region 4 profile · web viewin 2015, representing 20 percent growth over the period. the population...

Tshwane Socio-Economic Profile: Region 4

Overview

Region 4 is situated in the south-western portion of the Metropolitan area. The Region borders

on the area of jurisdiction of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Ekurhuleni

Metropolitan Municipality as well as Mogale City to the west.

Figure 1: Region 1 development overview

The main characteristics of Region 4 are:

The Region consists of a`n urban area to the east and a rural area to the west of which

both areas are currently under pressure for development.

The core area of Region 4 is located between two major highways, the Ben Schoeman

Highway (N14) and the N1 Highway (M1).

The N1 corridor represents one of the most sought after development strips in South

Africa. This corridor manifests primary within the Midrand and Centurion areas and it is

known as one of the high technology belts within the South African economy.

The region falls within the Economic Core identified for Gauteng Province with the legs

of the triangular core the N1 Highway on the western side and the R21 Highway with its

linkage to the Oliver Tambo International airport on the eastern side. This economic core

is the primary growth focus for Gauteng Province.

Region 4 is located at the southern gateway of the City of Tshwane and is easily

accessible from the Johannesburg financial and corporate district and the Oliver Tambo

International Airport.

The region includes and shares with other regions a number of conservancies within

reach of Johannesburg and the greater Tshwane area.

The Hennops River basin is situated within this region. The Crocodile River basin in

Region 3 also contributes water to this region. These are important natural resources

which provide opportunities for tourism and recreational activities.

The underlying dolomite in the region, the sensitive environmental areas and ridges tend

to direct and inform urban development.

Demographics

Figure 2: Population growth rate and actual numbers in Region 4, 2011 - 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

Source: IHS Global Insight, Regional eXplorer 1029 (2.5w), 2015

Figure 2Figure 2 indicates the total population in Region 4 and the associated percentage

growth rate since 2011 to 2015. In 2011, the total population was approximately 366 524 and

grew to 440 695 in 2015, representing 20 percent growth over the period. The population growth

is growing at declining rate, in 2011 the population growth rate was at 6,1 percent and this has

declined to 3,9 percent in 2015.

Figure 3: Region 4’s population pyramid, 2015

00-0405-0910-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-74

75+

30,000 20,000 10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000

Male Female


Figure 3 indicates the 2015 population pyramid for Region 4, from the figure, it can be noted

that there is a youth bulge in Region 4’s population i.e. it can be observed that a significant

portion of Region 4’s population is younger than 35. The majority of people in this region are

within the economically active age group (16 to 65 years of age). This means a relatively low

dependency ratio, as most people in this area should be able to access employment. The latter

however depends on the number of job opportunities and access to areas of economic activity.

Figure 4: Progress in education (20+), 2011-2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.2% 2.3%4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.4%

25.5% 25.7% 25.9% 26.0% 25.8%

1.1% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9%

33.2% 32.8% 32.6% 32.6% 32.4%

12.2% 12.1% 11.8% 11.6% 11.4%

14.2% 14.2% 14.6% 14.6% 15.0%

7.6% 7.8% 7.8% 7.9% 7.7%

No schooling Primary schooling Secondary schooling

Certificate / diploma without matric Matric only Matric & certificate / diploma

Matric & Bachelors degree Matric & Postgrad degree


Error: Reference source not found indicates how the educational profile of the population that is

20 years or older in Region 4 has changed over the 2011 – 2015 period. As indicated in the

figure, the percentage of the people (20 years +) in Region 5 with no schooling has increased

from 2.0 percent in 2011 to 2.3 percent, whilst the percentage of people with at least matric

have marginally decreased from 33.2 percent in 2011 to 32.4 percent in 2015. The percentage

of people (20 years +) in Region 5 with certificates or a diploma without matric has since 2011

accounted the least, that is, 1.1 percent in 2011 and declined to 0.9 percent in 2015. Region

5’s GDP-R, 2011 – 2015

Economy

Figure 5: Region 5’s GDP-R (2010, Constant prices), 2011 -2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 201543,000,000

44,000,000

45,000,000

46,000,000

47,000,000

48,000,000

49,000,000

50,000,000

51,000,000

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%


Figure 5 indicates the GDP-R in constant 2010 prices for Region 4 over the 2011 – 2015 period.

As indicated in the figure, the region’s GDP-R is estimated to have increased from R 45.9 billion

in 2011 to R 50.0 billion 2015. On the other hand, the average year on year growth rate over the

same period started to decline sharply in 2012 from 5.2 percent to 1.0 percent in 2015.

Figure 6: Average annual growth (%, Constant 2010 prices) of economic sectors in Region 4, 2011 – 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

Agriculture Mining Manufacturing ElectricityConstruction Trade Transport FinanceCommunity services Total Industries


Figure 6 indicates the average annual growth by economic sector for Region 4 over the 2011 –

2015 period. As indicated in the figure, most sectors over the 2011 – 2015 period appear to

have been quite volatile explaining the picture depicted by figure 6. To elaborate, the largest

contributors to the region’s economic output performed as follows;

community services sector’s (contributes approx. 31.1 percent to GVA-R in 2015)

average annual growth declined from 6.3 percent in 2011 to 0.3 percent in 2015;

finance sector’s (contributes approx. 28.4 percent to GVA-R in 2015) average annual

growth declined from 4.9 percent in 2011 to 1.8 percent in 2015; and

trade sector’s (contributes approx. 11.5 percent to GVA-R in 2015) average annual

growth declined from 5.3 percent in 2011 to 1.2 percent in 2015

Labour Market

Figure 7: Unemployment (official definition1) in Region 4, 2015

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

11.7%

11.8%

11.9%

12.0%

12.1%

12.2%

12.3%

12.4%

12.5%

12.6%


Figure 7 above indicates the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons in

actual terms in Region 4. It can be noted from the figure that the unemployment rate in Region 4

has increased slightly from 12.4 percent in 2011 to 12.5 percent in 2015. This represents an

increase from approx. 25 657 unemployed people in 2011 to approx. 42 752 unemployed

people in 2015.

1 According to Statistics South Africa (2016:xxi) Unemployed persons (official) are those (aged 15–64 years) who: a) Were not employed in the reference week; and b) Actively looked for work or tried to start a business in the four weeks preceding the survey interview; and c) Were available for work, i.e. would have been able to start work or a business in the reference week; or d) Had not actively looked for work in the past four weeks but had a job or business to start at a definite date in the future and were available.

Figure 8: Employment (official definition) in Region 4, 2011 - 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000


Figure 8 above indicates the total employment in Region 4 disaggregated by formal or informal

sector. As indicated in the figure, employment (absolute terms) across both sectors in Region 4

has been steadily increasing over the 2011-2015 period. In 2011, total number of individuals

employed in the region were approximately 190 701 and have since increased to 266 976 in

2015. As one would expect, the largest composition of this growth can be attributed to growth in

formal sector employment, which was 167 316 in 2011 and has since increased to 236 635 in

2015. Informal sector employment has increased from 23 385 in 2011 to 30 635 in 2015.

Figure 9: Employment by economic sector, 2011 – 2015

2011 20150%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3.4% 4.7%9.7% 8.9%

6.3% 6.7%

20.0% 18.6%

5.2% 5.7%

22.2% 23.3%

22.1% 22.8%

9.2% 7.7%

Agriculture Mining Manufacturing Electricity Construction Trade Transport

Finance Community services Households


Figure 9 indicates total employment in Region 4 disaggregated by economic sectors over the

period 2011 - 2015 period. As indicated in the figure, the finance sector and community services

sector have been among the largest contributors to employment in Region 4 over the 2011 –

2015 period, contributing approximately 23.3 percent and 22.8 percent in 2015 respectively.

Given that the two sectors are among the main contributors to the economic output of region 4,

this comes as no surprise. It worth noting however, that both sectors’ contribution has

marginally declined since 2011.

Service delivery

Figure 10: Households in Region 4 by type of dwelling, 2011 – 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

75.2% 74.2% 73.0% 71.5% 70.3%

22.3% 22.8% 23.1% 23.2% 23.2%

2.4% 2.8% 3.9% 5.3% 6.4%

Formal Informal Traditional Other dwelling type


Figure 10 above indicates households in Region 4 by type of dwelling (in proportion to the total

number of households in Region 4). As indicated in the figure, approximately 75.2 percent of the

households were occupying formal dwellings in 2011 and this has decreased to 70.3 percent in

2015. Approximately 22.3 percent of the households were occupying formal dwellings in 2011

and this has decreased to 23.2 percent in 2015. Traditional and other dwelling units contribute

an estimate of approximately 6.4 percent combined.

Figure 11: Households in Region 4 by type of toilet facilities, 2011-2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

84.7% 83.5% 82.5% 81.5% 80.8%

9.1% 10.1% 10.7% 11.5% 12.0%

5.0% 5.2% 5.6% 5.7% 5.9%

Flush toilet Ventilation Improved Pit (VIP) Pit toiletBucket system No toilet


Figure 11 above indicates households in Region 4 by the type of the accessible toilet facility (i.e.

in proportion to the total number of households in Region 4). As indicated in the figure, the

percentage of households with a flush toilet in Region 4 has slightly declined from 84.7 percent

in 2011 to 80.8 percent 2015, the percentage of households with a ventilation improved pit (VIP)

slightly increased from 0.7 percent in 2011 to 0.9 percent in 2015, the percentage of households

with pit toilets increased from 9.1 percent in 2011 to 12.0 percent 2015 and the percentage of

households with no toilets has declined from 5.0 percent in 2011 to 5.9 percent.

Figure 12: Households in Region 4 by water access level, 2011 - 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

77.5% 78.1% 78.5% 78.8% 79.0%

11.4% 11.2% 10.8% 10.5% 10.2%

7.1% 7.7% 8.3% 8.7% 9.0%

Piped water inside dwelling Piped water in yard Communal piped water(At RDP-level)

Communal piped water (Below RDP) No formal piped water


Figure 12 above indicates households in Region 4 by water access level (available water

infrastructure utilised by households in proportion to the total number of households in Region

4). As indicated in the figure, the percentage of households in Region 4 with access to piped

water inside dwelling has increased from 77.5 percent in 2011 to 79.0 percent in 2015, the

percentage of households with access to piped water in yard has declined from 11.4 percent in

2011 to 10.2 percent, the percentage of households with access to communal piped water at

RDP level has increased from 10.4 percent in 2011 to 11.2 percent in 2015, the percentage of

households with access to communal piped water below RDP level has declined from 2.5

percent in 2011 to 1.8 percent in 2015, and the percentage of households with no access to

formal piped water increased from 1.4 percent in 2011 to 0.0 percent in 2015.

Figure 13: Households in Region 4 by refuse removal service, 2011 - 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

89.7% 89.9% 90.2% 90.4% 90.6%

1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9%2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3%5.7% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.5%1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7%

Removed weekly by authority Removed less often than weekly by authority Removed by community members

Personal removal (own dump) No refuse removal


Figure 13 indicates the households in Region 4 by the type of refuse removal service accessed

over the 2011 – 2015 period. As indicated in the figure, the percentage of households in Region

4 with access to refuse removal service by authority on a weekly basis increased from 89.7

percent in 2011 to 90.6 percent in 2015, the percentage of households with access to refuse

removal service by an authority for less often than weekly declined from 1.3 percent in 2011 to

0.9 percent in 2015, the percentage of households with access to refuse removal service by

community members increased from 2.2 percent in 2011 to 2.3 percent in 2015, the percentage

of households utilising personal refuse removal efforts (own dump) decreased from 5.7 percent

in 2011 to 5.5 percent in 2015 and the percentage of households with no access to refuse

removal services declined from 1.1 percent in 2011 to 0.7 percent in 2015.

Figure 14: Households in Region 5 with electrical connections (%), 2011 - 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

85.9% 85.3% 84.3% 83.6% 83.1%

14.1% 14.7% 15.7% 16.4% 16.9%

Electrical connections (%) No electrical connections (%)


Figure 14 above indicates the share of households with electrical connections in Region 4. As

indicated in the figure, in 2011, 85.9 percent of the households were connected to electricity.

This number decreased to 83.1 in 2015, reflecting a decrease of 2.8 percentage points. The

share of households with no electrical connections increased from 14.1 percent in 2011 to 16.9

percent in 2015.

Welfare Indicators

Figure 15: Performance of welfare indicators (HDI, Gini coefficient and poverty gap rate) in Region 4, 2011 – 2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20150.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

24.0%

24.5%

25.0%

25.5%

26.0%

26.5%

27.0%

Human Development Index (HDI) Gini coefficient Poverty gap rate (from upper poverty line)


above indicates the performance of Region 4’s social welfare indicators (HDI, Gini coefficient

and poverty gap rate) for the period 2011– 2015.

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite relative index used to compare human

development across population groups or regions. HDI is the combination of three basic

dimensions of human development which are: long and healthy life; knowledge and a decent

standard of living. The region’s HDI improved from 0.76 in 2011 to 0.78 in 2015.

The Gini coefficient is a summary statistic of income inequality, which varies from 0 to 1. If the

Gini Coefficient is equal to zero it means that incomes are distributed in a perfectly equal

manner, indicating a low variance between high and low income earners in the population. If the

Gini coefficient is equal to one, income is completely inequitable, with one individual in the

population earning income, whilst everyone else earns nothing. The region’s Gini coefficient has

worsened, from 0.58 in 2011 to 0.60 in 2015.

The poverty gap rate is used as an indicator to measure the depth of poverty. The gap

measures the average distance of the population from the poverty line and is expressed as a

percentage of the upper bound poverty line, as defined by StatsSA2. As indicated in the figure,

the poverty gap rate has worsened from 25.2 percent in 2011 to 26.1 percent in 2015

2 The upper poverty line is defined by StatsSA as the level of consumption at which individuals are able to purchase both sufficient food and non-food items without sacrificing one for the other.

region 4 profile · web viewin 2015, representing 20 percent growth over the period. the population...

Documents