facilities (31%). On the other, there are respondents who use public health care facilities even though they have medical aid. Asked why, 34% indicated that the public facility provides the best treatment available, and 26% said the cost of private treatment was too high (Figure 9). It is therefore clear that a perception of poor care in public facilities does not hold in all scenarios. On the whole, Gauteng respondents seem relatively healthy. 92% said their health status was excellent or good in the four weeks prior to the interview. That said, 29% reported that their health status ‘always’ or ‘some of the time’ prevented them from doing daily work, and 27% said their health status ‘always’ or ‘some of the time’ prevented them from taking part in social activities. On the positive side, only 5% of respondents reported that they, or a member of their household, had failed to look for healthcare in the last 12 months when they needed it. 70 62 60 60 50 40 % 2013 28 30 2015 22 20 10 6 9 1 1 0 1 4 7 0 Public healthcare facilities Use public and private facilities Private healthcare facilities Traditional healer Spiritual healer Don't usually use healthcare Figure 1: Where do you usually go for medical care? The majority of respondents (60%) usually go to public healthcare facilities, followed by 22% of respondents who usually make use of private healthcare facilities. Very few respondents use traditional or spiritual healers (1% each). 2 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC All health care in private facilities 1 3 19 Private primary healthcare & government hospitalisation Hospital plan 5 3 No medical insurance Other 69 Don't know Figure 2: Type of medical insurance. The overwhelming majority (69%) of respondents do not have medical aid while the second largest proportion of respondents receive all healthcare in private facilities (19%). Where do you usually go for medical care? (%) Are you personally covered by medical aid / insurance? (%) Private healthcare facilities No medical insurance African 11 82 Coloured 19 64 Indian/Asian 51 32 White 68 21 Figure 3: How do access to medical cover and private healthcare differ (by race)? 3 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC Figure 4: The spatial distribution of respondents without medical insurance. The map shows the spatial distribution of respondents without medical insurance, mapped as a proportion of all the respondents interviewed in each municipality. The City of Tshwane (64%) has the smallest proportion of respondents without medical insurance while the largest proportions of respondents without medical insurance are located in Merafong and Westonaria (both 80%). Spiritual healer 21 Traditional healer 42 10 25 39 Private healthcare facilities 30 41 Use public and private facilities 14 Public healthcare facilities 15 0 10 13 8 51 4 2 57 13 50 20 12 30 40 12 50 60 70 11 16 80 5 7 90 100 % Very satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Figure 5: Satisfaction with the healthcare facility usually used. Of the respondents who usually use public healthcare, 65% of respondents are satisfied (either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’) with the care they received, while 92% of respondents that usually make use of private healthcare are satisfied. Satisfaction with traditional healers (49%) is the lowest. 4 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC % 0 20 Johannesburg 16 Tshwane Merafong 11 53 53 Randfontein GAUTENG 22 15 15 7 9 16 7 12 18 4 Very satisfied 15 17 5 Satisfied 4 Neutral 11 6 8 61 Westonaria 12 42 56 9 7 10 34 8 100 17 63 Midvaal Mogale City 13 51 13 11 80 52 17 Lesedi 60 46 14 Ekurhuleni Emfuleni 40 14 24 7 58 50 11 4 19 6 16 4 Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 5 11 3 7 Figure 6: Satisfaction with public healthcare facilities across municipalities in Gauteng. Satisfaction with public healthcare facilities vary by municipality with lower levels of satisfaction in Johannesburg (62%) and Mogale City (64%) compared to higher levels of satisfaction in Midvaal (76%) and Westonaria (80%). Figure 7: Satisfaction with public healthcare services by ward. Residents across the different wards who usually use public healthcare facilities are generally satisfied. However, residents in places, particularly townships, like Tembisa, Soshanguve and Alexandra are much less satisfied with the healthcare services they receive compared to suburban areas such as Kempton Park, Centurion and Sandton. 5 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 0 10 20 % 30 40 Quality of care 38 I have medical aid 31 Queues are usually too long 11 The clinic does not have the medicine I need 4 They could not help me during a previous visit 3 No public healthcare facilities nearby 3 Other 3 The staff are too unhelpful 3 The staff are too unfriendly 3 Cost 3 Figure 8: Reasons for not using public healthcare facilities. In most cases, respondents who do not use public healthcare facilities avoid them due to the perceived low quality of care (38%) or because they have medical aid (31%). Other reasons, including availability of medication, cost, capacity and efficiency are less common (less than 5%). 40 35 30 34 26 25 % 20 13 15 12 8 10 7 5 0 Best treatments Cost of private available treatment is too high Used up all medical aid benefits Medical aid copayment too high Other Medical aid didn't cover the trreatment Figure 9: Reasons for using public healthcare facilities despite having medical aid. 34% of respondents with medical aid that use public healthcare facilities do so because they find public healthcare facilities to provide the best treatment available. 26% of these respondents make use of public healthcare facilities because the cost of private healthcare facilities is too high. Other reasons, such as various medical aid limitations, are much less common (less than 15%). 6 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 16 15 14 11 12 10 8 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 Influenza / Pneumonia 4 Mental Illness 4 4 Emphysema/ bronchitis 6 6 Diarrhoea % Tuberculosis Cancer Heart disease/stroke HIV/AIDS Asthma Diabetes Hypertension 0 Figure 10: Most prevalent health problems in Gauteng. Hypertension (15%) and diabetes (11%) are the most prevalent health problems in Gauteng, indicated here as a percentage of respondents who experienced it as a problem in the last year. Note that respondents were allowed multiple mentions and that 58% of respondents selected the ‘none of the above’ option, suggesting that a variety of other health problems also affect respondents' quality of life. OTHER RECENT RESEARCH IN THIS THEME: • • • • Hungry City-Region (2016 forthcoming) by Caryn Abrahams, GCRO Occasional Paper Clusters of dissatisfaction with local government performance (January 2016) by Dr Koech Cheruiyot et al., GCRO Map of the Month Quality of Life 2013 City Benchmarking Report (2015) by all GCRO staff, GCRO Research Report The GCRO Barometer (2014) by Darlington Mushongera, GCRO Interactive website www.gcro.ac.za 7 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 4. Headspace & happiness Dr Aidan Mosselson, aidan.mosselson@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7280 Dr Sally Peberdy, sally.peberdy@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7280 The GCRO Quality of Life survey asks a range of questions into social and political perceptions and opinions on issues of race and transformation, belonging, sexuality and acceptance of violence. Has confidence in political institutions and the political process stayed the same, improved or declined? Whose confidence has been most affected? Are we becoming a more socially cohesive and inclusive society? Or have our attitudes to who belongs in South Africa hardened? Who do we think South Africa belongs to? elections. People still believe that they are able to influence situations in their communities, with 51% disagreeing with the statement ‘People like you cannot influence developments in your community’. A further 49% disagree with the statement ‘Politics is a waste of time’, compared with 47% who disagreed in 2013 (Figure 5). However, there is also a current of scepticism, with 31% feeling that they cannot make a difference in their communities and 37% agreeing that politics is a waste of time. Here we present some initial findings to these questions. Political opinions and perceptions There are high levels of pessimism about the state, politics in general and the institutions that protect South Africa’s democracy (Figure 1). Furthermore, perceptions seem to be souring over time. Indicatively, 61% of respondents agree with the statement ‘The country is going in the wrong direction’, up slightly from 60% in 2013. 23% disagree with the statement in 2015, which is down quite sharply from 30% in 2013 (Figure 2). Interestingly, the results do not differ significantly by race, all ranging between 60% (African) and 65% (white) (Figure 3). In 2011, 68% of respondents agreed that the 2011 municipal elections were free and fair, which declined to 62% for the 2013 national government elections. The 2015 results show that only 52% agree that the upcoming municipal elections will be free and fair, while a further 29% do not know (Figure 4). In 2011, 41% agreed that the judiciary was free from government interference. In 2013 this number increased to 48% with only 26% disagreeing. However, in the 2015 survey 42% agree with this statement and a further 31% don’t know. This signals a return to uncertainty about the judiciary’s ability to function independently. In 2011 64% felt that the press was able to report independently and express itself freely. In 2013 this number decreased to 54%. In 2015 only 50% agree that the press is free to write and say what it likes. Despite these negative perceptions, residents in Gauteng do not feel completely powerless or unable to effect change. 90% of respondents who are registered voters indicated that they do intend voting in the upcoming Social cohesion, identity and belonging Notwithstanding recent robust debates around race, fuelled in part by racist incidents highlighted on social media, attitudes towards race have largely stayed the same or softened somewhat since 2011 and particularly since 2013. Despite the xenophobic attacks of 2015, xenophobic attitudes have also softened since 2013. However the strong exclusionary attitudes to gay and lesbian people held by a sizeable and increasing minority of respondents are worrying. Questions in the 2015 QoL survey relating to social cohesion, identity and belonging, found the following. 76% of residents call Gauteng home, rising to 94% for people born in Gauteng, but falling to 45% for internal migrants and 41% for international migrants. Residents were most likely to identify themselves through nationality (22%), race (20%), gender (18%), religion (10%), or as ‘an individual’ (17%). In 2013 66% of respondents agreed with the statement that ‘blacks and whites will never really trust each other’. In 2015 this dropped to 58% across Gauteng. The results differ noticeably by race (Figure 6). 62% of African respondents agreed that blacks and whites will never trust each other, hearteningly down from 73% in 2013. However, the proportion of white respondents agreeing that blacks and whites will never trust each other increased from 40% in 2013 to 44% in 2015. Over the course of the survey, it dropped to as low as 34% in December 2015, but then rose to over 50% in interviews conducted in February and March 2016, shortly after the Penny Sparrow incident was communicated on social media. 1 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC Across the province, over half of respondents said that affirmative action and BEE must be sped up, with white residents being least likely to agree (Figure 7). Not all residents agree that all previously disadvantaged people should benefit from affirmative action, as 31% of African respondents, 26% of coloured, 15% of Indian and 22% of white respondents – with an average of 29% across the sample – agreed with the statement that Indians do not deserve to benefit from affirmative action. A third (34%) of respondents agreed with the statement that ‘South Africa belongs more to black Africans than coloureds, Indians or whites’, whilst almost half (49%) disagreed. 22% agreed that ‘there is no place for white people in South Africa today’, but the majority (62%) disagreed. Only 56% agreed that gay and lesbian people deserve equal rights with all South Africans (29% disagreed). This is a significant fall from 2013 when 71% agreed with the statement (Figure 8). It is even more disturbing seen alongside the 14% of residents who think it is acceptable to be violent towards gay and lesbian people (Figure 9). Given high rates of urbanisation in Gauteng, interviewees were asked if they agreed that ‘there are too many people coming to Gauteng, we should bring back influx control’. A surprising 43% agreed, a higher proportion than disagreed (38%). 44% of black African, 44% of coloured, 39% of Indian and 40% of white respondents agreed. Surprisingly, age did not make a difference. However there is a significant distinction in agreement with bringing back influx control between those born in Gauteng (46%), South African internal migrants (41%) and international migrants (26%). Despite the xenophobic attacks in Gauteng in 2015, the proportion of South Africans who agreed with the statement ‘Gauteng belongs to South Africans only, send all foreigners home’ fell to 24% in 2015 from 38% in 2013. The proportion of people who said ‘legal foreigners are OK’ increased from 45% in 2013 to 58% in 2015. 2 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC What are respondents' opinions of the independence of institutions designed to protect South Africa's democracy? The upcoming elections will be free and fair 52% agree The judiciary is free from government influence 42% agree The press is free to say or write what it likes 50% agree Corruption is the main threat to South Africa's democracy 82% agree Figure 1: What are respondents’ opinions of the independence of institutions designed to protect South Africa’s democracy? 70 60 50 2011 40 % 2013 30 2015 20 10 60 60 61 27 30 23 13 10 16 0 Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Figure 2: The country is going in the wrong direction (2011, 2013 & 2015). Pessimism about the direction the country is going in remains high: between 2013 and 2015 the number of people agreeing that the country is headed in the wrong direction remained stable at around 60%. However, the number of people who disagree with the statement decreased across all race groups, whilst the proportion who are uncertain increased. This pattern indicates that the majority of respondents are unhappy with the direction the country is headed in and proportionally fewer respondents are able to say with certainty that they see positive developments in the country. 3 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 32 29 25 15 12 10 59 58 60 20 14 66 24 10 66 19 21 18 19 63 31 19 17 21 18 9 60 60 59 24 10 65 66 27 30 17 13 65 60 23 16 10 60 61 40 Disagree 30 Neither 20 Agree 10 Gauteng 2015 Gauteng 2013 Gauteng 2011 White 2015 White 2013 White 2011 Indian/Asian 2015 Indian/Asian 2013 Indian/Asian 2011 Coloured 2015 Coloured 2013 Coloured 2011 African 2015 African 2013 African 2011 0 Figure 3: The country is going in the wrong direction – comparison by race (2011, 2013 & 2015). Whilst the white and coloured populations have shown the highest levels of dissatisfaction with the direction South Africa is headed in across all three surveys, there are not significant differences between their opinions and those held by Africans and Indians. Although Africans have tended to have the most favourable impressions, their perceptions about the direction the country is going are converging with the other groups as levels of negativity rise. 80 70 60 68 62 64 52 50 Agree elections will be free and fair 42 Agree press is free to write and say what it likes 54 50 48 % 40 41 30 Agree judiciary is free from government influence 20 10 0 2011 2013 2015 Figure 4: Declining faith in democratic institutions (2011, 2013 & 2015). 4 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 100 90 80 70 57 48 50 50 13 16 44 42 9 13 50 42 42 49 43 45 55 47 49 60 % 50 40 30 20 9 10 43 37 33 47 12 16 45 34 19 46 39 34 12 39 10 10 17 11 46 38 44 34 14 37 10 Disagree Neither Agree Gauteng 2015 Gauteng 2013 Gauteng 2011 White 2015 White 2013 White 2011 Indian/Asian 2015 Indian/Asian 2013 Indian/Asian 2011 Coloured 2015 Coloured 2013 Coloured 2011 African 2015 African 2013 African 2011 0 Figure 5: Politics is a waste of time – comparison by race (2011, 2013 & 2015). The increasing suspicion about the state of the country’s democratic institutions is coinciding with people becoming disillusioned about politics. Between 2011 and 2013 there were significant increases in the numbers of respondents agreeing with the statement ‘Politics is a waste of time’, particularly amongst the African population (33% agreed in 2011 compared to 43% in 2013). In 2015 the total number of Gauteng residents who disagreed with this statement remained relatively stable (47% disagreed in 2013 and 50% disagreed in 2015). Whilst the number who agree with the statement has decreased (37% in 2015 compared with 44% in 2013), the number who are uncertain has increased, particularly in the white and Indian populations. This shows that whilst less people are willing to regard politics as a waste of time, more people are uncertain whether it is worthwhile to engage with politics or not. However, the number of people who intend to vote is high, at 80%. 100 90 80 70 21 19 10 8 22 15 60 28 17 27 12 25 27 19 20 28 17 % 50 40 30 69 73 62 20 55 61 56 54 55 30 26 37 22 43 17 34 22 Disagree 44 41 40 44 10 Neither Agree White 2015 White 2013 White 2011 Indian/Asian 2015 Indian/Asian 2013 Indian/Asian 2011 Coloured 2015 Coloured 2013 Coloured 2011 African 2015 African 2013 African 2011 0 Figure 6: Blacks and whites will never really trust each other (2011, 2013 & 2015). Recent debates around race suggest that attitudes are hardening. Yet, amongst African, coloured and Indian residents there has been a decline in the proportion of people who think blacks and whites will never trust each other. This suggests suspicions are weakening. White people are least likely to agree with the statement. But, suggesting white attitudes may be hardening, as the proportion of whites who disagreed with the statement has dropped. 5 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 100 14 90 14 21 17 28 80 25 70 32 22 27 60 Disagree 32 % 50 Neither 40 Agree 60 30 57 56 54 40 20 10 0 African Coloured Indian/Asian White GAUTENG Figure 7: Affirmative action and BEE must be sped up (%). 23 31 7 18 6 69 29 18 76 14 9 17 77 74 57 56 55 26 7 15 14 21 22 15 8 64 29 14 71 56 Disagree Neither Gauteng 2015 Gauteng 2013 White 2015 White 2013 Indian/Asian 2015 Indian/Asian 2013 Coloured 2015 Coloured 2013 African 2015 Agree African 2013 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 8: Gay and lesbian people deserve equal rights with all other South Africans (2013 & 2015). Disturbingly, the proportion of respondents who agreed with the statement that gay and lesbian people deserve equal rights with all South Africans fell from 71% in 2013 to 56% in 2015. It is not clear why the proportion of people who want to deny rights to gay and lesbian people has risen – or why more people are unsure or have no opinion. What is even more disturbing is the high proportion of people who think that it is acceptable to be violent towards gay and lesbian people (14%). Where does this de-humanisation come from? 6 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 16 14 14 12 10 8 6 3 4 2 2 0 It is acceptable to be violent to gay & lesbian people (%) It is OK to physically attack foreigners to make them leave (%) Is it ever acceptable for a man to hit or beat his partner (%) Figure 9: Percentage of respondents who think it is acceptable to be violent towards people just for being who they are, or for violence to be part of a relationship. To put these percentages into perspective, 14% of respondents who believe it is acceptable to be violent to gay and lesbian people translates to around 1.26 million people, 300 000 people believe it is OK to physically attack foreigners and 190 000 people believe it can be acceptable for a man to hit or beat his partner. OTHER RECENT RESEARCH IN THIS THEME: Pathways to anti-racism (2016 forthcoming) by Caryn Abrahams, GCRO Research Report What is the biggest problem facing your community (August 2015) by Kerry Bobbins, GCRO Map of the Month Xenophobic attacks – are migrants the only victims? (May 2015) by Dr Sally Peberdy, GCRO Vignette LGBTI attitudes in the GCR (March 2015) by Guy Trangoš, GCRO Vignette Social isolation in the GCR (February 2015) by Guy Trangoš et al., GCRO Vignette • • • • • www.gcro.ac.za 7 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION 5. Neighbourhood Dr Richard Ballard, richard.ballard@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7197 Samy Katumba, samy.katumba@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7199 Dr Aidan Mosselson, aidan.mosselson@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7696 Mncedisi Siteleki, mncendisi.siteleki@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7696 Are residents of Gauteng satisfied with the neighbourhoods in which they live? The question is important because responses reflect a variety of dimensions of residents’ everyday lives and circumstances. Satisfaction with neighbourhoods According to the 2015 Quality of Life (QoL) survey satisfaction rates are generally high. As seen in Figure 1, 72% of respondents said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their neighbourhood, whereas 16% said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. These results vary geographically. As Figure 2 shows, some wards have a much higher proportion of respondents who are satisfied with their neighbourhoods than other wards. • • • • Respondents in relatively affluent areas, especially those dominated by estate or cluster housing, such as Bryanston and Sunninghill, overwhelmingly say they are satisfied with their neighbourhood. Township areas have mixed levels of satisfaction, and some are surprisingly high. In Soweto, for example, 72% of respondents are satisfied with their neighbourhood. Areas that reported low levels of satisfaction include parts of Boksburg, Bekkersdal, and some sparsely populated peripheral wards. There are some stark contrasts, for example between Alexandra, Tembisa and Diepsloot and affluent areas adjacent to them. Satisfaction with neighbourhood also varies according to the type of dwelling a respondent lives in. • • • As Figure 3 shows, 88% of respondents living in a cluster house in a complex or a townhouse say that they are satisfied with their neighbourhood. 76% of people living in a house on a separate stand (e.g. a suburban home) are satisfied with their neighbourhood. Residents of backyard shacks and of informal settlements are least likely to say that they are satisfied with their neighbourhoods. Interestingly a significant proportion of those in informal settlements (40%) are satisfied with their area, raising questions about expectations and aspirations. More residents of backyard shacks say that they are satisfied (52%) than dissatisfied (35%) with their neighbourhood. This reflects the locational advantage of those in backyard shacks. Even though they live in an informal dwelling, they benefit from neighbourhoods that have received substantial investment. As Figure 4 shows, there is a relationship between people’s satisfaction with their neighbourhood and their opinion of living in Gauteng province in general. Most residents agree with the statement ‘Gauteng is the best province and I’d rather live here than anywhere else’ (65%). However, respondents who were dissatisfied with their neighbourhood were less likely to agree that Gauteng is the best province (57%). Improvement or deterioration in neighbourhood Figure 5 highlights that nearly a third (31%) of respondents believe that there has been an improvement in their area or community in the past year. The results differ by municipality. Mogale City had the highest proportion of respondents indicating improvement over the last year, at 37%, followed by the three metropolitan municipalities, each with 32%. Emfuleni had the lowest at 17%, followed by Randfontein at 20%. Lesedi had the highest proportion of respondents (25%) saying that their suburb or community had deteriorated in the last year, followed by Emfuleni at (20%). Perceptions of improvement in neighbourhoods vary dramatically by type of dwelling, a proxy for the sort of area respondents live in. Compared to the average of 31%, 55% of those living in cluster housing in complexes said that their community/suburb had improved in the last year. Only 11% said there had been deterioration. On the other end of the spectrum only 10% of those in an informal settlement had seen their neighbourhood improve, while 18% indicated deterioration and 72% said there had been no change. Only 29% of those in RDP housing said their newly established suburbs had improved in the last year; 14% said there had been deterioration; and 57% indicated no change. Reasons for living in a suburb Respondents were asked to identify the main reason that they live in the suburb in which they live (Figure 6). The most common response was ‘affordability’ (26%) followed by ‘always lived here’ (20%) and ‘easy to get to 1 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION work’ (13%). There are some interesting variations by population group. For example white respondents are least likely to say ‘always lived here’ (14%), but most likely to identify ‘quality of property’ (12%) and ‘security’ (5%) as the most important reason. Neither social homogeneity nor diversity seemed to be primary motivations since relatively few respondents identified the most important reason as either ‘neighbours are similar to me’ (1%) or that the suburb was ‘interesting and diverse’(1%). who identified ‘drugs’ do not include a further 3% who named ‘alcohol abuse’ as the biggest problem. Therefore nearly one fifth of the respondents said that substance abuse was the biggest problem facing their community. In another question, respondents were asked ‘If there is a problem in the area where you live, who do you talk to first to sort it out?’ (Figure 8). 37% said they would call the ‘police’ while a further 9% said they would use ‘private security’. 14% of the residents could not identify anyone they would approach. Biggest problem in community Respondents were asked to name the biggest problem in their community (Figure 7). The most common response was ‘crime’, identified as the most important problem by 37% of the respondents. ‘Unemployment’ features prominently but no longer constitutes the second most commonly cited problem as it did in previous QoL surveys. The second most commonly cited problem is now ‘drugs’, identified by 16% of the respondents (having risen from 5% in the 2009 and 2011 surveys). The 16% Levels of trust in community Figure 9 indicates that levels of trust at neighbourhood level are low. Only 14% of respondents agreed with the statement ‘most people can be trusted’ while 77% of respondents agreed with the statement ‘you need to be very careful’. Levels of trust in communities have deteriorated marginally since the first QoL survey in 2009. 5 18 11 Very satisfied Satisfied 13 Neither Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 53 Figure 1: Levels of satisfaction with the area or neighbourhood w here respondents live. 2 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION Figure 2: Satisfaction with respondents’ own neighbourhood (by ward). 100 90 80 70 60 % 88 76 71 69 House in a complex House on a separate stand 52 50 44 40 40 35 30 Flat RDP house Backyard informal Informal settlement 20 11 10 15 18 3 0 Satisfied with my area Dissatisfied with my area Figure 3: How does the kind of dwelling that I live in relate to my level of satisfaction with my neighbourhood? 3 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION Gauteng is the best province and I’d rather live here than anywhere else (%) Agree Neither Disagree Satisfied with neighbourhood 69 15 17 Neither 51 30 19 Dissatisfied with neighbourhood 57 16 28 All 65 17 19 Figure 4: The relationship between satisfaction with neighbourhood and opinion of living in the province. Respondents who are dissatisfied with their neighbourhood are more likely to disagree with the statement ‘Gauteng is the best province and I’d rather live here than anywhere else’. Gauteng 31 Westonaria 16 26 Randfontein 11 20 63 12 Mogale City 67 37 Midvaal 10 30 Merafong Improvement 60 25 17 No Change 63 32 13 Tshwane 32 15 Johannesburg 32 20 Deterioration 46 20 Ekurhuleni 0 55 18 29 Emfuleni 53 16 22 Lesedi 53 55 53 18 50 40 60 80 100 % Figure 5: Perceived improvement or deterioration in suburb / community in the past 12 months (by municipality). 4 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION 30 25 African 20 % Coloured 15 Indian/Asian 10 White 5 Other Trendy/cool Near to a place of worship Investment Interesting and diverse Neighbours are similar to me Shopping Security Schooling / education I can be myself Quality of property Independence My family lives nearby Easy to get to work Always lived here Affordability of property -0 Figure 6: What is the most important reason why you live in your suburb. Across racial categories, 26% identified ‘affordability of property’. 20% said ‘always lived here’. 13% said ‘easy to get to work’. 12% said ‘my family lives nearby’. 6% named ‘independence’. 37 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Other High cost of living Lack of basic services Alcohol abuse Housing Lack of maintenance Air pollution Foreigners Corrupt councillors Noise Poverty Litter or dirt HIV AIDS 15 Unemployment Drugs 16 Crime 50 45 40 35 30 % 25 20 15 10 5 0 Figure 7: What is the biggest problem facing your community? For the first time ‘drugs’ features as the second most commonly cited problem. The ‘other’ column contains a variety of responses including ‘electricity’. Problems such as ‘child abuse’, ‘domestic violence’ and ‘vandalism’ were mentioned, but not commonly cited. 5 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION 37 40 35 30 25 9 8 5 3 2 1 1 A government official 11 10 Community based organisation 12 Other 14 15 Community leader % 20 Ward committee Private security Ward councillor Street committee/ residents’ assoc None The police 0 Figure 8: If there is a problem in the area where you live, who do you talk to first to sort it out? Very few respondents would first talk to the following groups to deal with problems: ‘traditional leader/nduna’, ‘a political party’, ‘faith based organisation’, ‘the media’, ‘sangoma’. 90 80 71 77 76 74 70 60 Most people can be trusted 50 % You need to be very careful 40 Don't know 30 22 17 20 17 6 10 14 9 7 3 0 2009 2011 2013 2015 Figure 9: Levels of trust in community over time. 6 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION OTHER RECENT RESEARCH IN THIS THEME: • • • • • Clusters of dissatisfaction with local government performance (January 2016) by Koech Cheruiyot, GCRO Map of the Month Gauteng’s changing urban footprint 1990-2013 (December 2015) by Dr Richard Ballard et al., GCRO Map of the Month Social isolation in the GCR (February 2015) by Guy Trangoš et al., GCRO Map of the Month What is the biggest problem facing your community (August 2015) by Kerry Bobbins, GCRO Map of the Month The location of planned mega housing projects in context (May 2015) by Dr Richard Ballard et al., GCRO Map of the Month www.gcro.ac.za 7 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION 6. Transport Christina Culwick, christina.culwick@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7296 Dr Siân Butcher, sian.butcher@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7696 Samy Katumba, samy.katumba@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7199 Guy Trangoš, guy.trangos@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7698 Movement in the Gauteng City-Region is an important indicator of peoples’ access to economic opportunity and their quality of life, and it reflects the region’s urban structure, social and economic inequality and prospects for sustainability. Over the past decade, Gauteng has seen significant investment into transport infrastructure aimed at integrating the fragmented urban form, improving the quality of transport and reducing commuting times. The GCRO’s 2015 Quality of Life survey suggests that some of this investment is having a positive impact, but it is not all good news. Most notably while new public transport investments are slowly changing commuting habits, car use has increased. Purpose of most frequent trip The purpose of respondents’ most frequent trip reflects numerous social and economic dynamics across the province. Overall for Gauteng, there is a near even split between trips to work (36%) and to shop (33%) (Figure 1). While the percentage of shopping trips remain higher for women (40%) than men (27%), women’s trips to work have increased since 2013 (from 26% to 30%) and men’s trips for shopping have increased since 2013 (from 24% to 27%). The trips to look for work have increased from 7% in 2013 to 9% in 2015, and trips to places of study have stayed relatively constant (5% in 2015 versus 6% in 2013). Mode of transport to work Building on previous GCRO research, the QoL 2015 results show that the mode used for trips to work is split between private vehicles (47%) and taxis (33%). The proportion of private vehicle use has increased from 44% in 2013, whereas taxi use has dropped from 37% (Figure 2). 94% of white respondents used private vehicles to get to work, while this is the case for only 30% of African respondents. Non-motorised travel (walking or cycling) has increased as the main mode to work from 10% (2013) to 13% (2015). Walking to work is more prevalent among African respondents (16%) than white respondents (3%). Work commutes by train remain low (4%) and commuting by other buses dropped from 4% (2013) to 2% (2015). Interestingly, new forms of publicly-provided public transport (Gautrain and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)) are starting to feature in respondents’ reported work commutes. Respondents using either Gautrain or BRT as their main mode to work have doubled since 2013, from 0.4% to 0.8% (Figure 2). Overall, regardless of trip purpose, there has been a sizeable increase in daily BRT trips, from 0.4% in 2013 to 2.1% in 2015. This translates to some 184 000 people when weighted to the total Gauteng population. In Johannesburg, where a BRT system has been in place the longest, 2,7% (some 84 000 commuters) use BRT daily, 2,9% (92 000) use BRT weekly, and a further 5,8% (185 000) use the system monthly. This translates into some 361 000 regular users of the new infrastructure – 11% of the city’s adult population. 79% of Johannesburg respondents are satisfied with the BRT system, rising to 83% of daily users. Travel times to work The results indicate that more time is spent traveling to look for work than all other commutes, with less than half (47%) of job seekers arriving within 30 minutes compared to 55% of work commutes and 70% of all other trips. Commuting times remain racialised (Figure 3) with a greater percentage of white respondents getting to work within 30 minutes (63%) than all other population groups. At 52% Africans are the least likely to get to work within half an hour. African respondents are also more likely to spend more than an hour getting to work (8%), with Indian/Asian respondents the least likely (2%). People’s dwelling type also has an impact on travel time, with 74% of respondents living in flats arriving at work within 30 minutes compared to only 46% of repondents living in informal dwellings (backyard and informal settlement). Satisfaction with transport In general, respondents display high levels of satisfaction with their main mode of transport (Figure 4), with 94% satisfaction for Gautrain users, followed by private vehicle (91%) and BRT (90%). Levels of dissatisfaction are highest among train users with 40% either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, followed by cyclists (26%). Dissatisfaction is lowest among those who use Gautrain (1%), private vehicles (4%) and BRT (5%). A solid 74% of taxi users reported being satisfied or very satisfied, while 16% were dissatisfied. 1 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION A third of all respondents (33%) agree that public transport has improved for them and their household over the past year. Respondents in lower income groups report highest levels of public transport improvement (Figure 5). Figure 6 shows the spatial distribution of respondents agreeing that public transport has improved. The map suggests progress in many township areas such as Soweto, Thokoza/Katlehong/Vosloorus, Tsakane and Mabopane. While the latter can access services through private transport, this points to a double planning challenge: increasing access to services for poor households in informal settlements as well as making more affluent areas less reliant on cars. Effects and perceptions of e-tolls The implementation of e-tolls has been highly contested and the QoL 2015 survey provides some insight into the opinions of Gauteng residents towards the new system. Interestingly, fewer respondents changed their routes because of e-tolls (14%) than had anticipated they would before the gantries were turned on (19% in 2013). However, the actual impact of e-tolls on changing modes (11%) is only slightly lower than anticipated (12% in 2013). Access to services and walkability Walkability to transport and services is a measure of both socioeconomic access and urban sustainability. When asked if transport was available within easy walking distance, 65% of respondents answered affirmatively. In terms of access to a range of services (e.g. supermarkets, banks, internet cafes, etc.), 7% responded that none were within walking distance. This differed across dwelling type, where very few residents of flats or apartments reported no services within walking distance (4%). 7% of those in formal standalone houses said they had no access to services in easy walking distance. Residents of informal dwellings not in backyards reported the least walkability to any services (12%), followed by residents of cluster complexes (at 11%). Of the respondents who use Gauteng's freeways, those that are satisfied with the quality of the roads are more likely to pay. 34% of those who are satisfied with roads agree with the statement “I will never pay e-tolls”, and 42% disagree, indicating a willingness to pay. By contrast, those who are dissatisfied with roads show an equal tendency (38%) to agree or disagree with the statement “I will never pay e-tolls”. The racial breakdown highlights that over a third of African respondents (34%) say that they do not use freeways compared to only 15% of white respondents (Figure 7). To go to work 12 2 To look for work 2 36 To go to the place where I study Shopping Taking children to school 33 To go to a place of leisure or entertainment 9 Other purpose 5 Figure 1: Purpose of most frequent trip. 2 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION Mode of transport for longest part of trip to work (%) 2013 2015 9 13 Car (as driver, passenger or lift club, motorbike) 44 47 Taxi 37 33 Train 4 4 0.4 0.8 4 2 Walk New public transport (Gautrain and BRT) Other buses Figure 2: Given large investment in new forms of public and non-motorized transport in Gauteng, how have transport modes for trips to work changed (2013 & 2015)? 50 45 40 35 30 % 25 20 15 African 10 Coloured Figure 3: Time to work (by race). More From 61minutes to 90 minutes (1.5 Hours) From 46 minutes to 60 minutes White From 31 minutes to 45 minutes 0 From 16 minutes to 30 minutes Indian/Asian Up to 15 minutes 5 3 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION % 0 Walk 10 20 30 40 15 Bicycle 50 60 70 80 57 21 11 41 12 90 100 13 4 16 10 Very satisfied Private vehicle Taxi 31 60 12 5 3 62 10 12 Satisfied Neither 3 Dissatisfied Train 9 Gautrain 12 33 ReaVaya / A re yeng BRT Other bus 39 27 13 61 30 4 61 12 58 Very dissatisfied 5 11 15 5 4 Figure 4: Satisfaction with longest mode of transport. 100 90 80 12 12 12 14 20 20 18 16 20 22 26 70 60 % 50 36 16 20 33 40 20 6 R0 - R1 600 0 8 R1 601 - R12 800 10 36 8 28 21 Neither 6 10 Agree Strongly agree R38 401 - R102 400 39 R102 401+ Disagree 43 R12 801 - R38 400 30 Strongly disagree Figure 5: Public transport has improved for me and my household in the last year (by income group, excluding not applicable). 4 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION Figure 6: Spatial spread of respondents that agree that public transport has improved for them or their household in the past year. 40 35 34 30 % 24 25 N/A don't use freeways 20 16 15 15 10 5 0 African Coloured Indian/Asian White Figure 7: When asked to respond to ‘I will never pay my e-tolls’, those respondents who found the statement not applicable, or indicated that they don’t use freeways (by race). 5 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 LANDSCAPES IN TRANSITION OTHER RECENT RESEARCH IN THIS THEME: Transforming transport in the Gauteng City-Region (October 2015) by Christina Culwick et al., GCRO Interactive Website, Map of the Month and Vignette Look for work trips (December 2014) by Chris Wray et al., GCRO Map of the Month Getting to work in the GCR (2014) by Christina Culwick et al., GCRO Interactive Vignette, Map of the Month and Vignette Mobility in the Gauteng City-Region (2014) by Chris Wray et al., GCRO Research Report • • • • www.gcro.ac.za 6 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 NEW REGIONAL ECONOMIES 7. Entrepreneurship Dr Sally Peberdy, sally.peberdy@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7294 Graeme Götz, graeme.gotz@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7280 National, provincial and local governments have been promoting small and medium enterprise (SME) entrepreneurship to boost economic growth and provide employment opportunities. Recently there has been a particular policy focus on growing businesses in the township economy. Yet results from the 2015 Quality of Life (QoL) survey found that the proportion of current business owners among respondents fell from 11% in 2011 and 2013 to 8% in 2015. The proportion of respondents who had ever tried to start a business similarly fell from 18% in 2013 to 15% in 2015. Most concerning, of those who had tried to start a business 45% said that their business had failed, up from 34% in 2013 (Figure 1). white-owned businesses tended to be more formalised and larger. 74% of the businesses owned by African respondents were in the informal sector compared to only 45% of those owned by whites; 60% of Africanowned businesses were single-employee operations compared to only 23% of those owned by whites. These statistics confirm trends detected in the most recent Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey. According to GEM, South Africa’s ‘Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity’ (TEA) – the percentage of the 18-64 year old population who are either a nascent entrepreneur or owner-manager of a new business – dropped to 7% in 2014, down from 11% in the previous survey. This does not mean that international migrants dominate the informal or formal sector business communities. Figure 4 shows changes in business ownership by migrant status between 2011 and 2015. Those born in Gauteng have increased their share of both formal and informal businesses since the last survey. The 2015 QoL survey provides a range of insights into the challenges faced by formal and informal entrepreneurship in the province, as well as dynamics in the township economy and the impact of government labour-market intermediation programmes. Only initial findings are presented here. Entrepreneurship The proportion of entrepreneurs operating in the informal sector remained stable at 65% in both the 2015 and 2013 QoL surveys. Not surprisingly, informal businesses tended to be less well established. 51% were less than 4 years old, compared to 36% of formal businesses. By contrast 17% of informal sector business owners said their enterprise was more than 10 years old, compared to 25% of formal sector entrepreneurs (Figure 2). There are significant differences in the entrepreneurial experiences of men and women, different population groups as well as between people born in Gauteng, internal migrants, and international migrants (Figure 3). 7% of African respondents owned a business, down from 10% in 2013; 10% of white respondents owned a business, down from 15% in 2013. While this spread is not wide, In 2015 international migrants were more likely to own a business (16%) than people born in Gauteng (7%) or people who migrated to Gauteng from another province (8%). International migrants were also more likely to operate in the informal sector (73%), compared to internal migrants (66%) and people born in Gauteng (63%). Business constraints Business owners in the survey identified access to startup capital as a problem. Personal savings were the first named primary source of start-up capital for 70% of formal sector and 81% of informal sector entrepreneurs. Bank loans were the primary source of capital for only 14% of formal sector and 5% of informal sector business owners. Remarkably, only 4% of African business owners said that their primary source of start-up capital was a bank loan, compared to 20% of white owned business. Lack of access to finance was a main constraint to business for 11% of informal and 10% of formal sector entrepreneurs while the cost of borrowing was the main constraint for 9% and 4% respectively. Crime was reported as the largest constraint to the businesses by both formal (15%) and informal sector entrepreneurs (16%). Business regulations (3% of informal and 6% of formal) and labour regulations (2% each for both categories) did not feature significantly as main constraints. Competition from foreign owned business was cited as a constraint by 6% of informal and 7% of formal sector business owners. Government support For the first time in 2015, the QoL survey asked all respondents whether they were satisfied with 1 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 NEW REGIONAL ECONOMIES government initiatives to grow the economy and create jobs. Only 22% said they were satisfied, while 60% said they were dissatisfied. This stark picture is reflected in responses from business owners on whether they had heard about and accessed government support. Only 0,9% of formal sector and 0,3% of informal sector entrepreneurs had accessed start-up funds through a loan from a government agency. 24% of informal sector and 46% of formal sector entrepreneurs had heard of a government agency that supports SMEs. Of these, only 28% of informal and 43% of formal entrepreneurs had approached a government agency for support. percentages seem low, but they represent some 340 000 beneficiaries in Gauteng, and 175 000 in Johannesburg. Respondents who had participated in one or other of these government-led labour market intermediation programmes were then asked what if any benefits they had received. 27% said money and 47% said they had gained skills. Less encouragingly for entrepreneurship, only 6% said their experience had led them to start their own business and only 11% said they had gained business ideas and networks. Overall, 38% of current business owners who had engaged with government were satisfied with the support they received (31% in the informal and 44% in the formal sector). 37% were dissatisfied (43% in the informal and 30% in the formal sector). More encouragingly, the percentage of all respondents who owned or had owned a business who had approached government for support increased from 5% in 2013 to 9% in 2015. However it is clear that there is still much work for government to do in supporting emerging entrepreneurs. Township economies The 2015 QoL survey asked respondents a set of questions about the economy in their local area. For example respondents were asked whether any of a range of economic services were within easy walking distance of their home. The question reflects both on whether those wanting to conduct economic activity in a local area have easy access to key goods and services, and also whether economic activity is present in an area, bringing local jobs. Indicatively, 37% of respondents said hardware/building supplies were within easy walking distance, 41% said banks were, and 42% said internet services were. Only 28% could reach business services easily on foot. By contrast 66% said they could easily walk to supermarkets and 51% said they walk to a liquor store. How far someone is prepared to walk, and therefore what is an ‘easy walking distance’ is of course a subjective measure. That said, Figure 5 shows, as an example, the concentrations of respondents who said they could not walk to banks using 750m as an ‘easy walking distance’. The lack of accessibility clearly concentrates in township areas, as it does for many other economic services we asked about. Job creation programme The 2015 QoL survey also asked respondents whether they had worked in any government job creation programme – such as Jozi@work, the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) or the Community Works Programme (CWP) – in the previous 12 months. 4% said they had done so, rising to 5% in Johannesburg. These 2 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 NEW REGIONAL ECONOMIES 2011 2013 2015 14 18 15 Respondents who have tried to start a business Of these respondents who tried to start a business the following breakdown applies: Too early to tell 22 21 15 My business failed 40 34 45 My business is a success 21 28 27 4 4 6 13 12 7 My business was a success and I sold it / stopped running it My business brings in some money, but not enough, so I have to do other things to earn an income Figure 1: Business success and failure (2011, 2013 & 2013, %). Compared to previous surveys, there appeared to be a lower level of business entrepreneurship, and an increasing rate of business failure, in 2015. 25 21 20 19 19 18 17 15 15 15 15 12 % 10 12 11 10 8 8 Informal sector Formal sector 5 0 Up to 1 year 2 years 3-4 years 5-6 years 7-10 years 11-15 years 16+ years Figure 2: Age of formal and informal sector businesses (%). Informal sector businesses tend to be younger, or less well established. On the other hand formal sector businesses are proportionately likely to live longer than informal sector businesses. 3 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 NEW REGIONAL ECONOMIES Own a business Primary source of start-up capital: Personal savings (1st named) Business is in the informal sector All (%) Primary source of start-up capital: Bank loan Number of employees: Sole employee Number of employees: 1-5 employees Business owners (%) Sex Male 9 63 76 9 45 37 Female 7 68 78 7 55 32 Black African 7 74 82 4 60 31 Coloured 5 59 68 23 33 37 Indian 18 42 67 14 24 49 White 10 45 63 20 23 42 Gauteng born 7 63 75 10 46 37 Internal migrant 8 66 78 7 54 31 International migrant 16 73 82 3 53 36 GAUTENG 8 65 77 8 49 35 Race Migrant status Figure 3: Selected aspects of business ownership by sex, race and migrant status (%). The table compares – across sex, race and migrant status – aspects of business ownership, whether the business is in the formal or informal sector, the primary source of start-up capital, and whether businesses employ more than one person. 9 27 63 16 15 12 12 28 26 27 25 56 59 60 63 18 16 28 27 54 57 International migrant Informal sector business owners 2015 Informal sector business owners 2013 Formal sector business owners 2015 Formal sector business owners 2013 Business owners 2015 Business owners 2013 Internal migrant Business owners 2011 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Born in Gauteng Figure 4: Business owners by migrant status (2011, 2013 & 2015): The share of business ownership by people born in Gauteng fell between 2011 and 2013 but increased between 2013 and 2015 in both the informal and formal sectors. The proportion of informal sector business owners who are international migrants fell from 18% in 2013 to 16% in 2015. 4 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 NEW REGIONAL ECONOMIES Figure 5: Banks not in easy walking distance: Only 41% of respondents said that banks are within easy walking distance of their home. This heatmap shows the concentrations, high to low, of respondents who said that they could not easily walk to banks, with 750m assumed as an ‘easy walking distance’. OTHER RECENT RESEARCH IN THIS THEME: South African and international entrepreneurs and the Gauteng informal sector (2016 forthcoming) by Dr Sally Peberdy, GCRO Research Report International migrants in Johannesburg’s informal economy (2016) by Dr Sally Peberdy, SAMP Research Report Informal sector enterprise and employment in Gauteng (2015) by Dr Sally Peberdy, GCRO Data Brief Where informal sector cross border traders sell their goods (September 2015) by Dr Sally Peberdy et al., GCRO Map of the Month and Vignette • • • • www.gcro.ac.za 5 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 8. Inequality Darlington Mushongera, darlington.mushongera@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7295 Graeme Götz, graeme.gotz@gcro.ac.za, 011 717 7280 This brief gives a summary of findings relating to income inequality, household income changes and employment dynamics emerging from the GCRO’s 2015 Quality of Life (QoL) survey. A key finding of the survey is that income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient (where a score of ‘0’ reflects perfect equality and ‘1’ perfect inequality), has fallen slightly, from 0.75 in 2013 to 0.70 in 2015 (Figure 1). Despite this improvement, inequality remains extremely high relative to global standards. UN-Habitat reports that the most unequal cities in Africa and probably in the world are in South Africa: in Buffalo City, Ekurhuleni, eThekwini, Johannesburg, Nelson Mandela Bay and Tshwane, all with Gini coefficients of above 0.70. This is much higher than, for example, Lagos at 0.64 or Nairobi (0.59). Nevertheless the observed reduction in income inequality is encouraging, and the 2015 QoL survey provides several possible explanations for the improvement. Income inequality While South Africa is generally known for its high income inequality (Gini averaging around 0.68), the scenario is much worse for Gauteng, where wide disparities in household income remain a key feature of Gauteng’s economy. Since GCRO’s 2009 survey the income Gini for the province has never registered below 0.70, and instead increased between the 2009, 2011 and 2013 surveys (Figure 1). The gap between the rich and poor is very large across all municipalities in the province with the income Gini coefficients ranging from a low of 0.58 in Merafong to a high of 0.71 in Johannesburg (Figure 2). There has been an improvement in inequality across all municipalities since 2013, save for Lesedi and Mogale City where the Gini scores rose. Explaining reduction in inequality Figure 3 shows that there has been an upward shift in incomes of households in lower and middle income categories. In particular, the drop in households falling in the very low R0-R400 income category impacts positively on the Gini. In addition, there has been a significant reduction in the proportion of households with no income at all, from 7% (2013) to 4% (2015). Figure 4 reduces income categories into deciles, ranging from Decile 1 (R0 - R800 per month) to Decile 10 (R204 801 - R500 000 and more). Nominal increases in income are evident between 2013 and 2015 across most deciles (Decile 3 to 8). The observed drop in Deciles 1 and 2 signals fewer households earning very low income, whilst others appear to be graduating into higher income deciles. However, there has also been a decline in the proportion of households in the top two deciles over the past two years. Again this reflects a mitigation in the depth of inequality. These finding are confirmed by BankservAfrica Disposable Salary Index (BDSI) data, which shows a reduction in the proportion of people occupying lower income categories (Figure 5). BDSI data also shows that the average South African salary grew just above the estimated inflation rate (6.7% year-on-year). Several factors may be contributing to this trend, including the effect of minimum wage regulations and employee in-kind benefits that may have been turned into cash payments. Furthermore, there has been an increase in government support through social grants, most of which benefit low-income households. Government support in the form of grants and pensions has increased significantly from 30% in 2013 to 40% in 2015. This finding, which matches South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) data, reflects the positive impact of steps taken by government to increase support to the poor through social grants. The race dimension of household income changes Figure 6 highlights that the inequality reductions are observable across sexes and all race groups. Figure 7 shows the increases in income levels for all race groups. However, there are specific dynamics observed for individual race groups. African respondents show an increase across almost all income groups, however the ‘R0-R400’ and ‘R801-R6 400’ categories have dropped quite substantially. Africans do not feature in the very high income categories compared to other race groups. There has been a significant reduction in the lower income categories for Indians/Asians coupled with a surge in the middle income categories and a reduction in the very high income groups. For white respondents, there is also a shift upwards for most groups coupled with a relatively large reduction in the top income 1 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC categories. A similar pattern can also be seen for coloured respondents. Employment and household income sources Despite challenges in the labour market across the country, Gauteng employment levels have seen a rise since 2013, particularly in the formal sector. the proportion of households receiving income from formal employment increased from 41% in 2013 to 51% in 2015, more households in 2015 received income from savings compared to 2013. Furthermore, there are more households in 2015 that rely on income through family/remittances and support from friends compared to 2013. Figure 8 shows the increase in the proportion of respondents employed in the formal sector (both full time and part time). This is also evident in the proportion employed part time in the informal sector (10% in 2015 compared to 9% in 2013). The informal sector plays a significant part in Gauteng’s economy, with 30% of the surveyed households receiving income from that sector. However there has been a decline (albeit marginal) in the proportion of households earning income from informal employment. The increase in employment suggested by the QoL 2015 data is corroborated by StatsSA’s Quarterly Labour Force Survey. This shows a sustained increase in employment since the first quarter of 2014. There were more jobs created in Gauteng between 2014 and 2015, to the extent that by the last quarter of 2015, the unemployment rate began to decline (Figure 9). The monthly household income data and data on income sources paint a mixed picture of the Gauteng economy over the last two years which may require further investigation. Income data shows a general increase in income across some deciles, while income sources highlight a weakening economy where more and more households have to rely on additional sources of income such as savings, rentals and remittances. Furthermore there has been a drop in the proportion of high-incomeearning households, which may reflect the recession pressures experienced in the corporate sector in recent years. Dynamics of income sources Compared to 2013, there have been significant increases in the proportion of households receiving income from across a range of income sources (Figure 10). Although 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,71 0,73 0,75 2011 2013 0,70 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 2009 2015 Figure 1: Income Gini coefficient for Gauteng (2009, 2011, 2013 & 2015). 2 R204 801 - R500 000 15 R153 601 - R204 800 Tshwane Johannesburg Ekurhuleni Merafong 0,58 0,60 R102 401 - R153 600 R76 801 - R102 400 Westonaria 0,70 0,71 0,69 0,67 2013 R51 201 - R76 800 R38 401 - R51 200 0,6 2011 R25 601 - R38 400 Randfontein 0,68 0,69 2009 R19 201 - R25 600 Mogale City Lesedi 0,64 1,00 R12 801 - R19 200 R6 401 - R12 800 R3 201 - R6 400 R1 601 - R3 200 Midvaal 0,67 0,70 R801 - R1 600 Emfuleni 0,80 R401 - R800 R0 - R400 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 2015 0,90 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 Figure 2: Income Gini coefficient by municipality (2009, 2011, 2013 & 2015). 25 20 2015 2013 % 10 5 0 Figure 3: Increase in income across most income categories (2013 & 2015). 3 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 45 40 40 37 35 29 30 27 25 % 20 20 2013 17 2015 15 10 8 10 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Decile 10 Decile 9 Decile 8 Decile 7 Decile 6 Decile 5 Decile 4 Decile 3 Decile 2 Decile 1 0 Figure 4: Income deciles (2013 & 2015). 43 45 38 40 35 35 29 30 % 25 20 21 May, 2012 17 May, 2016 15 9 10 6 5 1 2 0 0-4000 4000-10000 10000-25000 25000-50000 50000-100000 Rands Figure 5: Monthly take home pay (2012 & 2016). Data Source: BanksevAfrica and Economist.co.za 4 25 20 15 10 5 0 R1 - R400 R1 - R400 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 R801 - R1 600 R76 801 - R102 400 R51 201 - R76 800 R38 401 - R51 200 R25 601 - R38 400 R19 201 - R25 600 R12 801 - R19 200 R6 401 - R12 800 R3 201 - R6 400 R1 601 - R3 200 Sex 2011 2013 2015 African 0.67 0.70 0.71 0.68 Coloured 0.63 0.69 0.75 0.67 Indian/Asian 0.67 0.69 0.75 0.67 White 0.54 0.54 0.65 0.57 Male 0.71 0.71 0.76 0.70 Female 0.70 0.74 0.74 0.71 More R204 801 - R500 000 R153 601 - R204 800 R102 401 - R153 600 R76 801 - R102 400 R51 201 - R76 800 R38 401 - R51 200 Race 2009 More R204 801 - R500 000 R153 601 - R204 800 10 R76 801 - R102 400 15 R102 401 - R153 600 20 R51 201 - R76 800 R25 601 - R38 400 R19 201 - R25 600 R12 801 - R19 200 R6 401 - R12 800 R3 201 - R6 400 R1 601 - R3 200 R801 - R1 600 R401 - R800 R1 - R400 More R204 801 - R500 000 R153 601 - R204 800 R102 401 - R153 600 R76 801 - R102 400 R51 201 - R76 800 R38 401 - R51 200 R25 601 - R38 400 R19 201 - R25 600 R12 801 - R19 200 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 R38 401 - R51 200 R25 601 - R38 400 R19 201 - R25 600 R12 801 - R19 200 R6 401 - R12 800 R3 201 - R6 400 2015-White R801 - R1 600 2013-White R1 601 - R3 200 R3 201 - R6 400 R6 401 - R12 800 2015-African R401 - R800 R801 - R1 600 R1 601 - R3 200 2013-African R1 - R400 More R204 801 - R500 000 R153 601 - R204 800 R102 401 - R153 600 R401 - R800 R401 - R800 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC Gini coefficient Figure 6: Income Gini coefficient by race and sex (2009 , 2011, 2013 & 2015). 2013-Indian/Asian 2015-Indian/Asian 25 2013-Coloured 2015-Coloured 5 0 Figure 7: Monthly household income changes by race (2013 & 2015). 5 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 60 54 55 50 40 % 30 2013 20 2015 11 13 12 12 9 10 10 8 5 5 5 Own business, away Own business, home Part time, informal Full time, informal Full time, formal Part time, formal 0 Figure 8: Employment status (2013 & 2015). Employed 5 200 Unemployment rate 35 5 000 30 4 800 25 4 600 20 % Q4 2015 Q3 2015 Q2 2015 Q1 2015 Q4 2014 Q3 2014 Q2 2014 Q1 2014 Q4 2013 Q3 2013 Q2 2013 Q1 2013 Q4 2012 Q3 2012 Q2 2012 Q1 2012 Q4 2011 Q3 2011 Q2 2011 Q1 2011 Q4 2010 Q3 2010 Q2 2010 Q1 2010 Q4 2009 0 Q3 2009 3 800 Q2 2009 5 Q1 2009 4 000 Q4 2008 10 Q3 2008 4 200 Q2 2008 15 Q1 2008 4 400 Figure 9: Numbers employed and unemployment rate (2008 – 2015). Data Source: Stats SA Quarterly Labour force Survey 6 GAUTENG CITY-REGION OBSERVATORY QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2015 CHANGING SOCIAL FABRIC 60 51 50 41 40 31 30 % 30 30 2013 30 24 22 2015 18 20 12 10 11 6 9 6 Friends Rental Family/remit Savings/returns Gvt. Grants/pens Informal emp. Formal emp. 0 Figure 10: Household income sources – Proportion of households (2013 & 2015). OTHER RECENT RESEARCH IN THIS THEME: Poverty and inequality in the Gauteng City-Region (2016 forthcoming) by Darlington Mushongera, GCRO Research Report Hungry City-Region (2016 forthcoming) by Caryn Abrahams, GCRO Occasional Paper A multidimensional poverty index for Gauteng (February 2015) by Darlington Mushongera et al., GCRO Map of the Month The GCRO Barometer (2014) by Darlington Mushongera, GCRO Interactive website • • • • www.gcro.ac.za 7 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS 2009-2015 Gauteng Indicators and dimensions 2009 2011 2013 2015 Satisfied with life as a whole Disagree that no-one cares about me Disagree that I cannot influence developments in my community Disagree that the country is going in the wrong direction* Global life satisfaction dimension 46.3% 64.8% 53.4% 58.9% .56 63.3% 46.3% 45.4% 26.1% .45 70.5% 52.2% 54.1% 30.3% .52 68.2% 52.5% 50.8% 23.2% .49 Satisfied with marriage / relationship Satisfied with family life and time spent with family Satisfied with time available Satisfied with leisure time No adult / child ever goes hungry* Family dimension 64.0% 80.7% 60.5% 62.7% 81.2% .70 60.1% 82.3% 58.8% 65.5% 77.8% .69 68.3% 84.4% 74.7% 76.2% 65.7% .74 64.5% 84.5% 63.5% 72.4% 65.0% .70 Community can be trusted Satisfied with friends It is important to look after the environment* Have participated in an organisation / club in the past year* Community dimension 22.2% 72.3% 94.5% 70.6% .65 17.3% 76.4% 90.2% 72.8% .64 17.4% 80.4% 14.2% 76.9% 84.4% 42.8% .55 Health status excellent or good* Health does not affect work Health does not affect social activities Did not fail to get/look for healthcare* Have medical aid cover* Health dimension 87.7% 71.0% 71.8% 88.6% 25.2% .69 71.1% 72.2% 79.0% 79.6% 28.1% .57 25.3% .61 91.8% 71.3% 73.4% 95.1% 26.9% .72 Satisfied with dwelling Satisfied with area where living* Dwelling structure made of bricks / concrete Dwelling is owned* Not overcrowded / don't share one room with other households Dwelling dimension 54.5% 56.1% 84.5% 65.1% 95.5% .71 73.1% 68.1% 87.9% 64.6% 94.6% .78 74.6% 77.2% 85.2% 59.4% 91.4% .78 74.9% 71.5% 86.8% 62.5% 83.8% .76 Has been an improvement in community Water is usually / always clean Flush toilet connected to sewage Water piped into dwelling Has access to electricity (electricity, solar/wind, petrol or diesel generator)* Refuse is removed by municipality Have not had water/electricity cut off or been evicted* Infrastructure dimension 28.7% 85.7% 88.6% 69.9% 91.6% 90.3% 93.1% .78 34.5% 91.1% 80.5% 75.0% 85.4% 89.7% 89.0% .78 28.9% 93.2% 80.0% 70.7% 89.3% 88.5% 92.1% .78 31.1% 94.7% 85.4% 82.8% 91.3% 90.3% 86.7% .80 Press is free to write / say what it likes Have matric or higher Have telephone or cell phone Have radio / television Have internet connection in household Connectivity dimension 62.0% 48.1% 91.3% 94.3% 18.3% .63 62.0% 48.7% 94.4% 91.7% 22.3% .64 53.7% 51.4% 92.6% 92.0% 19.4% .62 50.1% 57.5% 94.5% 90.0% 29.9% .64 Satisfied with money available Viewed as middle / upper class* Satisfied with standard of living Satisfied with working conditions Employed/ self-employed/ don't need or want to work/ housewife/ retired* Household income >R1 600 Not in debt Work dimension 20.1% 27.7% 46.4% 25.9% 48.0% 58.3% 72.0% .43 26.9% 25.8% 55.9% 23.4% 51.5% 35.7% 73.0% .42 30.0% 31.7% 64.0% 33.8% 53.0% 45.5% 70.1% .49 64.9% 36.0% 54.1% 44.8% 60.1% .49 Feel safe in area living in during the day Feel safe in area living in at night Feel safe at home Crime situation has improved Not been a victim of crime in past year Security dimension 77.7% 23.9% 77.1% 24.3% 79.4% .56 78.0% 30.2% 72.2% 33.2% 74.8% .58 84.0% 25.7% 79.5% 23.3% 76.8% .58 73.0% 27.3% 74.5% 20.8% 80.4% .55 Disagree that politics is a waste of time Agree that elections were / will be free and fair* Agree that judiciary is free from government influence Disagree that blacks and whites will never trust each other Believe foreigners should be allowed to stay* Satisfied with national government performance Satisfied with provincial government performance Satisfied with local government performance Agree that government officials live up to Batho Pele Household member attended public participation forum Did vote / plan to vote* Not been asked for a bribe Socio-political attitudes dimension 69.6% 80.0% 42.3% 24.2% 19.7% 56.8% 49.5% 41.0% 26.8% 51.4% 79.3% 88.2% .52 53.4% 65.7% 39.2% 23.4% 67.2% 38.4% 33.3% 32.1% 18.4% 50.1% 65.5% 87.7% .48 46.6% 61.6% 47.6% 24.0% 64.6% 43.4% 39.9% 37.0% 17.7% 48.1% 43.0% 90.7% .47 48.5% 52.4% 42.0% 24.7% 76.8% 39.4% 38.6% 34.7% 28.1% 54.9% 78.5% 85.1% .50 Quality of life index (dimension weighted) 6.23 6.02 6.10 6.20 Quality of life index (indicator weighted) 6.11 5.90 6.01 6.13 * Variation in wording / inclusion across surveys 58.7% .52 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS 2009-2015 Tshwane Indicators and dimensions 2009 2011 2013 2015 Satisfied with life as a whole Disagree that no-one cares about me Disagree that I cannot influence developments in my community Disagree that the country is going in the wrong direction* Global life satisfaction dimension 55.7% 60.8% 51.4% 55.3% .56 65.5% 48.7% 43.5% 26.7% .46 75.1% 52.6% 54.6% 28.6% .53 69.8% 47.3% 49.0% 22.2% .47 Satisfied with marriage / relationship Satisfied with family life and time spent with family Satisfied with time available Satisfied with leisure time No adult / child ever goes hungry* Family dimension 65.1% 79.8% 58.2% 63.5% 82.6% .70 60.7% 84.2% 63.6% 66.6% 83.3% .72 70.3% 84.6% 77.2% 78.5% 68.2% .76 64.1% 83.7% 61.5% 72.0% 66.0% .69 Community can be trusted Satisfied with friends It is important to look after the environment* Have participated in an organisation / club in the past year* Community dimension 24.2% 74.5% 91.9% 78.9% .67 17.0% 78.8% 87.7% 74.2% .64 22.2% 80.4% 12.7% 73.2% 83.4% 46.4% .54 Health status excellent or good* Health does not affect work Health does not affect social activities Did not fail to get/look for healthcare* Have medical aid cover* Health dimension 86.6% 69.2% 70.8% 90.9% 30.9% .70 70.7% 71.5% 84.4% 86.1% 33.5% .59 28.4% .66 92.3% 73.4% 75.9% 95.9% 30.6% .74 Satisfied with dwelling Satisfied with area where living* Dwelling structure made of bricks / concrete Dwelling is owned* Not overcrowded / don't share one room with other households Dwelling dimension 64.2% 61.3% 85.7% 69.8% 97.4% .76 76.3% 68.8% 89.2% 66.2% 96.9% .79 77.2% 79.9% 85.7% 60.9% 91.9% .79 76.0% 72.7% 87.6% 64.4% 87.7% .78 Has been an improvement in community Water is usually / always clean Flush toilet connected to sewage Water piped into dwelling Has access to electricity (electricity, solar/wind, petrol or diesel generator)* Refuse is removed by municipality Have not had water/electricity cut off or been evicted* Infrastructure dimension 34.4% 85.4% 80.6% 64.9% 94.3% 85.3% 88.1% .76 36.4% 86.0% 76.3% 74.0% 87.2% 85.7% 87.5% .76 33.2% 91.5% 71.1% 66.2% 91.4% 85.0% 89.6% .75 32.1% 90.6% 78.2% 82.2% 93.1% 45.3% 83.9% .78 Press is free to write / say what it likes Have matric or higher Have telephone or cell phone Have radio / television Have internet connection in household Connectivity dimension 61.3% 52.0% 93.7% 95.0% 22.4% .65 62.5% 51.3% 94.7% 92.6% 27.1% .66 53.0% 55.6% 95.8% 89.9% 21.9% .63 45.3% 60.1% 94.9% 89.1% 30.6% .64 Satisfied with money available Viewed as middle / upper class* Satisfied with standard of living Satisfied with working conditions Employed/ self-employed/ don't need or want to work/ housewife/ retired* Household income >R1 600 Not in debt Work dimension 25.3% 34.9% 51.4% 28.3% 49.7% 62.3% 68.7% .46 30.9% 29.3% 60.1% 25.1% 54.9% 40.2% 68.1% .44 33.9% 35.6% 69.0% 34.4% 53.1% 48.5% 67.5% .51 66.8% 36.9% 53.8% 41.1% 56.6% .48 Feel safe in area living in during the day Feel safe in area living in at night Feel safe at home Crime situation has improved Not been a victim of crime in past year Security dimension 74.9% 28.4% 76.9% 25.9% 80.0% .57 77.7% 33.2% 70.7% 35.2% 74.9% .58 88.9% 34.6% 83.0% 28.4% 75.2% .62 76.9% 32.8% 75.9% 23.2% 81.3% .58 Disagree that politics is a waste of time Agree that elections were / will be free and fair* Agree that judiciary is free from government influence Disagree that blacks and whites will never trust each other Believe foreigners should be allowed to stay* Satisfied with national government performance Satisfied with provincial government performance Satisfied with local government performance Agree that government officials live up to Batho Pele Household member attended public participation forum Did vote / plan to vote* Not been asked for a bribe Socio-political attitudes dimension 66.6% 78.6% 37.7% 23.0% 19.3% 55.7% 47.3% 38.7% 26.1% 58.7% 79.5% 86.8% .52 59.9% 61.7% 36.3% 21.9% 66.2% 40.9% 34.6% 32.5% 18.3% 46.4% 67.3% 90.1% .48 48.4% 63.6% 47.8% 24.0% 58.7% 42.7% 43.1% 42.4% 14.8% 46.3% 45.1% 90.5% .47 46.0% 45.3% 39.3% 23.9% 72.5% 35.8% 34.3% 31.8% 23.9% 50.2% 76.6% 84.8% .47 Quality of life index (dimension weighted) 6.34 6.12 6.26 6.17 Quality of life index (indicator weighted) 6.19 5.98 6.13 6.00 * Variation in wording / inclusion across surveys 57.0% .53 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS 2009-2015 Johannesburg Indicators and dimensions 2009 2011 2013 2015 Satisfied with life as a whole Disagree that no-one cares about me Disagree that I cannot influence developments in my community Disagree that the country is going in the wrong direction* Global life satisfaction dimension 45.3% 66.9% 56.4% 62.1% .58 63.2% 47.1% 47.2% 25.2% .46 71.7% 50.2% 54.6% 33.3% .52 68.3% 56.6% 54.8% 24.0% .51 Satisfied with marriage / relationship Satisfied with family life and time spent with family Satisfied with time available Satisfied with leisure time No adult / child ever goes hungry* Family dimension 62.5% 79.5% 60.4% 63.8% 83.6% .70 60.3% 83.1% 60.9% 69.5% 79.1% .71 68.9% 83.6% 77.5% 78.3% 64.3% .75 64.4% 85.8% 64.0% 73.7% 67.1% .71 Community can be trusted Satisfied with friends It is important to look after the environment* Have participated in an organisation / club in the past year* Community dimension 20.5% 72.7% 96.0% 71.4% .65 16.3% 76.5% 91.9% 75.2% .65 17.3% 81.6% 15.7% 79.1% 84.6% 41.8% .55 Health status excellent or good* Health does not affect work Health does not affect social activities Did not fail to get/look for healthcare* Have medical aid cover* Health dimension 88.4% 68.7% 68.6% 88.6% 25.8% .68 72.2% 73.1% 76.4% 77.1% 29.1% .58 23.9% .59 92.1% 70.2% 71.9% 95.2% 27.8% .71 Satisfied with dwelling Satisfied with area where living* Dwelling structure made of bricks / concrete Dwelling is owned* Not overcrowded / don't share one room with other households Dwelling dimension 53.1% 54.9% 86.6% 62.8% 94.9% .70 72.6% 69.9% 87.4% 61.5% 92.9% .77 74.6% 77.0% 86.0% 54.7% 90.4% .77 75.4% 70.5% 88.3% 59.6% 80.9% .75 Has been an improvement in community Water is usually / always clean Flush toilet connected to sewage Water piped into dwelling Has access to electricity (electricity, solar/wind, petrol or diesel generator)* Refuse is removed by municipality Have not had water/electricity cut off or been evicted* Infrastructure dimension 28.4% 84.1% 94.5% 72.9% 95.4% 96.3% 93.3% .81 34.7% 94.4% 80.8% 77.0% 86.1% 93.0% 89.9% .79 28.3% 91.7% 85.2% 76.8% 89.5% 90.6% 95.6% .80 32.1% 96.5% 88.0% 86.0% 92.0% 93.1% 88.2% .82 Press is free to write / say what it likes Have matric or higher Have telephone or cell phone Have radio / television Have internet connection in household Connectivity dimension 62.9% 50.4% 92.6% 96.2% 21.4% .65 64.0% 50.1% 95.3% 92.5% 24.9% .65 55.1% 52.7% 95.1% 93.9% 21.5% .64 53.8% 60.3% 93.8% 90.4% 36.9% .67 Satisfied with money available Viewed as middle / upper class* Satisfied with standard of living Satisfied with working conditions Employed/ self-employed/ don't need or want to work/ housewife/ retired* Household income >R1 600 Not in debt Work dimension 19.3% 28.1% 44.6% 28.4% 49.3% 60.6% 71.2% .43 24.8% 26.2% 56.6% 26.1% 50.4% 33.0% 74.3% .42 27.8% 33.9% 66.1% 37.3% 52.6% 44.7% 72.9% .50 65.1% 38.9% 56.9% 49.0% 59.2% .50 Feel safe in area living in during the day Feel safe in area living in at night Feel safe at home Crime situation has improved Not been a victim of crime in past year Security dimension 76.7% 19.6% 75.1% 24.8% 76.8% .55 81.3% 31.6% 74.6% 35.5% 76.3% .60 83.6% 24.5% 81.0% 20.4% 77.6% .57 69.6% 27.5% 75.1% 19.4% 79.3% .54 Disagree that politics is a waste of time Agree that elections were / will be free and fair* Agree that judiciary is free from government influence Disagree that blacks and whites will never trust each other Believe foreigners should be allowed to stay* Satisfied with national government performance Satisfied with provincial government performance Satisfied with local government performance Agree that government officials live up to Batho Pele Household member attended public participation forum Did vote / plan to vote* Not been asked for a bribe Socio-political attitudes dimension 74.0% 82.6% 44.3% 27.8% 21.4% 61.7% 55.8% 45.6% 28.7% 48.2% 79.9% 86.8% .55 53.1% 66.9% 38.3% 24.9% 68.5% 35.4% 30.0% 29.9% 17.5% 49.5% 62.8% 86.5% .47 47.1% 62.7% 47.5% 23.1% 66.9% 44.6% 39.1% 35.9% 18.3% 46.3% 37.5% 91.6% .47 48.2% 51.2% 40.4% 27.4% 81.3% 38.4% 37.4% 34.3% 27.5% 53.3% 75.1% 82.9% .50 Quality of life index (dimension weighted) 6.29 6.09 6.13 6.27 Quality of life index (indicator weighted) 6.19 5.95 6.04 6.20 * Variation in wording / inclusion across surveys 58.3% .52 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS 2009-2015 Ekurhuleni Indicators and dimensions 2009 2011 2013 2015 Satisfied with life as a whole Disagree that no-one cares about me Disagree that I cannot influence developments in my community Disagree that the country is going in the wrong direction* Global life satisfaction dimension 41.6% 66.1% 51.8% 58.6% .55 61.2% 44.4% 48.2% 27.2% .45 66.9% 52.0% 51.5% 28.8% .50 68.1% 53.1% 49.2% 22.4% .48 Satisfied with marriage / relationship Satisfied with family life and time spent with family Satisfied with time available Satisfied with leisure time No adult / child ever goes hungry* Family dimension 64.8% 82.9% 64.3% 62.7% 79.2% .71 58.9% 80.6% 52.7% 61.0% 70.7% .65 67.7% 85.2% 70.8% 72.9% 67.4% .73 65.3% 84.1% 64.2% 71.8% 63.6% .70 Community can be trusted Satisfied with friends It is important to look after the environment* Have participated in an organisation / club in the past year* Community dimension 21.4% 71.4% 94.9% 61.1% .62 19.0% 75.2% 91.4% 68.1% .63 11.2% 79.1% 12.5% 76.3% 86.1% 41.5% .54 Health status excellent or good* Health does not affect work Health does not affect social activities Did not fail to get/look for healthcare* Have medical aid cover* Health dimension 88.9% 74.3% 75.0% 87.9% 21.7% .70 71.2% 72.4% 81.5% 80.9% 23.6% .56 24.9% .62 91.2% 67.7% 70.3% 93.6% 25.7% .70 Satisfied with dwelling Satisfied with area where living* Dwelling structure made of bricks / concrete Dwelling is owned* Not overcrowded / don't share one room with other households Dwelling dimension 50.7% 54.4% 82.9% 65.9% 94.7% .70 71.8% 66.2% 88.3% 66.3% 94.4% .77 74.1% 77.1% 83.5% 64.2% 92.4% .78 75.2% 73.3% 85.4% 64.8% 83.4% .76 Has been an improvement in community Water is usually / always clean Flush toilet connected to sewage Water piped into dwelling Has access to electricity (electricity, solar/wind, petrol or diesel generator)* Refuse is removed by municipality Have not had water/electricity cut off or been evicted* Infrastructure dimension 27.0% 87.1% 89.3% 69.7% 87.0% 90.5% 94.8% .78 34.0% 90.6% 84.7% 76.1% 84.9% 92.3% 87.2% .79 30.8% 96.0% 81.0% 68.4% 87.9% 90.6% 88.7% .78 32.5% 95.5% 88.6% 81.2% 89.3% 93.2% 84.2% .81 Press is free to write / say what it likes Have matric or higher Have telephone or cell phone Have radio / television Have internet connection in household Connectivity dimension 62.1% 46.9% 90.2% 93.3% 14.7% .61 58.5% 47.4% 94.7% 91.0% 17.1% .62 54.8% 50.4% 85.4% 90.7% 15.4% .59 48.5% 57.1% 94.6% 89.4% 27.1% .63 Satisfied with money available Viewed as middle / upper class* Satisfied with standard of living Satisfied with working conditions Employed/ self-employed/ don't need or want to work/ housewife/ retired* Household income >R1 600 Not in debt Work dimension 18.9% 22.2% 46.7% 23.8% 47.2% 56.0% 73.8% .41 23.0% 22.9% 50.1% 18.6% 48.0% 30.1% 74.5% .38 29.9% 29.7% 59.6% 31.0% 53.8% 43.4% 70.1% .48 65.2% 34.9% 52.3% 43.2% Feel safe in area living in during the day Feel safe in area living in at night Feel safe at home Crime situation has improved Not been a victim of crime in past year Security dimension 80.0% 25.5% 79.3% 21.8% 82.2% .58 72.6% 25.9% 69.1% 30.6% 70.4% .54 82.4% 23.0% 76.3% 25.0% 76.3% .57 75.1% 24.0% 73.8% 22.3% 79.9% .55 Disagree that politics is a waste of time Agree that elections were / will be free and fair* Agree that judiciary is free from government influence Disagree that blacks and whites will never trust each other Believe foreigners should be allowed to stay* Satisfied with national government performance Satisfied with provincial government performance Satisfied with local government performance Agree that government officials live up to Batho Pele Household member attended public participation forum Did vote / plan to vote* Not been asked for a bribe Socio-political attitudes dimension 68.1% 76.8% 44.8% 22.4% 17.6% 53.1% 46.5% 40.4% 24.6% 46.7% 79.1% 89.4% .51 50.3% 66.1% 35.8% 25.4% 70.0% 36.0% 32.8% 32.6% 16.6% 51.6% 65.1% 85.9% .47 46.0% 63.8% 50.9% 24.0% 62.9% 44.8% 40.8% 37.6% 19.8% 48.6% 50.6% 89.5% .48 47.8% 59.9% 46.3% 21.0% 78.0% 44.9% 45.9% 41.5% 32.9% 62.3% 84.4% 86.2% .54 Quality of life index (dimension weighted) 6.16 5.86 6.02 6.19 Quality of life index (indicator weighted) 6.03 5.75 5.96 6.18 * Variation in wording / inclusion across surveys 56.0% .49 .48 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS 2009-2015 Mogale City Indicators and dimensions 2009 2011 2013 2015 Satisfied with life as a whole Disagree that no-one cares about me Disagree that I cannot influence developments in my community Disagree that the country is going in the wrong direction* Global life satisfaction dimension 37.2% 70.6% 59.8% 62.8% .58 61.2% 47.5% 43.3% 25.6% .44 68.6% 58.6% 54.9% 28.4% .53 64.4% 62.1% 50.8% 31.5% .52 Satisfied with marriage / relationship Satisfied with family life and time spent with family Satisfied with time available Satisfied with leisure time No adult / child ever goes hungry* Family dimension 61.7% 76.1% 48.0% 50.6% 78.9% .63 60.8% 80.7% 58.3% 63.1% 76.5% .68 67.0% 82.0% 67.3% 71.9% 69.1% .71 66.3% 79.7% 67.8% 71.0% 50.5% .67 Community can be trusted Satisfied with friends It is important to look after the environment* Have participated in an organisation / club in the past year* Community dimension 22.2% 65.0% 97.8% 68.7% .64 22.8% 74.4% 92.2% 69.6% .65 21.0% 78.4% 13.3% 76.2% 89.9% 49.2% .57 Health status excellent or good* Health does not affect work Health does not affect social activities Did not fail to get/look for healthcare* Have medical aid cover* Health dimension 88.3% 67.2% 69.4% 88.8% 26.7% .68 73.2% 73.7% 77.9% 77.8% 23.9% .57 26.1% .61 91.3% 81.7% 82.9% 96.3% 22.0% .75 Satisfied with dwelling Satisfied with area where living* Dwelling structure made of bricks / concrete Dwelling is owned* Not overcrowded / don't share one room with other households Dwelling dimension 41.7% 43.3% 82.2% 51.4% 93.9% .62 66.7% 64.6% 81.6% 58.9% 94.9% .73 74.3% 77.6% 81.5% 57.7% 91.5% .77 75.8% 70.9% 81.2% 58.8% 81.2% .74 Has been an improvement in community Water is usually / always clean Flush toilet connected to sewage Water piped into dwelling Has access to electricity (electricity, solar/wind, petrol or diesel generator)* Refuse is removed by municipality Have not had water/electricity cut off or been evicted* Infrastructure dimension 24.0% 89.4% 87.2% 69.4% 90.0% 84.4% 98.9% .78 35.9% 92.5% 75.3% 71.6% 79.3% 77.4% 92.5% .75 29.5% 93.2% 76.3% 73.5% 89.4% 85.3% 91.5% .77 36.9% 95.8% 85.3% 74.8% 89.0% 82.9% 93.7% .80 Press is free to write / say what it likes Have matric or higher Have telephone or cell phone Have radio / television Have internet connection in household Connectivity dimension 72.1% 45.0% 91.1% 93.3% 13.9% .63 68.7% 44.4% 90.3% 84.9% 21.0% .62 51.8% 46.1% 95.6% 92.0% 24.8% .62 59.5% 49.5% 98.2% 92.4% 17.5% .63 Satisfied with money available Viewed as middle / upper class* Satisfied with standard of living Satisfied with working conditions Employed/ self-employed/ don't need or want to work/ housewife/ retired* Household income >R1 600 Not in debt Work dimension 13.3% 26.7% 31.1% 22.2% 45.0% 58.9% 73.2% .39 24.1% 23.9% 56.9% 23.9% 53.2% 34.7% 77.8% .42 25.4% 17.9% 60.2% 37.2% 60.1% 50.1% 69.1% .50 59.0% 33.0% 52.0% 45.6% 56.4% .44 Feel safe in area living in during the day Feel safe in area living in at night Feel safe at home Crime situation has improved Not been a victim of crime in past year Security dimension 83.3% 21.1% 83.3% 21.1% 84.4% .59 83.4% 34.2% 74.4% 32.3% 77.4% .60 80.7% 19.0% 76.6% 26.7% 79.4% .56 84.7% 27.4% 83.5% 26.6% 80.2% .60 Disagree that politics is a waste of time Agree that elections were / will be free and fair* Agree that judiciary is free from government influence Disagree that blacks and whites will never trust each other Believe foreigners should be allowed to stay* Satisfied with national government performance Satisfied with provincial government performance Satisfied with local government performance Agree that government officials live up to Batho Pele Household member attended public participation forum Did vote / plan to vote* Not been asked for a bribe Socio-political attitudes dimension 67.2% 81.7% 48.0% 23.3% 12.8% 54.4% 43.6% 29.4% 22.2% 46.7% 77.2% 88.3% .50 50.3% 70.9% 52.3% 22.5% 63.5% 39.2% 37.5% 33.6% 22.6% 52.0% 69.0% 87.6% .50 51.7% 51.0% 39.4% 28.8% 75.9% 44.8% 40.8% 35.8% 19.5% 54.2% 35.6% 89.6% .47 63.3% 57.4% 49.3% 28.8% 83.1% 39.9% 42.9% 41.9% 35.0% 56.2% 80.8% 86.4% .55 Quality of life index (dimension weighted) 6.02 5.97 6.08 6.28 Quality of life index (indicator weighted) 5.88 5.87 5.99 6.24 * Variation in wording / inclusion across surveys 63.1% .54 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS 2009-2015 Randfontein Indicators and dimensions 2009 2011 2013 2015 Satisfied with life as a whole Disagree that no-one cares about me Disagree that I cannot influence developments in my community Disagree that the country is going in the wrong direction* Global life satisfaction dimension 43.8% 51.9% 47.5% 55.0% .49 70.0% 47.5% 43.6% 27.4% .47 65.4% 60.7% 61.8% 29.0% .54 74.2% 61.6% 51.0% 22.9% .52 Satisfied with marriage / relationship Satisfied with family life and time spent with family Satisfied with time available Satisfied with leisure time No adult / child ever goes hungry* Family dimension 60.0% 77.5% 51.3% 55.0% 75.0% .64 60.7% 86.3% 69.9% 71.2% 81.4% .74 65.7% 86.2% 70.3% 77.4% 67.1% .73 65.3% 90.2% 72.3% 83.2% 48.7% .72 Community can be trusted Satisfied with friends It is important to look after the environment* Have participated in an organisation / club in the past year* Community dimension 15.0% 61.3% 92.4% 61.3% .57 14.2% 82.3% 87.7% 73.6% .64 17.1% 79.0% 15.1% 83.2% 93.8% 43.4% .59 Health status excellent or good* Health does not affect work Health does not affect social activities Did not fail to get/look for healthcare* Have medical aid cover* Health dimension 87.5% 68.8% 71.3% 91.1% 21.3% .68 68.2% 69.9% 61.8% 60.9% 25.6% .54 25.3% .49 92.2% 77.7% 79.1% 98.9% 21.6% .74 Satisfied with dwelling Satisfied with area where living* Dwelling structure made of bricks / concrete Dwelling is owned* Not overcrowded / don't share one room with other households Dwelling dimension 49.4% 53.8% 77.5% 62.5% 95.0% .68 75.0% 71.8% 88.6% 73.1% 95.9% .81 71.0% 74.7% 86.5% 57.9% 91.7% .76 79.1% 82.6% 84.9% 59.8% 84.0% .78 Has been an improvement in community Water is usually / always clean Flush toilet connected to sewage Water piped into dwelling Has access to electricity (electricity, solar/wind, petrol or diesel generator)* Refuse is removed by municipality Have not had water/electricity cut off or been evicted* Infrastructure dimension 21.3% 72.5% 81.3% 67.5% 77.5% 82.5% 93.7% .71 37.7% 91.8% 78.6% 73.1% 83.2% 85.0% 90.4% .77 14.3% 96.3% 78.7% 77.4% 86.6% 81.4% 90.2% .75 20.4% 96.1% 87.1% 79.0% 89.6% 80.4% 88.5% .77 Press is free to write / say what it likes Have matric or higher Have telephone or cell phone Have radio / television Have internet connection in household Connectivity dimension 61.3% 40.0% 83.8% 86.3% 12.5% .57 62.1% 47.7% 93.2% 93.2% 19.6% .63 48.6% 43.6% 94.8% 93.6% 19.0% .60 68.6% 47.3% 97.2% 90.5% 18.2% .64 Satisfied with money available Viewed as middle / upper class* Satisfied with standard of living Satisfied with working conditions Employed/ self-employed/ don't need or want to work/ housewife/ retired* Household income >R1 600 Not in debt Work dimension 15.0% 26.3% 48.8% 25.3% 38.8% 51.3% 80.0% .41 34.1% 24.5% 64.4% 24.1% 53.4% 45.0% 76.4% .46 24.5% 18.8% 59.0% 26.3% 49.8% 47.3% 70.1% .46 68.6% 30.3% 54.2% 39.1% 65.5% .46 Feel safe in area living in during the day Feel safe in area living in at night Feel safe at home Crime situation has improved Not been a victim of crime in past year Security dimension 85.0% 18.8% 68.8% 18.8% 80.0% .54 84.5% 33.3% 75.3% 37.4% 80.5% .62 77.7% 25.9% 77.4% 15.2% 82.3% .56 82.7% 24.4% 81.2% 17.1% 86.3% .58 Disagree that politics is a waste of time Agree that elections were / will be free and fair* Agree that judiciary is free from government influence Disagree that blacks and whites will never trust each other Believe foreigners should be allowed to stay* Satisfied with national government performance Satisfied with provincial government performance Satisfied with local government performance Agree that government officials live up to Batho Pele Household member attended public participation forum Did vote / plan to vote* Not been asked for a bribe Socio-political attitudes dimension 61.3% 83.8% 47.5% 15.0% 17.5% 46.8% 42.5% 31.3% 21.3% 55.0% 80.0% 94.9% .50 52.5% 70.3% 49.5% 20.5% 67.7% 48.9% 43.2% 41.4% 17.7% 55.9% 80.5% 90.9% .53 40.7% 48.6% 42.4% 25.1% 78.0% 38.1% 32.6% 25.6% 23.5% 53.7% 49.7% 91.5% .46 65.3% 66.8% 55.6% 26.9% 82.1% 38.0% 40.9% 29.1% 30.8% 47.9% 85.2% 91.1% .55 Quality of life index (dimension weighted) 5.78 6.23 5.91 6.36 Quality of life index (indicator weighted) 5.69 6.16 5.83 6.30 * Variation in wording / inclusion across surveys 70.1% .55 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS 2009-2015 Westonaria Indicators and dimensions 2009 2011 2013 2015 Satisfied with life as a whole Disagree that no-one cares about me Disagree that I cannot influence developments in my community Disagree that the country is going in the wrong direction* Global life satisfaction dimension 33.8% 60.3% 45.6% 50.0% .47 57.4% 44.0% 39.6% 28.2% .42 58.7% 57.5% 55.9% 28.3% .50 63.3% 52.2% 49.3% 36.4% .50 Satisfied with marriage / relationship Satisfied with family life and time spent with family Satisfied with time available Satisfied with leisure time No adult / child ever goes hungry* Family dimension 64.7% 77.9% 54.4% 53.7% 69.1% .64 64.8% 77.3% 55.3% 56.2% 81.6% .67 63.2% 80.2% 68.8% 72.1% 65.0% .70 69.6% 81.5% 66.3% 68.5% 44.4% .66 Community can be trusted Satisfied with friends It is important to look after the environment* Have participated in an organisation / club in the past year* Community dimension 17.6% 73.1% 91.2% 69.1% .63 13.8% 77.8% 87.1% 68.7% .62 15.8% 76.1% 13.7% 79.3% 84.8% 36.7% .54 Health status excellent or good* Health does not affect work Health does not affect social activities Did not fail to get/look for healthcare* Have medical aid cover* Health dimension 85.3% 79.4% 79.4% 86.8% 19.4% .70 77.8% 79.2% 68.0% 68.4% 17.6% .58 26.7% .54 95.2% 74.8% 76.6% 95.6% 17.5% .72 Satisfied with dwelling Satisfied with area where living* Dwelling structure made of bricks / concrete Dwelling is owned* Not overcrowded / don't share one room with other households Dwelling dimension 35.3% 41.2% 57.4% 33.8% 94.1% .52 54.8% 59.7% 65.3% 43.5% 95.8% .64 63.2% 72.5% 69.6% 36.4% 87.4% .66 65.4% 60.0% 74.3% 39.6% 72.2% .62 Has been an improvement in community Water is usually / always clean Flush toilet connected to sewage Water piped into dwelling Has access to electricity (electricity, solar/wind, petrol or diesel generator)* Refuse is removed by municipality Have not had water/electricity cut off or been evicted* Infrastructure dimension 20.6% 89.7% 60.3% 51.5% 58.8% 76.5% 97.1% .65 14.3% 91.7% 51.6% 56.0% 67.6% 66.2% 95.4% .63 16.6% 96.0% 62.8% 63.2% 68.4% 69.6% 92.7% .67 25.6% 94.8% 73.0% 66.9% 73.7% 80.7% 90.3% .72 Press is free to write / say what it likes Have matric or higher Have telephone or cell phone Have radio / television Have internet connection in household Connectivity dimension 61.8% 26.9% 88.2% 83.8% 7.4% .54 58.8% 34.7% 91.2% 77.8% 13.9% .55 54.3% 32.0% 94.3% 87.9% 15.0% .57 66.2% 33.8% 98.5% 83.3% 16.4% .60 Satisfied with money available Viewed as middle / upper class* Satisfied with standard of living Satisfied with working conditions Employed/ self-employed/ don't need or want to work/ housewife/ retired* Household income >R1 600 Not in debt Work dimension 19.1% 17.6% 33.8% 19.1% 42.6% 45.6% 72.1% .36 32.3% 13.4% 51.4% 29.6% 50.9% 38.9% 82.4% .43 20.6% 27.8% 51.4% 31.6% 53.4% 50.2% 74.1% .47 58.1% 38.5% 53.7% 49.3% 67.8% .49 Feel safe in area living in during the day Feel safe in area living in at night Feel safe at home Crime situation has improved Not been a victim of crime in past year Security dimension 75.0% 13.4% 73.5% 17.6% 79.4% .52 64.8% 27.6% 56.5% 16.7% 73.7% .48 74.9% 25.9% 73.7% 17.8% 77.7% .54 70.3% 27.9% 67.3% 15.2% 85.2% .53 Disagree that politics is a waste of time Agree that elections were / will be free and fair* Agree that judiciary is free from government influence Disagree that blacks and whites will never trust each other Believe foreigners should be allowed to stay* Satisfied with national government performance Satisfied with provincial government performance Satisfied with local government performance Agree that government officials live up to Batho Pele Household member attended public participation forum Did vote / plan to vote* Not been asked for a bribe Socio-political attitudes dimension 63.2% 76.5% 36.8% 13.2% 20.6% 50.0% 33.8% 19.1% 16.2% 54.4% 72.1% 89.7% .46 49.8% 57.1% 45.8% 17.1% 63.4% 45.6% 37.0% 33.3% 18.9% 52.8% 64.8% 91.2% .48 39.7% 42.1% 40.1% 30.0% 81.8% 43.7% 36.8% 24.3% 12.6% 61.5% 37.7% 93.9% .45 58.0% 56.5% 44.4% 31.5% 84.4% 45.0% 43.0% 27.4% 33.0% 52.2% 76.3% 91.4% .54 Quality of life index (dimension weighted) 5.48 5.50 5.62 5.92 Quality of life index (indicator weighted) 5.34 5.40 5.54 5.90 * Variation in wording / inclusion across surveys 64.4% .52 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS 2009-2015 Merafong Indicators and dimensions 2009 2011 2013 2015 Satisfied with life as a whole Disagree that no-one cares about me Disagree that I cannot influence developments in my community Disagree that the country is going in the wrong direction* Global life satisfaction dimension 38.2% 63.4% 55.7% 64.9% .55 63.6% 55.4% 45.2% 28.4% .48 64.5% 49.9% 51.9% 31.0% .49 62.0% 58.5% 51.1% 34.2% .51 Satisfied with marriage / relationship Satisfied with family life and time spent with family Satisfied with time available Satisfied with leisure time No adult / child ever goes hungry* Family dimension 74.6% 84.7% 63.1% 63.1% 72.5% .72 66.0% 81.2% 55.7% 56.3% 83.3% .69 67.7% 83.6% 76.3% 76.3% 67.0% .74 66.8% 77.9% 68.5% 69.3% 41.8% .65 Community can be trusted Satisfied with friends It is important to look after the environment* Have participated in an organisation / club in the past year* Community dimension 22.9% 77.7% 95.4% 72.5% .67 12.0% 77.1% 86.8% 70.1% .61 13.4% 82.2% 17.3% 78.9% 88.1% 38.0% .56 Health status excellent or good* Health does not affect work Health does not affect social activities Did not fail to get/look for healthcare* Have medical aid cover* Health dimension 86.2% 72.3% 74.0% 87.7% 25.4% .69 73.1% 75.1% 76.8% 72.9% 27.3% .59 26.7% .59 91.6% 77.2% 79.7% 97.3% 19.2% .73 Satisfied with dwelling Satisfied with area where living* Dwelling structure made of bricks / concrete Dwelling is owned* Not overcrowded / don't share one room with other households Dwelling dimension 45.8% 51.1% 77.9% 46.9% 92.4% .63 68.9% 61.0% 81.5% 50.7% 95.9% .72 76.1% 79.3% 81.1% 43.5% 87.5% .73 65.0% 63.9% 81.6% 51.4% 74.7% .67 Has been an improvement in community Water is usually / always clean Flush toilet connected to sewage Water piped into dwelling Has access to electricity (electricity, solar/wind, petrol or diesel generator)* Refuse is removed by municipality Have not had water/electricity cut off or been evicted* Infrastructure dimension 19.1% 87.0% 86.9% 68.5% 81.5% 74.6% 97.7% .74 34.0% 90.3% 76.8% 61.3% 78.6% 77.1% 92.9% .73 21.0% 95.4% 75.4% 76.8% 83.4% 79.3% 97.5% .75 21.9% 95.4% 84.6% 78.9% 84.6% 76.8% 93.3% .77 Press is free to write / say what it likes Have matric or higher Have telephone or cell phone Have radio / television Have internet connection in household Connectivity dimension 58.0% 34.6% 88.5% 87.8% 9.2% .56 63.9% 38.1% 90.3% 86.8% 14.1% .59 58.5% 35.1% 93.6% 90.4% 14.4% .58 56.1% 39.2% 97.2% 86.9% 19.5% .60 Satisfied with money available Viewed as middle / upper class* Satisfied with standard of living Satisfied with working conditions Employed/ self-employed/ don't need or want to work/ housewife/ retired* Household income >R1 600 Not in debt Work dimension 9.9% 15.3% 42.0% 26.0% 46.9% 58.5% 71.5% .39 29.6% 20.2% 59.5% 22.9% 56.3% 53.7% 76.5% .42 22.8% 19.4% 58.8% 30.1% 52.2% 55.1% 74.7% .49 56.6% 32.3% 54.5% 53.0% 63.7% .47 Feel safe in area living in during the day Feel safe in area living in at night Feel safe at home Crime situation has improved Not been a victim of crime in past year Security dimension 77.9% 25.4% 74.8% 29.0% 84.6% .58 81.5% 34.1% 72.4% 30.5% 83.9% .60 81.1% 27.1% 75.6% 15.5% 80.6% .56 71.8% 22.3% 74.9% 19.8% 82.2% .54 Disagree that politics is a waste of time Agree that elections were / will be free and fair* Agree that judiciary is free from government influence Disagree that blacks and whites will never trust each other Believe foreigners should be allowed to stay* Satisfied with national government performance Satisfied with provincial government performance Satisfied with local government performance Agree that government officials live up to Batho Pele Household member attended public participation forum Did vote / plan to vote* Not been asked for a bribe Socio-political attitudes dimension 77.9% 84.0% 41.2% 17.7% 25.4% 63.8% 55.0% 37.4% 29.8% 56.2% 76.9% 92.4% .55 60.0% 67.2% 53.7% 20.8% 67.4% 52.5% 46.9% 43.4% 22.6% 54.3% 66.0% 90.9% .54 51.3% 55.1% 44.6% 23.0% 77.0% 48.3% 45.6% 36.0% 14.8% 52.2% 37.1% 94.3% .48 59.9% 55.4% 47.9% 28.1% 82.5% 49.9% 46.8% 21.5% 36.5% 53.3% 76.6% 89.5% .54 Quality of life index (dimension weighted) 6.07 6.00 5.96 6.03 Quality of life index (indicator weighted) 5.97 5.94 5.90 6.01 * Variation in wording / inclusion across surveys 64.2% .53 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS 2009-2015 Emfuleni Indicators and dimensions 2009 2011 2013 2015 Satisfied with life as a whole Disagree that no-one cares about me Disagree that I cannot influence developments in my community Disagree that the country is going in the wrong direction* Global life satisfaction dimension 46.1% 64.2% 52.3% 56.1% .55 64.2% 37.7% 37.0% 23.3% .41 66.9% 57.5% 56.7% 26.6% .52 65.1% 42.3% 42.3% 18.2% .42 Satisfied with marriage / relationship Satisfied with family life and time spent with family Satisfied with time available Satisfied with leisure time No adult / child ever goes hungry* Family dimension 62.6% 82.4% 59.3% 61.4% 80.4% .69 57.4% 79.3% 56.0% 63.7% 77.4% .67 61.1% 86.3% 70.2% 73.3% 53.9% .69 62.4% 85.3% 62.1% 68.0% 73.5% .70 Community can be trusted Satisfied with friends It is important to look after the environment* Have participated in an organisation / club in the past year* Community dimension 28.6% 69.4% 93.6% 78.2% .67 16.5% 72.2% 86.8% 77.6% .63 23.2% 78.3% 18.0% 78.7% 74.7% 39.7% .53 Health status excellent or good* Health does not affect work Health does not affect social activities Did not fail to get/look for healthcare* Have medical aid cover* Health dimension 84.6% 74.8% 76.5% 83.8% 18.3% .68 64.3% 65.9% 70.2% 73.0% 26.6% .52 21.5% .55 89.3% 74.8% 75.6% 96.4% 18.2% .71 Satisfied with dwelling Satisfied with area where living* Dwelling structure made of bricks / concrete Dwelling is owned* Not overcrowded / don't share one room with other households Dwelling dimension 55.4% 60.8% 84.6% 75.7% 97.3% .75 76.6% 68.4% 93.2% 76.7% 95.4% .82 68.2% 67.5% 89.2% 71.4% 93.1% .78 70.3% 66.5% 87.3% 71.8% 91.5% .78 Has been an improvement in community Water is usually / always clean Flush toilet connected to sewage Water piped into dwelling Has access to electricity (electricity, solar/wind, petrol or diesel generator)* Refuse is removed by municipality Have not had water/electricity cut off or been evicted* Infrastructure dimension 24.8% 89.0% 90.2% 77.5% 93.6% 88.7% 97.1% .80 30.0% 93.3% 86.4% 75.3% 87.3% 91.7% 92.0% .79 12.8% 96.2% 86.5% 59.3% 91.5% 89.6% 95.3% .76 17.0% 95.5% 88.4% 84.2% 94.1% 89.9% 93.8% .80 Press is free to write / say what it likes Have matric or higher Have telephone or cell phone Have radio / television Have internet connection in household Connectivity dimension 56.5% 40.4% 84.8% 92.4% 11.3% .57 60.8% 47.4% 92.8% 94.8% 18.1% .63 45.4% 43.8% 93.6% 95.6% 13.6% .58 42.9% 45.9% 92.9% 94.9% 12.0% .58 Satisfied with money available Viewed as middle / upper class* Satisfied with standard of living Satisfied with working conditions Employed/ self-employed/ don't need or want to work/ housewife/ retired* Household income >R1 600 Not in debt Work dimension 18.6% 27.9% 45.3% 16.4% 42.8% 46.3% 76.8% .39 35.5% 28.2% 58.1% 21.2% 54.8% 45.8% 71.2% .45 34.1% 25.0% 55.7% 22.9% 49.2% 42.3% 60.9% .44 60.1% 22.8% 47.0% 41.2% 68.2% .44 Feel safe in area living in during the day Feel safe in area living in at night Feel safe at home Crime situation has improved Not been a victim of crime in past year Security dimension 80.9% 27.1% 80.1% 28.9% 76.3% .59 78.6% 25.9% 76.6% 27.8% 78.1% .57 80.0% 11.9% 73.5% 16.0% 77.0% .52 62.3% 18.7% 63.6% 13.8% 82.2% .48 Disagree that politics is a waste of time Agree that elections were / will be free and fair* Agree that judiciary is free from government influence Disagree that blacks and whites will never trust each other Believe foreigners should be allowed to stay* Satisfied with national government performance Satisfied with provincial government performance Satisfied with local government performance Agree that government officials live up to Batho Pele Household member attended public participation forum Did vote / plan to vote* Not been asked for a bribe Socio-political attitudes dimension 64.7% 82.6% 35.8% 23.2% 23.2% 53.3% 42.5% 38.1% 31.6% 61.9% 79.2% 92.2% .52 44.7% 68.8% 50.3% 18.8% 55.2% 46.6% 38.5% 32.9% 24.9% 57.1% 68.7% 89.9% .50 40.7% 52.8% 41.3% 23.5% 66.9% 34.5% 30.0% 24.8% 15.7% 56.7% 40.8% 88.8% .43 48.5% 49.7% 37.7% 22.6% 58.8% 34.7% 30.3% 20.8% 23.6% 57.2% 79.3% 91.4% .46 Quality of life index (dimension weighted) 6.21 5.99 5.86 5.90 Quality of life index (indicator weighted) 6.08 5.94 5.72 5.83 * Variation in wording / inclusion across surveys 74.6% .59 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS 2009-2015 Midvaal Indicators and dimensions 2009 2011 2013 2015 Satisfied with life as a whole Disagree that no-one cares about me Disagree that I cannot influence developments in my community Disagree that the country is going in the wrong direction* Global life satisfaction dimension 62.5% 70.0% 42.5% 50.0% .57 67.5% 46.5% 34.2% 21.9% .43 66.8% 55.9% 51.9% 29.1% .51 70.4% 37.8% 48.1% 22.7% .45 Satisfied with marriage / relationship Satisfied with family life and time spent with family Satisfied with time available Satisfied with leisure time No adult / child ever goes hungry* Family dimension 70.0% 87.5% 77.5% 80.0% 87.5% .80 66.7% 82.6% 57.4% 64.9% 80.9% .71 70.0% 82.2% 70.1% 70.6% 54.0% .69 61.8% 80.6% 63.5% 72.5% 72.5% .70 Community can be trusted Satisfied with friends It is important to look after the environment* Have participated in an organisation / club in the past year* Community dimension 22.5% 80.0% 97.5% 57.5% .64 17.5% 75.4% 88.7% 60.9% .61 26.8% 79.9% 16.3% 77.2% 88.4% 31.8% .53 Health status excellent or good* Health does not affect work Health does not affect social activities Did not fail to get/look for healthcare* Have medical aid cover* Health dimension 92.5% 77.5% 80.0% 92.7% 37.5% .76 73.0% 75.4% 76.1% 81.2% 32.5% .60 28.0% .62 93.6% 85.8% 88.0% 94.4% 29.6% .78 Satisfied with dwelling Satisfied with area where living* Dwelling structure made of bricks / concrete Dwelling is owned* Not overcrowded / don't share one room with other households Dwelling dimension 70.0% 72.5% 92.5% 52.5% 92.5% .76 75.4% 73.0% 94.7% 68.4% 95.6% .81 68.7% 72.9% 84.6% 52.3% 88.3% .73 76.0% 76.0% 84.1% 65.7% 88.8% .78 Has been an improvement in community Water is usually / always clean Flush toilet connected to sewage Water piped into dwelling Has access to electricity (electricity, solar/wind, petrol or diesel generator)* Refuse is removed by municipality Have not had water/electricity cut off or been evicted* Infrastructure dimension 34.1% 90.0% 82.5% 80.0% 87.5% 80.0% 95.0% .78 43.0% 93.9% 76.3% 69.3% 80.7% 85.2% 94.7% .78 22.5% 92.1% 61.5% 56.5% 79.8% 81.8% 93.0% .70 29.6% 94.4% 69.5% 65.7% 83.3% 88.0% 91.0% .75 Press is free to write / say what it likes Have matric or higher Have telephone or cell phone Have radio / television Have internet connection in household Connectivity dimension 62.5% 50.0% 90.0% 92.5% 27.5% .64 63.2% 46.5% 89.6% 88.7% 26.3% .63 42.3% 48.1% 89.3% 86.0% 21.0% .57 52.8% 54.1% 97.0% 90.6% 26.2% .64 Satisfied with money available Viewed as middle / upper class* Satisfied with standard of living Satisfied with working conditions Employed/ self-employed/ don't need or want to work/ housewife/ retired* Household income >R1 600 Not in debt Work dimension 32.5% 40.0% 65.0% 37.5% 65.9% 62.5% 70.0% .54 34.2% 29.6% 60.9% 29.8% 65.8% 52.6% 71.3% .49 34.7% 33.0% 61.5% 37.9% 49.8% 46.5% 70.0% .50 69.5% 38.4% 57.5% 36.1% 68.7% .51 Feel safe in area living in during the day Feel safe in area living in at night Feel safe at home Crime situation has improved Not been a victim of crime in past year Security dimension 77.5% 22.5% 85.0% 20.0% 67.5% .55 82.6% 35.1% 80.9% 34.2% 75.7% .62 80.8% 27.7% 76.6% 23.0% 80.8% .58 71.7% 29.6% 78.1% 19.3% 79.8% .56 Disagree that politics is a waste of time Agree that elections were / will be free and fair* Agree that judiciary is free from government influence Disagree that blacks and whites will never trust each other Believe foreigners should be allowed to stay* Satisfied with national government performance Satisfied with provincial government performance Satisfied with local government performance Agree that government officials live up to Batho Pele Household member attended public participation forum Did vote / plan to vote* Not been asked for a bribe Socio-political attitudes dimension 62.5% 75.0% 27.5% 30.0% 25.0% 47.5% 45.0% 50.0% 26.8% 25.0% 72.5% 85.0% .47 52.6% 68.4% 51.8% 15.7% 71.1% 44.7% 43.9% 45.6% 25.4% 40.0% 74.6% 87.7% .52 38.3% 48.6% 38.5% 30.0% 70.4% 33.2% 28.5% 41.3% 17.8% 45.8% 45.1% 87.8% .44 51.1% 51.9% 36.5% 27.0% 64.4% 22.3% 24.1% 45.5% 20.2% 36.9% 80.3% 83.3% .45 Quality of life index (dimension weighted) 6.52 6.19 5.91 6.15 Quality of life index (indicator weighted) 6.33 6.11 5.75 6.02 * Variation in wording / inclusion across surveys 65.7% .57 QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS 2009-2015 Lesedi Indicators and dimensions 2009 2011 2013 2015 Satisfied with life as a whole Disagree that no-one cares about me Disagree that I cannot influence developments in my community Disagree that the country is going in the wrong direction* Global life satisfaction dimension 46.7% 58.7% 43.5% 60.0% .52 65.0% 50.4% 33.6% 23.4% .43 67.3% 63.4% 69.6% 30.5% .58 66.5% 31.8% 40.3% 14.2% .38 Satisfied with marriage / relationship Satisfied with family life and time spent with family Satisfied with time available Satisfied with leisure time No adult / child ever goes hungry* Family dimension 58.7% 80.4% 65.2% 63.0% 69.6% .68 65.0% 78.8% 51.1% 52.9% 74.5% .64 62.1% 88.3% 70.1% 63.4% 74.3% .72 52.8% 81.1% 49.4% 69.2% 69.1% .64 Community can be trusted Satisfied with friends It is important to look after the environment* Have participated in an organisation / club in the past year* Community dimension 30.4% 69.6% 89.1% 82.2% .68 18.2% 73.7% 86.0% 71.5% .62 20.6% 87.4% 15.9% 79.8% 69.1% 43.8% .52 Health status excellent or good* Health does not affect work Health does not affect social activities Did not fail to get/look for healthcare* Have medical aid cover* Health dimension 82.2% 73.9% 76.1% 87.0% 15.2% .67 73.0% 74.5% 71.8% 71.4% 19.7% .56 28.6% .57 91.0% 76.0% 76.0% 97.4% 21.5% .72 54.3% 51.1% 84.8% 69.6% 100.0% .72 75.2% 68.4% 89.8% 72.3% 97.1% .81 75.2% 84.0% 90.2% 65.0% 94.9% .82 65.0% 69.5% 92.3% 62.2% 94.0% .77 Has been an improvement in community Water is usually / always clean Flush toilet connected to sewage Water piped into dwelling Has access to electricity (electricity, solar/wind, petrol or diesel generator)* Refuse is removed by municipality Have not had water/electricity cut off or been evicted* Infrastructure dimension 28.3% 91.3% 93.5% 60.0% 91.3% 93.5% 93.5% .79 39.4% 89.8% 80.3% 73.0% 78.1% 84.7% 91.2% .77 39.0% 95.8% 90.7% 67.8% 91.1% 86.4% 87.8% .80 28.8% 92.7% 79.8% 77.7% 95.7% 88.4% 82.0% .78 Press is free to write / say what it likes Have matric or higher Have telephone or cell phone Have radio / television Have internet connection in household Connectivity dimension 63.0% 30.4% 87.0% 93.5% 8.7% .56 64.2% 36.5% 91.2% 89.8% 13.1% .59 50.5% 40.2% 82.7% 95.8% 13.6% .56 35.2% 50.2% 91.0% 92.3% 13.3% .56 Satisfied with money available Viewed as middle / upper class* Satisfied with standard of living Satisfied with working conditions Employed/ self-employed/ don't need or want to work/ housewife/ retired* Household income >R1 600 Not in debt Work dimension 15.2% 32.6% 44.4% 23.9% 42.2% 52.2% 78.3% .41 31.4% 21.2% 56.2% 16.1% 58.4% 46.7% 76.6% .44 36.9% 21.5% 59.3% 28.5% 57.7% 39.3% 77.6% .50 60.1% 23.2% 44.4% 38.6% 79.8% .45 Feel safe in area living in during the day Feel safe in area living in at night Feel safe at home Crime situation has improved Not been a victim of crime in past year Security dimension 69.6% 26.1% 63.0% 24.4% 80.4% .53 90.5% 30.1% 78.1% 33.6% 82.4% .63 84.0% 19.6% 78.5% 27.1% 73.7% .57 61.1% 30.5% 63.1% 8.6% 89.7% .51 Disagree that politics is a waste of time Agree that elections were / will be free and fair* Agree that judiciary is free from government influence Disagree that blacks and whites will never trust each other Believe foreigners should be allowed to stay* Satisfied with national government performance Satisfied with provincial government performance Satisfied with local government performance Agree that government officials live up to Batho Pele Household member attended public participation forum Did vote / plan to vote* Not been asked for a bribe Socio-political attitudes dimension 68.9% 78.3% 53.3% 15.2% 13.0% 58.7% 52.2% 45.7% 28.3% 57.8% 82.6% 91.3% .54 54.0% 69.3% 57.7% 11.7% 65.0% 39.4% 32.8% 32.1% 28.5% 53.3% 73.0% 93.4% .51 34.1% 51.2% 45.1% 35.2% 62.1% 34.6% 29.6% 30.4% 20.1% 54.5% 34.3% 94.9% .44 47.0% 46.4% 37.8% 21.5% 46.8% 33.9% 27.8% 27.5% 17.6% 43.8% 83.7% 95.7% .44 Quality of life index (dimension weighted) 6.09 6.00 6.06 5.77 Quality of life index (indicator weighted) 6.00 5.92 5.95 5.70 Satisfied with dwelling Satisfied with area where living* Dwelling structure made of bricks / concrete Dwelling is owned* Not overcrowded / don't share one room with other households Dwelling dimension * Variation in wording / inclusion across surveys 44.9% .51 FORTHCOMING GCRO RESEARCH OUTPUTS A FRAMEWORK TOWARDS A GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING APPROACH IN THE GAUTENG CITY-REGION Research report By Kerry Bobbins & Christina Culwick 2016 forthcoming MINING LANDSCAPES IN THE GAUTENG CITY-REGION Research report By Kerry Bobbins & Guy Trangoš 2016 forthcoming POVERTY & INEQUALITY IN THE GAUTENG CITY-REGION Research report By Darlington Mushongera 2016 forthcoming PATHWAYS TO ANTI-RACISM Research report By Dr Caryn Abrahams 2016 forthcoming TRANSITIONING TO A GREEN ECONOMY IN THE GCR: ASSESSING LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES’ READINESS Occasional paper By Dr Claudious Chikozho 2016 forthcoming PERIPHERIES AND RURAL/ URBAN TRANSITIONS IN THE GAUTENG CITYREGION: PEOPLE AND PLACEECONOMIES Research Report By Dr Sally Peberdy 2016 forthcoming HUNGRY CITY-REGION Occasional paper By Dr Caryn Abrahams 2016 forthcoming SOUTH AFRICAN AND INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURS IN GAUTENG’S INFORMAL ECONOMY Occasional paper By Dr Sally Peberdy 2016 forthcoming GAUTENG: VILLAGE OF 100 PEOPLE Interactive website By Guy Trangoš 2016 forthcoming APPLYING A GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE APPROACH IN THE GAUTENG CITY-REGION Research Report By Christina Culwick 2016 forthcoming RECENT GCRO RESEARCH OUTPUTS + WARD PROFILE VIEWER FOR GAUTENG Interactive website By Samy Katumba 2016 QUALITY OF LIFE 2013 CITY BENCHMARKING REPORT Research report By GCRO staff 2015 INTERNATIONAL MIGRANTS IN JOHANNESBURG’S INFORMAL ECONOMY SAMP Research report By Dr Sally Peberdy 2016 ACID MINE DRAINAGE AND ITS GOVERNANCE IN THE GAUTENG CITY-REGION Occasional paper By Kerry Bobbins 2015 NEW GCRO WEBSITE Website By Guy Trangoš 2015 TRANSFORMING TRANSPORT IN THE GAUTENG CITY-REGION Interactive Map of the Month, October By Christina Culwick, Samy Katumba & Guy Trangoš 2015 Many more available at www.gcro.ac.za, such as: Our extensive academic journal article output listing and all of our research reports All of our Maps of the Month and Vignettes sent to date Compelling interactive visualisations and data viewers 60 214 Maps of the Month produced by the GCRO 88 10 000 + presentations made by GCRO staff at academic forums, government meetings and other events + academic journal articles, book chapters and conference proceedings published by the GCRO + unique users visited the GCRO website in the last 12 months