PublicHousinginSingapore: Residents Pro le,housingsatisfaction andpreferences HDBSampleHouseholdSurvey2013
Published by Housing & Development Board HDB Hub 480 Lorong 6 Toa Payoh Singapore 310480 Research Team Goh Li Ping (Team Leader) William Lim Teong Wee Tan Hui Fang Wu Juan Juan Tan Tze Hui Clara Wong Lee Hua Lim E-Farn Fiona Lee Yiling Esther Chua Jia Ping Sangeetha d/o Panearselvan Amy Wong Jin Ying Phay Huai Yu Nur Asykin Ramli Wendy Li Xin Yvonne Tan Ci En Choo Kit Hoong Advisor: Dr Chong Fook Loong Raymond Toh Chun Parng Research Advisory Panel: Professor Aline Wong Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser Dr Lai Ah Eng Dr Kang Soon Hock Associate Professor Pow Choon Piew Dr Kevin Tan Siah Yeow Assistant Professor Chang Jiat Hwee Published Dec 2014 All information is correct at the time of printing. 2014 Housing & Development Board. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means. Produced by HDB Research and Planning Group ISBN 978-981-09-3827-7 Printed by Oxford Graphic Printers Pte Ltd 11 Kaki Bukit Road 1 #02-06/07/08 Eunos Technolink Singapore 415939 Tel: 6748 3898 Fax: 6747 5668 www.oxfordgraphic.com.sg
PUBLIC HOUSING IN SINGAPORE: Residents Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences HDB Sample Household Survey 2013
FOREWORD HDB homes have evolved over the years, from basic flats catering to simple, everyday needs, to homes that meet higher aspirational desires for quality living. Over the last 54 years, since its formation, HDB has made the transformation of public housing its key focus. In the process, the changes have impacted on the physical and social landscape of Singapore. More importantly, they have shaped the way residents live, work and play. In our endeavour to positively impact the lives of our residents, we carry out surveys to find out what HDB residents like, or do not like, so that we can make changes and improvements, and plan our future designs and policies around them. The large-scale Sample Household Surveys (SHS) conducted every five years are an important platform for HDB to gather residents views and feedback. HDB has completed ten SHSs, with the first survey carried out in 1968, and the latest in 2013. This latest survey covered 7,800 households living in all 23 HDB towns and three estates. High-rise, high-density living in Singapore is liveable and a way of life. Findings from SHS 2013 survey show that residents are satisfied with their flat and the convenient access to estate facilities within their neighbourhood. Findings also show that family ties remained strong with frequent visits and strong familial support between parents and married children. Residents feel a greater sense of belonging and are proud to be part of their communities. These are just some of the interesting insights from the survey. The salient findings are published in the following two monographs: i) Public Housing in Singapore: Residents' Profile, Housing Satisfaction and Preferences; and ii) Public Housing in Singapore: Social Well-Being of HDB Communities. We deeply appreciate the cooperation, time and feedback given by residents. Their responses, observations and comments will go a long way in helping HDB provide better homes and towns for all. Dr. Cheong Koon Hean Chief Executive Officer Housing & Development Board i
ii
Contents Page FOREWORD CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF CHARTS KEY INDICATORS GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS i iii v ix xii xix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 3 1.2 Objectives 4 1.3 Sampling Design 4 1.4 Outline of Monograph 5 PART 1 PROFILE OF HDB POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS 9 Chapter 2 Profile of HDB Population 2.1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident Population 13 2.2 Economic Characteristics of Resident Population 25 2.3 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population 35 2.4 Summary of Findings 50 Chapter 3 Profile of HDB Households 3.1 Households Living in HDB Towns/Estates 53 3.2 Household Compostition 57 3.3 Economic Characteristics of Households 67 3.4 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households 71 3.5 Summary of Findings 76 PART 1 CONCLUSION 79 iii
Contents Page PART 2 HOUSING SATISFACTION AND PREFERENCES 83 Chapter 4 Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat and Neighbourhood 89 4.2 Likes and Dislikes about HDB Living Environment 92 4.3 Perception of Lift Reliability 94 4.4 Value for Money and Sense of Pride towards Flat 95 4.5 Summary of Findings 102 Chapter 5 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities 5.1 Satisfaction with Estate Facilities 105 5.2 Facilities at Mid-Level Deck 110 5.3 Usage of Estate Facilities 112 5.4 Places in Estate where Residents Usually Spent their Time 119 5.5 Summary of Findings 121 Chapter 6 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations 6.1 Past Residential Mobility 125 6.2 Intention to Move within Next Five Years 131 6.3 Housing Aspirations 135 6.4 Ageing-in-Place 138 6.5 Summary of Findings 139 PART 2 CONCLUSION 143 iv
List of Tables Page Table 2.1 Role and Relationship of HDB Resident Population... 14 with Head of Household by Sex Table 2.2 HDB Resident Population by Tenure and Year... 15 Table 2.3 HDB Resident Population by Flat Type and Year... 15 Table 2.4 HDB Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year... 16 Table 2.5 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Year... 17 Table 2.6 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Sex... 18 Table 2.7 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Ethnic Group... 18 Table 2.8 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Flat Type... 19 Table 2.9 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Town/Estate... 20 Table 2.10 Age Dependency Ratio of HDB Resident Population by Year... 21 Table 2.11 HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year... 22 Table 2.12 HDB Resident Population by Ethnic Group and Year... 22 Table 2.13 HDB Resident Population by Tenure, Ethnic Group and Year... 23 Table 2.14 HDB Resident Population by Flat Type, Ethnic Group... 23 and Year Table 2.15 HDB Resident Population by Marital Status and Year... 24 Table 2.16 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above... 25 by Marital Status and Age Group Table 2.17 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above... 25 by Marital Status and Sex Table 2.18 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years... 30 and Above by Education Level and Year Table 2.19 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years... 31 and Above by Education Level and Sex Table 2.20 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years... 31 and Above by Education Level and Age Group Table 2.21 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years... 32 and Above by Occupation and Year Table 2.22 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years... 33 and Above by Occupation and Age Group Table 2.23 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years... 34 by Occupation, Sex and Year Table 2.24 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years... 35 and Above by Place of Work and Year Table 2.25 Role and Relationship with Head of Household... 37 of HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population Table 2.26 Average and Median Age of HDB Elderly and Future Elderly... 38 Resident Population by Year v
List of Tables Page Table 2.27 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population... 38 by Age Group and Sex Table 2.28 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population... 39 by Town/Estate and Year Table 2.29 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population... 41 by Tenure and Year Table 2.30 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population... 41 by Flat Type and Year Table 2.31 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Sex... 42 Table 2.32 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population... 43 by Ethnic Group and Year Table 2.33 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population... 43 by Marital Status, Sex and Year Table 2.34 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population... 44 by Ambulant Status and Year Table 2.35 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population... 45 by Economic Status and Year Table 2.36 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population... 46 by Economic Status, Sex and Year Table 2.37 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident... 47 by Education Level Table 2.38 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident... 49 Population by Occupation and Year Table 2.39 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident... 49 Population by Place of Work and Year Table 3.1 HDB Resident Population and Households by Year... 53 Table 3.2 HDB Households by Flat Type, Tenure and Year... 54 Table 3.3 HDB Households by Tenure, Ethnic Group of... 55 Head of Household and Year Table 3.4 HDB Households by Flat Type, Ethnic Group of... 55 Head of Household and Year Table 3.5 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Flat Type... 57 Table 3.6 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus and Year... 58 Table 3.7 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Tenure... 59 and Year Table 3.8 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Flat Type... 60 and Year Table 3.9 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus,... 60 Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year Table 3.10 HDB Households by Number of Generations and Year... 61 vi
List of Tables Page Table 3.11 HDB Households by Number of Generations,... 63 Flat Type and Year Table 3.12 HDB Households by Number of Generations,... 63 Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year Table 3.13 HDB Households by Household Size, Flat Type and Year... 65 Table 3.14 HDB Households by Household Size, Ethnic Group of... 65 Head of Household and Year Table 3.15 HDB Households by Household Size, Type of... 66 Family Nucleus and Year Table 3.16 Average and Median HDB Household Size... 67 by Town/Estate and Year Table 3.17 HDB Households by Number of Income Earners,... 70 Flat Type and Year Table 3.18 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households... 73 by Tenure and Year Table 3.19 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households... 73 by Flat Type and Year Table 3.20 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households... 74 by Town/Estate and Year Table 3.21 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households... 75 by Type of Family Nucleus and Year Table 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat by Flat Type and Year... 90 Table 4.2 Most-Liked Aspects about HDB Living Environment... 93 Table 4.3 Most-Disliked Aspects about HDB Living Environment... 94 Table 4.4 Reasons for Buying Current HDB Flat (Sold Flats)... 99 Table 4.5 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important... 100 when Defining a Home Table 4.6 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important... 100 Defining a Home by Household Life-Cycle Stage Table 4.7 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important... 101 when Defining a Home by Marital Status Table 4.8 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important... 101 when Defining a Home by Length of Residence Table 5.1 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Year... 106 Table 5.2 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Flat Type... 108 Table 5.3 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities... 109 by Household Life-Cycle Stage Table 5.4 Reasons for Liking/Not Liking the Idea of Having Facilities... 110 at Mid-Level Deck Table 5.5 Suggestions for Facilities at Mid-Level Deck... 111 vii
List of Tables Page Table 5.6 Preference for Facilities at Mid-Level Deck within the Block... 112 by Attributes Table 5.7 Usage Level of Estate Facilities... 113 Table 5.8 Proportion of Households who Used Estate Facilities at... 115 Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Flat Type Table 5.9 Proportion of Households who Used Estate Facilities at... 117 Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Household Life-Cycle Stage Table 5.10 Proportion of Households who Used Estate Facilities at... 119 Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Year Table 5.11 Places where Residents Usually Spent their Time in Estate... 120 Table 6.1 First Housing Type Lived in After Getting Married... 126 Table 6.2 Reasons for Moving to Present Flat by Type of Move... 129 Table 6.3 Types of Move by Age Group of Residents at Point of Move... 130 Table 6.4 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Present Flat Type... 134 Table 6.5 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Age Group... 135 Table 6.6 Housing Type Residents Content With by Age Group... 138 Table 6.7 Place to Live in when Old by Age Group of... 139 Head of Household viii
List of Charts Page Chart 2.1 HDB Resident Population and Growth Rate by Year... 13 Chart 2.2 Economic Status of HDB Resident Population... 26 Chart 2.3 Labour Force Participation Rate of... 27 HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year Chart 2.4 Age-Sex Specific Labour Force Participation Rate... 28 of HDB Resident Population by Year Chart 2.5 Age Distribution of Employed HDB Resident Population... 29 Aged 15 Years and Above by Sex and Year Chart 2.6 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Year.. 36 Chart 3.1 HDB Households by Tenure and Year... 54 Chart 3.2 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Year... 56 Chart 3.3 Average HDB Household Size by Year... 64 Chart 3.4 HDB Households by Number of Income Earners and Year... 68 Chart 3.5 Ownership of Cars of HDB Households by Year... 71 Chart 3.6 Ownership of Cars of HDB Households by Town/Estate... 71 and Year Chart 3.7 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Year... 72 Chart 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat by Year... 90 Chart 4.2 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Year... 91 Chart 4.3 Perception of Lift Reliability by Year... 95 Chart 4.4 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Tenure and Year... 96 Chart 4.5 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year... 96 Chart 4.6 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Age of Block... 97 Chart 4.7 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Tenure and Year... 98 Chart 4.8 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year... 98 Chart 4.9 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Length of Residence... 99 Chart 5.1 Overall Satisfaction with Estate Facilities by Year... 105 Chart 6.1 Average Length of Residence in Previous Housing Unit... 127 by Year Chart 6.2 Types of Move by Year... 128 Chart 6.3 Extent of Geographical Move of HDB Households... 130 by Present Town/Estate Chart 6.4 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Year... 131 Chart 6.5 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Age Group... 132 Chart 6.6 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Flat Type... 132 Chart 6.7 Type of Potential Move by Year... 132 ix
List of Charts Page Chart 6.8 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Year... 133 Chart 6.9 Housing Aspirations by Year... 136 Chart 6.10 Housing Aspirations by Flat Type and Year... 136 Chart 6.11 Housing Type Content With by Year... 137 x
Key Indicators
Key Indicators of HDB Population by Ethnic Group (2008 & 2013) Total Chinese Malay Indian Others 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Demographic Characteristics Resident Population ( 000) (Excluding subtenants) (%) 2,923 100.0 3,058 100.0 2,158 73.8 2,248 73.5 478 16.3 476 15.6 240 8.2 272 8.9 47 1.6 62 2.0 Sex (%) Male Female 49.4 50.6 48.8 51.2 49.7 50.3 49.1 50.9 48.8 51.2 48.0 52.0 49.1 50.9 49.2 50.8 47.8 52.2 42.2 57.8 Average Age Median Age (Years) (Years) 36.9 37 37.9 39 38.4 39 39.5 40 32.4 30 33.7 31 33.7 34 33.2 34 34.2 35 32.5 34 Persons Aged Below 15 Years (%) Persons Aged 15 64 Years (%) Persons Aged 65 Years & Above (%) 17.7 72.6 9.8 16.7 72.3 11.0 15.8 73.2 11.0 15.1 72.3 12.6 23.7 70.2 6.1 19.9 73.1 7.0 22.3 71.2 6.5 23.2 70.9 5.9 21.1 72.2 6.7 23.0 72.8 4.2 Based on Per 100 Population Aged 15-64 Old-Age Dependency Ratio Child Dependency Ratio 13.5 24.4 15.2 23.1 15.0 21.6 17.4 20.9 8.7 33.8 9.6 27.2 9.1 31.3 8.3 32.7 9.3 29.2 5.8 31.6 Flat Type (%) 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive 1.2 2.2 19.6 41.0 26.7 9.3 1.6 2.8 19.3 41.1 26.6 8.6 1.1 1.9 19.7 40.6 27.4 9.4 1.2 1.9 19.3 41.2 27.6 8.8 1.4 3.5 17.8 44.0 24.8 8.6 2.9 6.3 19.8 41.6 22.0 7.4 1.6 3.0 21.0 39.8 24.4 10.3 2.2 3.7 19.1 39.6 25.9 9.5 1.4 1.7 21.7 39.2 27.0 9.0 2.6 2.1 17.4 39.9 28.0 10.0 Economic Characteristics (Persons Aged 15 Years & Above) Persons Aged 15 Years & Above ( 000) 2,403 2,543 1,815 1,907 364 380 187 209 37 48 Sex (%) Male Female 49.0 51.0 48.4 51.6 49.2 50.8 48.7 51.3 48.1 51.9 47.8 52.2 48.8 51.2 48.7 51.3 46.4 53.6 41.4 58.6 Economically Active ( 000) 1,539 1,649 1,183 1,246 214 236 118 133 24 33 Employed Unemployed 1,480 59 1,583 66 1,141 42 1,202 44 204 10 222 14 112 6 126 7 23 1 32 1 Labour Force Participation Rate (%) (LFPR) 64.0 64.9 65.2 65.5 58.8 62.4 63.2 64.0 63.8 69.5 Male LFPR Female LFPR 75.4 53.1 74.6 55.8 75.3 55.4 73.7 57.8 75.0 43.8 76.0 50.0 77.1 49.9 80.7 48.0 78.4 51.2 79.5 62.5 xii
Key Indicators of HDB Population by Flat Type (2008 & 2013) Total 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Demographic Characteristics Resident Population ( 000) 2,923 3,058 35 48 65 85 572 592 1,199 1,256 780 813 273 264 (Excluding subtenants) (%) 100.0 100.0 1.2 1.6 2.2 2.8 19.6 19.3 41.0 41.1 26.7 26.6 9.3 8.6 Sex (%) Male Female 49.4 50.6 48.8 51.2 54.0 46.0 52.4 47.6 48.6 51.4 47.7 52.3 48.2 51.8 47.9 52.1 49.7 50.3 48.9 51.1 50.4 49.6 48.8 51.2 47.9 52.1 49.8 50.2 Average Age (Years) 36.9 37.9 55.9 49.9 45.3 40.5 42.0 42.7 36.1 37.2 34.3 35.3 33.2 35.2 Median Age (Years) 37 39 58 55 48 44 44 45 36 37 35 36 34 36 Persons Aged Below 15 years (%) 17.7 16.7 4.8 9.6 12.1 18.5 12.8 12.5 17.6 16.4 20.9 19.9 22.5 19.0 Persons Aged 15 64 Years (%) 72.6 72.3 56.6 58.6 65.0 62.2 71.6 70.3 74.4 74.1 71.7 72.3 72.5 73.6 Persons Aged 65 Years & Above (%) 9.8 11.0 38.6 31.8 23.0 19.3 15.6 17.2 8.1 9.5 7.4 7.8 5.0 7.4 Based on Per 100 Population Aged 15-64 Old-Age Dependency Ratio 13.5 15.2 68.2 54.3 35.4 31.0 21.8 24.5 10.9 12.8 10.3 10.8 6.9 10.1 Child Dependency Ratio 24.4 23.1 8.5 16.4 18.6 29.7 17.9 17.8 23.7 22.1 29.1 27.5 31.0 25.8 Economic Characteristics (Persons Aged 15 Years & Above) Persons Aged 15 Years & Above ( 000) 2,403 2,543 33 43 57 69 498 518 988 1,050 615 650 211 213 Sex (%) Male Female 49.0 51.0 48.4 51.6 53.9 46.1 53.6 46.4 48.3 51.7 46.9 53.1 47.9 52.1 47.5 52.5 49.7 50.3 48.6 51.4 49.1 50.9 48.6 51.4 47.3 52.7 49.0 51.0 Economically Active ( 000) 1,539 1,649 18 23 32 41 315 332 634 697 402 423 137 133 Employed 1,480 1,583 17 21 29 37 300 318 610 669 391 411 133 128 Unemployed 59 66 1 2 3 4 15 14 24 28 12 12 4 5 Labour Force Participation Rate (%) (LFPR) 64.0 64.9 55.7 52.8 55.9 59.7 63.2 64.2 64.2 66.6 65.4 65.3 64.9 62.6 Male LFPR Female LFPR 75.4 53.1 74.6 55.8 66.9 42.6 63.0 41.1 69.5 43.3 68.3 46.3 75.6 51.8 74.0 55.4 75.8 52.7 76.5 57.2 75.6 55.6 75.3 55.9 75.8 55.1 70.9 54.5 xiii
Key Indicators of HDB Households by Ethnic Group (2008 & 2013) Total Chinese Malay Indian Others 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Demographic Characteristics Total Number of Households 866,026 908,499 669,919 702,366 115,260 113,489 71,727 78,759 9,120 13,885 Type of Family Nucleus (%) Nuclear Family Extended Nuclear Family Multi-Nuclear Family Non-Nuclear Family 79.4 7.4 4.1 9.2 76.3 8.3 6.2 9.2 79.9 7.0 3.4 9.8 76.6 7.9 5.4 10.1 75.9 9.4 8.1 6.6 72.5 10.6 11.2 5.7 79.9 8.3 3.8 7.9 79.7 8.3 6.1 5.9 78.1 8.7 3.3 9.9 80.8 7.5 6.4 5.3 Household Size (%) 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6 or More Persons 8.0 22.0 22.1 27.2 13.7 7.0 8.4 20.4 23.6 26.7 13.5 7.4 8.5 23.8 22.9 28.1 12.1 4.7 9.3 22.1 24.7 26.9 12.1 4.9 5.9 13.5 17.6 20.6 22.2 20.2 5.3 12.0 18.4 20.4 21.7 22.2 6.8 18.8 22.5 29.5 14.8 7.7 5.0 18.4 21.8 33.4 13.6 7.8 7.9 18.9 25.1 26.3 13.8 8.1 4.8 16.1 25.2 30.7 13.6 9.6 Average Household Size Median Household Size (Persons) (Persons) 3.4 3 3.4 3 3.3 3 3.3 3 4.1 4 4.2 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.4 3 3.7 4 Flat Type (%) 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive 2.1 3.3 24.7 38.3 23.9 7.7 2.7 3.8 23.8 39.0 23.6 7.1 2.0 2.9 25.0 37.9 24.5 7.7 2.3 3.0 24.2 39.1 24.2 7.2 2.7 5.1 23.5 41.1 21.0 6.7 5.1 7.8 22.5 38.8 19.4 6.4 2.8 3.9 24.0 38.2 22.5 8.7 3.5 4.5 22.6 38.3 23.2 7.9 2.1 4.3 21.7 36.5 26.1 9.3 2.5 3.5 19.9 38.7 28.0 7.4 Economic Characteristics Number of Income Earners (%) None 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 or More Persons 7.7 35.4 40.9 11.3 4.8 8.5 32.2 41.2 12.1 6.0 8.0 34.1 42.1 11.0 4.7 9.4 31.3 41.8 11.9 5.6 6.1 37.8 35.7 14.4 6.0 5.7 29.3 38.4 16.4 10.2 7.2 42.8 38.1 8.5 3.4 5.1 43.9 37.5 9.2 4.3 7.2 39.1 41.7 9.8 2.2 6.2 27.0 54.9 9.0 2.9 Average No. of Income Earners (Persons) 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 xiv
Key Indicators of HDB Households by Flat Type (2008 & 2013) Total 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Demographic Characteristics Total Number of Households 866,026 908,499 18,562 24,573 28,614 34,204 213,857 216,163 331,739 354,526 206,799 214,074 66,455 64,959 Type of Family Nucleus (%) Nuclear Family Extended Nuclear Family Multi-Nuclear Family Non-Nuclear Family 79.4 7.4 4.1 9.2 76.3 8.3 6.2 9.2 44.8 2.4 0.7 52.1 51.5 3.8 1.9 42.8 69.2 2.4 1.0 27.5 69.4 3.2 1.7 25.7 72.7 5.0 2.1 20.3 69.9 6.0 4.0 20.1 83.1 7.4 5.4 4.1 79.5 9.5 6.7 4.3 83.6 9.5 4.7 2.2 80.8 9.9 7.0 2.3 83.6 11.5 4.1 0.9 79.5 7.8 11.6 1.1 Household Size (%) 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6 or more Persons 8.0 22.0 22.1 27.2 13.7 7.0 8.4 20.4 23.6 26.7 13.5 7.4 33.0 53.0 8.8 3.6 1.1 0.5 29.2 51.1 13.4 3.7 2.1 0.5 22.6 47.2 16.6 6.6 5.0 2.0 23.7 32.5 23.6 11.3 4.5 4.4 19.3 29.5 24.3 17.8 6.8 2.3 19.1 27.8 23.6 18.8 6.9 3.8 3.4 18.3 24.3 31.4 14.1 8.5 3.9 18.3 25.4 29.2 14.9 8.3 1.7 17.6 20.0 33.2 18.2 9.4 2.3 13.8 23.7 32.9 18.0 9.3 0.6 10.8 17.4 33.1 27.1 11.0 1.1 10.6 17.9 36.0 21.8 12.6 Average Household Size Median Household Size (Persons) (Persons) 3.4 3 3.4 3 1.9 2 2.0 2 2.3 2 2.6 2 2.7 3 2.8 3 3.7 4 3.6 4 3.8 4 3.9 4 4.1 4 4.1 4 Economic Characteristics Number of Income Earners (%) None 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 or more Persons 7.7 35.4 40.9 11.3 4.8 8.5 32.2 41.2 12.1 6.0 26.5 54.5 18.8 0.3 0.0 30.8 54.9 13.1 1.2 0.0 26.5 48.5 21.3 3.0 0.8 23.1 48.5 23.8 3.8 0.8 13.3 45.1 30.9 8.0 2.7 13.9 41.0 32.4 8.5 4.2 5.2 33.8 40.9 14.3 5.9 5.8 28.5 44.5 13.9 7.3 3.6 27.8 51.9 10.6 6.1 4.1 26.2 49.2 13.9 6.6 1.4 24.6 53.9 15.6 4.6 3.1 26.5 47.0 15.6 7.8 Average No. of Income Earners (Persons) 1.7 1.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 xv
Glossary of Terms and Definitions
Glossary of Terms and Definitions HDB Resident Population Resident population refers to Singapore citizens and Singapore permanent residents (SPRs) residing in HDB flats, excluding subtenants. Elderly resident population refers to Singapore citizens and SPRs who are aged 65 years and above. Future elderly resident population refers to Singapore citizens and SPRs who are aged between 55 and 64 years. Age Dependency Ratio (i) Based on Per 100 Population Aged 15 to 64 Years The old-age dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of the elderly resident population aged 65 years and above to that of the resident population aged between 15 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows: Old Age Dependency Ratio Resident Population Aged 65Years and Above Resident Population Aged 15 to 64Years The child dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of non-working age resident population aged below 15 years to that of the resident population aged between 15 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows: Child Dependency Ratio Resident Population Aged Below 15Years Resident Population Aged 15 to 64Years The total dependency ratio is made out of old-age dependency ratio and child dependency ratio. It is computed as follows: Total Dependency Ratio Old Age Dependency Ratio Child Dependency Ratio Resident Population Aged 65Years and Above Aged Below 15Years Resident Population Aged 15 to 64Years xix
(ii) Based on Per 100 Population Aged 20 to 64 Years The old-age dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of the elderly resident population aged 65 years and above to that of the resident population aged between 20 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows: Old Age Dependency Ratio Resident Population Aged 65 Years and Above Resident Population Aged 20 to 64Years The child dependency ratio is a measure of the relative size of non-working age resident population aged below 20 years to that of the resident population aged between 20 years and 64 years. It is computed as follows: Child Dependency Ratio Resident Population Aged Below 20 Years Resident Population Aged 20 to 64Years The total dependency ratio is made out of old-age dependency ratio and child dependency ratio. It is computed as follows: Total Dependency Ratio Old Age Dependency Ratio Child Dependency Ratio Resident Population Aged 65Years and Above Aged Below 20Years Resident Population Aged 20 to 64Years Economic Status Labour force participation refers to persons who are economically active and aged 15 years and over, either employed or unemployed during the survey period. Unemployed persons refer to persons aged 15 years and over who are currently not working but were actively looking for work at the point of survey. They include persons who are not working but are taking steps to start their own business or taking up a new job after the survey period. xx
Households A household is defined as an entire group of persons, who may or may not be related, living together in a housing unit. There may also be one-person households, where a person lives alone in a single housing unit. The household is equated with the housing unit and there is usually one household per housing unit. Subtenants or maids dwelling in the same housing unit as the lessee(s) or registered tenant(s) do not constitute part of the household. This definition is often known as the household-dwelling unit concept. An elderly household refers to a household in which the head (i.e. main lessee or registered tenant) is aged 65 years and above. A future elderly household refers to a household in which the head (i.e. main lessee or registered tenant) is aged between 55 and 64 years. Type of Family Nucleus Family-based households refer to nuclear family, extended nuclear family and multi-nuclear family. Nuclear family refers to either: (i) a married couple with or without children; or (ii) a family consisting of immediate related members, without the presence of a married couple, e.g. one parent only with their unmarried child(ren). Extended nuclear family comprises a nuclear family with one or more relatives who, by themselves, do not form a nuclear family. Multi-nuclear family refers to a family comprising two or more nuclear families. Non-family based households refer to: (i) single-person households (a person living alone who could be single, widowed or divorced); or (ii) unrelated or distantly related persons staying together. xxi
Number of Generations in Family-Based Household One generation refers to households where family members are from the same generation, such as a married couple or siblings living together. Two generations refers to households where family members are from two different generations, such as parents and children, or grandparents and grandchildren living together. Three generations refers to households where family members are from three different generations, such as grandparents, parents and children all living together. Note: Non-family based households are excluded. Resident or Household Life-Cycle Stage A family with young children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged 12 years and below. A family with teenaged children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged between 13 and 20 years. A family with unmarried grown-up children refers to a family in which the eldest child is aged 21 years and above. An elderly couple living alone refers to a married couple with at least one spouse aged 65 years and above. A non-family household refers to either: (i) a single-person household (a person living alone who could be single, widowed or divorced); or (ii) unrelated, siblings or distantly related persons living together. xxii
Categories of Towns Mature Towns/Estates refer to towns and estates that were developed before the 1980s. Most flats in these towns were built before the 1980s. Middle-Aged Towns/Estate refer to towns and the estate that were developed in the 1980s. Most flats in these towns were built in the 1980s and early 1990s. Young Towns refer to towns that were developed in the 1990s, where development is ongoing. Towns and Estates by Category Mature Towns/Estates Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Young Towns 1. Queenstown 1. Bukit Batok 1. Punggol 2. Bukit Merah 2. Bukit Panjang 2. Sengkang 3. Toa Payoh 3. Choa Chu Kang 3. Sembawang 4. Ang Mo Kio 4. Jurong East 5. Bedok 5. Jurong West 6. Clementi 6. Bishan 7. Kallang / Whampoa 7. Hougang 8. Geylang 8. Serangoon 9. Tampines Estates : 10. Pasir Ris 1. Marine Parade 11. Woodlands 2. Central Area* 12. Yishun Estate : 1. Bukit Timah * Covering areas such as Tanjong Pagar Plaza, Cantoment Road, Jalan Kukoh, Chin Swee Road, York Hill, Upper Cross Street, Sago Lane, Selegie Road xxiii
1 Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background HDB has conducted Sample Household Surveys (SHSs) of residents living in HDB flats since 1968, at interval of five years. SHS 2013 is the 10th survey in the series. It contains a comprehensive range of topics, and is an in-depth survey of both physical and social aspects of public housing in Singapore. These large-scale surveys with their historical continuity have facilitated trend analysis over time, even as the research coverage of the SHS changes over time to reflect the emphasis of public housing. From assessing the impact of relocation of residents to public housing, adaptation to high-rise, high-density living, community formation, to the present emphasis on social diversity and community cohesion, the research focus of the SHS reflects the evolving role of HDB and its mission. The HDB Research Advisory Panel, chaired by Professor Aline Wong, comprising academics in sociology, geography and architectural, was formed in 2008 and their main role was to provide advice on salient research projects and socio-economic studies relevant to HDB. The panel was actively involved in SHS 2013, lending their expertise to HDB in the research scope, as well as the analysis of survey findings to further enhance the utility. The survey findings serve as important inputs for HDB s policy reviews and help identify aspects of the HDB environment to improve. Starting from conceptualisation of the research scope to the analysis of survey findings, HDB Groups were also consulted so that the survey could cater more specifically to their operational needs. 3
1.2 Objectives The two key objectives of the SHS are to: a) Obtain demographic and socio-economic profile of residents and identify changing needs and expectations. These information are useful in the assessment of HDB s operations and policies; and b) Monitor residents level of satisfaction with various aspects of public housing and identify areas for improvement to the physical and social environment in HDB towns. 1.3 Sampling Design A total of 7,755 households were successfully interviewed, yielding an overall sampling error of ±1.1% at 95% confidence level. A set of weights was used to generalise the survey data to the population level, so that the findings reported are representative of all HDB households. A dual-modal data collection method was used, encompassing Internet survey (e-survey), as well as the conventional face-to-face interviews at residents homes. Fieldwork was carried out between the months of January and August 2013. A crucial requirement for collecting reliable primary data was to maintain high quality fieldwork control. This was achieved by adhering to the procedures of the Survey Fieldwork Management Quality System that has been developed in accordance with the requirements of SS ISO 9001: 2008. 4
1.4 Outline of Monograph This monograph will present two parts of the survey: a) Profile of HDB Population and Households; and b) Housing Satisfaction and Preferences. The first part presents the profile of HDB population and households, specifically, the demographic and socio-economic profile of HDB residents. The second part focuses on residents physical living environment, in terms of their housing satisfaction and preferences. It is important for HDB to keep tab of how our residents adapt to and assess the quality of their physical living environment, which HDB has played a key role in creating and maintaining it. The other monograph, Public Housing in Singapore: Social Well-Being of HDB Communities, explores the extent of community bonding and family ties of HDB residents to give an indication on how active and cohesive the HDB community is. It also examines the well-being of elderly residents, especially in the face of ageing population in Singapore. 5
Part 1 Profile of HDB Population and Households
Part 1 Profile of HDB Population and Households Introduction Socio-economic factors are widely recognised as influencers in shaping the many aspects of housing expectation and choice. Therefore, changes in the profile of the population and households would have important implications for housing policies and development plans in terms of design and provision. A detailed understanding of the profile of the HDB population and households would enable HDB to better cater to the changing needs and expectations of residents. The data also set the context for in-depth insights to specific areas of interest such as community bonding and housing satisfaction, as well as specific groups like families and the elderly. Objectives The objectives of Part 1 are as follows: a) To provide updates on trends of socio-demographic profiles, as well as the economic well-being of HDB population and households; b) To identify emerging demographic trends; and c) To provide profile data for cross analysis in other topics in SHS. Framework The profiles of HDB residents are examined at two broad levels: a) At the population level (Chapter 2), demographic profile and economic characteristics of the HDB resident population are examined. Analysis on demographic profile comprises population size and growth rate; role and 9
relationship with head of households; types of dwelling in terms of tenure and flat type; geographical distribution by town/estate; age structure and dependency ratio; ethnic composition, as well as marital status. Analysis on economic well-being of the resident population includes their economic status, labour force participation rate and key economic characteristics of the employed population. b) At the household level (Chapter 3), analysis of demographic profile includes property status, geographical distribution by town/estate, flat type and ethnic group of head of household. On household structures, indicators such as types of family nucleus, family composition, number of generations and household size are tracked. Under economic characteristics, the number of income earners and car ownership rate are examined. In addition to the analysis on HDB population and households at the broad level, further analysis on the elderly and the future elderly are included. Detailed statistics on these groups would provide a more comprehensive picture of the current situation and a better understanding of the ageing population living in HDB flats. Framework for Profile of HDB Population and Households 10
2 Profile of HDB Population
Chapter 2 Profile of HDB Population This chapter provides an update on the changing demographic profile and economic characteristics of the resident population, comprising Singapore citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents (SPRs) living in HDB sold and rental flats. 2.1 Demographic Characteristics of Resident Population Size and growth rate of HDB resident population The resident population (excluding subtenants) stood at 3.06 million, registering an annualised growth rate of 0.9% from 2008 to 2013, slightly faster than the slowest rate of 0.5% recorded in the preceding period from 2003 to 2008 (Chart 2.1). Chart 2.1 HDB Resident Population and Growth Rate by Year 4,000 8 Number ('000) 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 5.8 2,845 2,923 3,058 2,703 2,230 2,412 2.3 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.9 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 6 4 2 0 Annualised Growth Rate (%) Resident Population (Persons) Annualised Growth Rate 13
Role and relationship with head of household Overall, about three in ten of the resident population (29.5%) were heads of households, who were either lessees or registered tenants (Table 2.1). Some 22.7% of the resident population were co-lessees and the remaining 47.8% were occupiers. The majority of the co-lessees comprised spouse, while children/children-in-law made up the majority of the occupiers. Table 2.1 Role and Relationship of HDB Resident Population with Head of Household by Sex Role & Relationship with Head of Household Male Female All Head of Household 45.3 14.5 29.5 Lessee 43.5 13.1 27.9 Registered Tenant Co-lessee 1.8 6.5 1.4 38.1 1.6 22.7 Spouse 3.7 34.8 19.6 Children/Children-in-law 2.0 1.3 1.7 Parents/Parents-in-law 0.4 1.2 0.8 Sibling/Sibling-in-law 0.4 0.8 0.6 Occupier 48.2 47.4 47.8 Spouse 1.1 3.1 2.1 Children/Children-in-law 41.1 35.9 38.5 Parents/Parents-in-law 2.0 4.6 3.4 Sibling/Sibling-in-law 1.5 1.4 1.4 Other relative (e.g. uncle/aunt, grandparents, cousin, niece/nephew) 2.3 2.3 2.2 Unrelated (including friend) 0.2 0.1 0.2 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 1,491,529 1,565,527 3,057,664 * Excluding non-response cases Type of dwelling by tenure and flat type The majority of the resident population (96.3%) lived in sold flats, with 41.1% residing in 4-room flats, followed by 26.6% in 5-room flats and another 19.3% in 3-room flats (Table 2.2 and 2.3). With the increase in the supply of rental and smaller flat types in recent years, there was a slight increase in the proportion of residents living in rental flats or 1- and 2-room flats over the last five years. 14
Table 2.2 HDB Resident Population by Tenure and Year Tenure 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Sold Rental 84.5 15.5 93.3 6.7 95.2 4.8 97.1 2.9 97.0 3.0 96.3 3.7 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons 2,230,150 2,411,611 2,703,109 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,664 Table 2.3 HDB Resident Population by Flat Type and Year Flat Type 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 1-Room* 2-Room* 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive HUDC 6.3 7.0 45.4 29.0 9.9 1.6 0.8 2.4 4.2 39.0 36.1 13.3 4.2 0.8 1.8 3.3 27.8 39.0 20.4 7.7-1.1 2.2 21.5 41.3 25.2 8.7-1.2 2.2 19.6 41.0 26.7 9.3-1.6 2.8 19.3 41.1 26.6 8.6 - Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons 2,230,150 2,411,611 2,703,109 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,664 * Including Studio Apartments Geographical distribution Jurong West, Tampines and Woodlands remained as the three most populous towns, housing more than 200,000 persons in each town (Table 2.4). These three towns also contained the largest number of HDB flats ranging from about 59,000 to 68,000 occupied dwelling units (see Chart 3.2 in Chapter 3). Most towns/estates experienced an increase in population over the last five years, except Hougang, Jurong East, Bishan, Bukit Timah, Geylang and Clementi. Punggol and Sengkang experienced the highest population growth, mainly due to more intensive developments in these two young towns in recent years. 15
Table 2.4 HDB Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year HDB Town/Estate Young Towns Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Mature Towns/Estates 2003 2008 2013 Persons % Persons % Persons % Sengkang 123,726 4.3 154,478 5.3 172,748 5.7 Punggol 38,290 1.3 57,767 2.0 94,829 3.1 Sembawang 57,033 2.0 63,125 2.2 68,055 2.2 Jurong West 216,722 7.6 233,920 8.0 242,395 7.9 Tampines 228,722 8.0 227,042 7.8 237,281 7.8 Woodlands 210,723 7.4 225,274 7.7 229,827 7.5 Yishun 158,096 5.5 161,311 5.5 169,351 5.6 Hougang 172,388 6.1 168,601 5.8 165,247 5.4 Choa Chu Kang 143,626 5.0 149,978 5.1 154,915 5.1 Bukit Panjang 106,705 3.8 106,661 3.6 115,993 3.8 Bukit Batok 108,209 3.8 99,491 3.4 108,197 3.5 Pasir Ris 107,506 3.8 105,737 3.6 108,328 3.5 Jurong East 79,217 2.8 76,440 2.6 75,371 2.5 Serangoon 73,853 2.6 71,149 2.4 72,280 2.4 Bishan 66,311 2.3 64,060 2.2 62,456 2.0 Bukit Timah* 8,794 0.3 8,402 0.3 7,830 0.3 Bedok 188,909 6.6 183,302 6.3 187,313 6.1 Bukit Merah 123,741 4.3 136,297 4.7 144,714 4.7 Ang Mo Kio 146,680 5.2 144,313 4.9 144,329 4.7 Kallang/Whampoa 94,059 3.3 97,211 3.3 103,767 3.4 Toa Payoh 102,054 3.6 101,107 3.5 102,544 3.4 Geylang 93,545 3.3 90,808 3.1 87,967 2.9 Queenstown 75,427 2.7 78,826 2.7 80,633 2.6 Clementi 71,047 2.5 68,508 2.3 65,397 2.1 Central Area* 27,622 1.0 28,607 1.0 33,396 1.1 Marine Parade* 21,681 0.8 20,809 0.7 22,501 0.7 Total 2,844,686 100.0 2,923,224 100.0 3,057,664 100.0 * Denotes estate Age structure and age dependency ratio The median age of the resident population continued to rise, from 30 years in 1993 to 39 years in 2013 (Table 2.5), reflecting an ageing population, increasing longevity and declining fertility rate. The proportion of elderly and future elderly population had doubled over the last two decades. Elderly persons accounted for over one in ten (11.0%) of the resident population for the first time while the future elderly constituted 13.3%. 16
Both proportions were comparable to the national level 1 at 10.5% and 13.1%, respectively. Correspondingly, the share of the younger cohort of those aged below 15 years continued to decline, from 24.8% in 1987 to 16.7% in 2013. Table 2.5 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Year Age Group (Years) 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Below 5 5-9 10-14 7.3 8.3 9.2 8.3 6.6 24.8 7.9 24.2 8.4 22.8 8.0 7.8 6.1 7.5 8.0 4.6 5.1 21.6 6.2 17.7 5.3 16.7 6.9 6.3 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 9.2 10.5 9.9 10.1 9.0 5.2 5.4 4.3 7.5 8.0 8.9 10.0 10.0 8.4 5.8 4.8 7.1 6.5 7.4 8.7 10.0 9.8 7.6 5.5 7.3 6.1 6.7 8.4 8.7 9.3 8.7 6.8 7.7 6.6 6.6 7.0 7.7 8.3 8.5 8.6 7.2 6.9 6.5 7.0 7.3 7.9 8.4 7.8 55-59 60-64 3.7 2.6 3.5 4.0 6.3 6.7 7.4 3.2 3.4 4.9 3.8 6.8 7.2 8.7 11.6 13.3 4.8 6.1 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85 & Above 5.4 5.7 7.2 2.9 2.1 1.3 0.7 0.6 7.6 3.6 2.6 1.8 1.0 0.8 9.8 4.2 3.1 1.8 1.1 0.8 11.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 2,230,150 2,411,611 2,703,109 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,054,854 Average Age (Years) 30.0 30.9 32.9 34.4 36.9 37.9 Median Age (Years) 27 30 33 34 37 39 * Excluding non-response cases The median age of the female resident population was slightly higher at 39 years, compared with their male counterparts at 38 years (Table 2.6). This reflected the longer life expectancy of females. The proportion of elderly and future elderly population among females was slightly higher at 11.8% and 13.5%, compared with males at 10.1% and 13.1%, respectively. 1 Singapore Department of Statistics, Population Trends 2013 17
Table 2.6 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Sex Age Group (Years) Male Female All Below 15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above 17.4 15.1 13.2 14.8 16.3 13.1 10.1 16.1 13.2 13.7 15.6 16.1 13.5 11.8 16.7 14.1 13.5 15.2 16.2 13.3 11.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 1,490,364 1,564,456 3,054,854 Average Age (Years) 37.2 38.5 37.9 Median Age (Years) 38 39 39 * Excluding non-response cases Further analysis by ethnic group showed that the resident Chinese population was much older with a median age of 40 years (Table 2.7). Some 12.6% and 14.5% of the resident Chinese population were elderly and future elderly residents, respectively. The resident Malay population, on the other hand, was the youngest with 40.7% aged below 25 years, and a corresponding lower median age of 31 years. Table 2.7 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Ethnic Group Age Group (Years) Chinese Malay Indian Others All Below 15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above 15.1 12.8 13.3 15.5 16.2 14.5 12.6 19.9 20.8 13.6 11.2 16.3 11.1 7.0 23.2 14.7 13.8 17.4 15.7 9.3 5.9 23.0 12.0 15.0 24.7 15.3 5.8 4.2 16.7 14.1 13.5 15.2 16.2 13.3 11.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 2,246,619 474,602 271,405 62,228 3,054,854 Average Age (Years) 39.5 33.7 33.2 32.5 37.9 Median Age (Years) 40 31 34 34 39 * Excluding non-response cases 18
Proportionately, there were more elderly residents living in smaller flat types. The highest proportion of elderly residents was living in 1-room flats at 31.8%, followed by 2- and 3-room flats at 19.3% and 17.2%, respectively, compared with the overall population at 11.0% (Table 2.8). Together with 18.7% of future elderly residents, half of the residents living in 1-room flats (50.5%) were aged 55 years and above. Table 2.8 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Flat Type Age Group (Years) 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All Below 15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above 9.6 10.5 5.4 9.6 14.4 18.7 31.8 18.5 14.7 9.2 8.2 15.1 15.0 19.3 12.5 10.7 12.8 14.0 17.1 15.7 17.2 16.4 14.5 15.4 15.2 15.9 13.1 9.5 19.9 14.9 12.8 17.6 15.6 11.5 7.8 19.0 18.6 10.8 13.8 17.2 13.2 7.4 16.7 14.1 13.5 15.2 16.2 13.3 11.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 47,925 85,067 591,524 1,254,922 811,859 263,557 3,054,854 Average Age (Years) 49.9 40.5 42.7 37.2 35.3 35.2 37.9 Median Age (Years) 55 44 45 37 36 36 39 * Excluding non-response cases The young towns, Punggol, Sengkang and Sembawang, housed higher proportions of young families and hence, had higher proportions of resident population aged below 15 years at 25.0%, 24.0% and 21.7%, respectively (Table 2.9). On the contrary, mature towns/estates generally housed more elderly residents compared with those in the young and middle-aged towns/estate. The five towns/estates with the highest concentration of elderly persons were Kallang/Whampoa (23.5%), Central Area (20.4%), Marine Parade (20.3%), Clementi (19.6%) and Queenstown (19.0%). 19
Table 2.9 HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Town/Estate Age Group (Years) Punggol Young Towns Sengkang Bishan Bukit Batok Bukit Panjang Choa Chu Kang Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Hougang Jurong East Jurong West Pasir Ris Tampines Sembawang Serangoon Woodlands Below 15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above 25.0 8.6 19.3 22.1 12.2 8.0 4.8 24.0 11.6 13.4 19.6 16.4 9.9 5.1 21.7 14.0 15.7 19.7 15.8 9.0 4.1 11.5 14.2 12.2 13.2 15.0 17.6 14.3 14.5 16.9 13.7 13.3 18.1 14.1 9.4 16.6 16.4 13.2 14.9 16.2 13.1 9.6 18.9 19.7 11.7 16.2 19.2 9.1 5.2 13.8 15.8 14.2 12.9 17.4 15.6 10.3 15.8 12.3 15.3 14.1 15.4 15.1 12.0 20.2 14.3 15.1 17.4 16.0 11.4 5.6 16.7 21.3 8.9 13.5 21.0 11.7 6.9 13.9 15.3 13.3 14.5 16.6 16.3 10.1 16.4 15.3 14.4 14.9 16.0 12.8 10.2 20.1 18.3 10.2 16.6 17.0 9.8 8.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 94,788 172,283 68,055 62,456 107,944 115,250 154,738 165,162 75,274 241,827 108,328 72,280 237,281 229,827 Average Age (Years) 31.9 33.5 32.6 41.7 37.9 37.0 34.0 38.7 39.1 34.3 35.9 39.0 37.2 34.6 Median Age (Years) 33 35 33 44 39 37 34 39 40 35 37 40 37 36 Age Group (Years) Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Yishun Bukit Timah Ang Mo Kio Bedok Bukit Merah Clementi Mature Towns/Estates Geylang Kallang/ Whampoa Queenstown Toa Payoh Central Area Marine Parade All Below 15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above 17.3 14.6 15.1 13.8 17.3 13.9 8.0 15.7 12.2 11.1 14.1 14.5 15.8 16.6 13.4 13.2 11.7 12.9 16.0 16.0 16.8 14.0 12.0 17.6 14.3 13.8 16.8 11.5 13.0 12.6 13.1 11.6 14.9 17.4 17.4 13.9 7.2 12.9 15.7 14.2 16.5 19.6 14.5 10.6 11.9 14.4 15.4 16.1 17.1 12.1 10.5 12.0 13.4 14.1 14.4 23.5 15.2 11.0 11.7 13.7 15.6 13.8 19.0 14.1 10.8 13.8 14.5 13.8 14.8 18.2 12.5 9.6 10.9 14.4 15.3 16.9 20.4 14.5 11.6 9.9 13.1 17.1 13.5 20.3 16.7 14.1 13.5 15.2 16.2 13.3 11.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 169,351 7,830 144,329 187,313 144,596 65,172 87,967 103,767 80,633 102,544 33,396 22,462 3,054,854 Average Age (Years) 36.7 41.1 41.7 39.3 42.3 43.9 42.0 44.5 41.9 41.9 44.2 42.9 37.9 Median Age (Years) 36 42 44 39 44 45 43 46 43 41 46 45 39 * Excluding non-response cases 20
Age dependency ratio The child dependency ratio for the resident population continued to fall, reflecting a declining fertility rate. The ratio of residents aged under 20 years to residents aged 20-64 years 2 dropped from 39.1 in 2008 to 36.8 in 2013 (Table 2.10). In contrast, the old-age dependency ratio continued to rise, reaching 16.9 in 2013. In terms of old-age support ratio 3, it means that every elderly resident aged 65 years or older was supported by 5.9 persons in the working-age band of 20-64 years, a sharp decline from 8.3 persons in 2003 and 6.6 persons in 2008. Table 2.10 Age Dependency Ratio of HDB Resident Population by Year Dependency Ratio 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Based on Per 100 Population Aged 20-64 Total Dependency Ratio Child Dependency Ratio Old-Age Dependency Ratio 64.9 56.0 8.9 59.7 50.6 9.1 58.9 47.5 11.4 57.6 45.6 12.0 54.2 39.1 15.1 53.7 36.8 16.9 Based on Per 100 Population Aged 15-64 Total Dependency Ratio Child Dependency Ratio Old-Age Dependency Ratio 43.2 35.5 7.7 42.5 34.4 8.1 42.9 32.6 10.3 41.3 30.5 10.8 37.9 24.4 13.5 38.4 23.1 15.2 Sex composition Among the HDB resident population, female residents continued to outnumber their male counterparts. The proportion of female resident population had increased over the last two decades, from 49.9% in 1993 to 51.2% in 2013 (Table 2.11). 2 3 Following international practice and United Nations recommendations, it is generally computed based on persons aged 15-64 years. However, with more persons aged 15-19 years remaining in school, this report also computes the ratio based on 20-64 years. Refers to persons aged 20-64 years per elderly aged 65 years and above. 21
Table 2.11 HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year Sex 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Male 50.1 49.9 49.6 49.5 48.8 Female 49.9 50.1 50.4 50.5 51.2 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 2,409,134 2,703,109 2,844,424 2,921,543 3,057,056 * Excluding non-response cases Ethnic composition The ethnic composition of the resident population remained stable over the last few years. The Chinese continued to form the majority of the resident population at 73.5%, followed by Malays at 15.6%, Indians at 8.9% and Others at 2.0% (Table 2.12). Compared with the national ethnic composition 4, there was a slight over-representation of Malays among the HDB resident population. Analysing the ethnic distribution over a longer period, there had been a gradual decline in the proportion of the resident Chinese population over the years, amounting to a drop of 3.7 percentage points since 1987. The proportions of the resident Indian and Others population rose by 2.5 and 0.6 percentage points, respectively, over the same period. The resident Malay population, however, had remained relatively stable, hovering at around 15% to 16% of the resident population. Table 2.12 HDB Resident Population by Ethnic Group and Year Ethnic Group 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Chinese Malay Indian Others 77.2 15.0 6.4 1.4 76.2 16.0 6.6 1.2 76.5 15.7 7.0 0.8 74.4 16.5 8.0 1.1 73.8 16.3 8.2 1.6 73.5 15.6 8.9 2.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 2,230,150 2,411,611 2,703,109 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,535 * Excluding non-response cases 4 Based on Singapore Department of Statistics, Population Trends 2013, the national ethnic composition of resident population was: 74.2% Chinese, 13.3% Malays, 9.1% Indians and 3.3% Others. 22
Table 2.13 HDB Resident Population by Tenure, Ethnic Group and Year Tenure Chinese Malay Indian Others All 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 Sold Rental 97.6 2.4 97.4 2.6 97.6 2.4 96.4 3.6 95.2 4.8 91.6 8.4 94.6 5.4 96.2 3.8 94.4 5.6 97.7 2.3 97.0 3.0 95.7 4.3 97.1 2.9 97.0 3.0 96.3 3.7 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 2,116,215 2,158,254 2,248,298 468,365 477,527 475,427 228,107 240,193 271,582 31,999 47,250 62,228 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,535 * Excluding non-response cases Table 2.14 HDB Resident Population by Flat Type, Ethnic Group and Year Flat Type Chinese Malay Indian Others All 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive 0.9 1.9 21.5 40.5 26.0 9.2 1.1 1.9 19.7 40.6 27.4 9.4 1.2 1.9 19.3 41.2 27.6 8.8 1.2 2.8 22.2 46.2 21.6 6.1 1.4 3.5 17.8 44.0 24.8 8.6 2.9 6.3 19.8 41.6 22.0 7.4 2.4 3.5 20.4 39.3 24.3 10.1 1.6 3.0 21.0 39.8 24.4 10.3 2.2 3.7 19.1 39.6 25.9 9.5 0.4 2.1 21.1 40.4 27.4 8.7 1.4 1.7 21.7 39.2 27.0 9.0 2.6 2.1 17.4 39.9 28.0 10.0 1.1 2.2 21.5 41.3 25.2 8.7 1.2 2.2 19.6 41.0 26.7 9.3 1.6 2.8 19.3 41.1 26.6 8.6 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 2,116,215 2,158,254 2,248,298 468,365 477,527 475,427 228,107 240,193 271,582 31,999 47,250 62,228 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,535 * Excluding non-response cases 23
Among the resident Chinese population, tenure and flat type distributions had remained relatively stable over the last ten years (Tables 2.13 and 2.14). On the other hand, there was a significant increase in the proportion of Malays in rental flats (from 4.8% to 8.4%), as well as in 3-room or smaller flats (from 22.7% to 29.0%) over the last five years. The proportions of Indians and Others living in rental flats or in 1- and 2-room flats also rose over the same period, but by a smaller extent. Marital status In 2013, close to half of the resident population (48.7%) were married, 4.4% were widowed and 2.9% were either divorced or separated (Table 2.15). Singles accounted for 44.0% of the resident population, a slight decline from 45.1% in 2008. Table 2.15 HDB Resident Population by Marital Status and Year Marital Status 2003 2008 2013 Married Widowed Divorced/Separated Single 47.5 3.8 2.3 46.4 47.8 4.4 2.7 45.1 48.7 4.4 2.9 44.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 2,843,807 2,922,929 3,056,999 * Excluding non-response cases Excluding those aged below 15 years, the proportion of singles among the resident population was 32.8%, while the proportion of those who were either divorced or separated was 3.5% (Table 2.16). Correspondingly, the proportion of married persons was 58.4% and widowed persons accounted for 5.3% of the resident population. With longer life expectancy, a higher proportion of females was widowed (8.6%), compared with males (1.8%) as shown in Table 2.17. Proportionately, there were also more females who were divorced/separated (4.8%), compared with males (2.1%). 24
Table 2.16 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Marital Status and Age Group Marital Status 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above All Married Widowed Divorced/Separated Single 1.8-0.1 98.1 48.5-2.1 49.4 76.5 0.4 5.0 18.1 80.0 1.8 4.6 13.6 79.9 5.4 5.1 9.6 60.7 30.1 4.1 5.1 58.4 5.3 3.5 32.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 432,236 411,781 462,964 493,828 407,259 335,091 2,543,159 * Excluding non-response cases Table 2.17 HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Marital Status and Sex Marital Status Male Female All Married Widowed Divorced/Separated Single 60.6 1.8 2.1 35.5 56.3 8.6 4.8 30.3 58.4 5.3 3.5 32.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 1,231,919 1,311,239 2,543,159 * Excluding non-response cases 2.2 Economic Characteristics of Resident Population Economic status Chart 2.2 shows the detailed economic status of the HDB resident population. More than half of the resident population (54.1%) in 2013 were economically active, an increase of 1.5 percentage points from 52.6% in 2008. Unemployment remained low at 2.2%, though the proportion had edged up slightly by 0.2 percentage points over the last five years. There were about 1.59 million employed residents in 2013, accounting for 51.9% of the resident population and an increase of 1.3 percentage points over the last five years. Of the 51.9%, a large majority of them were employees (49.5%), while the remaining 2.4% were own account workers. The bulk of the employed residents were working full-time. 25
Out of the 45.9% of the resident population that was economically inactive, student population made up the majority (21.0%), followed by homemakers (10.6%) and retirees (7.7%). Compared with 2008, the proportions of students and homemakers had declined slightly, while the proportion of retirees rose slightly, reflecting an ageing population. Chart 2.2 Economic Status of HDB Resident Population HDB Resident Population (excluding subtenants) 3,057,664 persons (2013) 2,923,224 persons (2008) Economically Active 54.1% (2013) 52.6% (2008) Economically Inactive 45.9% (2013) 47.4% (2008) Employed 51.9% (2013) 50.6% (2008) Employees 49.5% (2013) 47.4% (2008) Unemployed 2.2% (2013) 2.0% (2008) Own Account Workers 2.4% (2013) 3.0% (2008) Students 21.0% (2013) 23.3% (2008) Others* 0.02% (2013) 0.20% (2008) Homemakers 10.6% (2013) 12.0% (2008) Retirees 7.7% (2013) 6.4% (2008) Before School-Age 5.1% (2013) 4.1% (2008) Others** 1.5% (2013) 1.6% (2008) ** Including persons who are disabled/long-term hospitalised, waiting for NS or exam results, in prison/drug rehabilitative centre, etc Full-time 43.9% (2013) 42.3% (2008) Part-time 5.6% (2013) 5.1% (2008) * Including employers and unpaid family workers Labour force participation rate Amid a tight labour market, the overall labour force participation rate (LFPR) of the resident population rose to a new high, mainly driven by women and older residents. Overall, 64.9% of the resident population aged 15 and above were working or actively seeking employment in 2013, up from 62.8% two decades ago and higher than the prevailing rate of 64.0% recorded in 2008 (Chart 2.3). The LFPR for females rose significantly from 47.1% in 1993 to 55.8% in 2013, though this was still below the 74.6% for males. This indicated that men were still playing the traditional role of the main breadwinner in the family. However, the LFPR for males did decline slightly from 78.8% to 74.6% over the same period. 26
Chart 2.3 Labour Force Participation Rate of HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year 100 Labour Force Participation Rate (%) 80 60 40 20 80.1 78.8 78.0 75.8 75.4 74.6 62.4 62.8 63.8 62.7 64.0 64.9 55.8 44.7 47.1 50.1 50.0 53.1 Male All Female 0 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Chart 2.4 shows the age-sex specific LFPR of the resident population. Between the age of 15 and 29 years, the male and female LFPRs moved in tandem, with a sharp increase among those aged between 15 and 24 years. The male LFPR peaked at aged 30-34 years, with 98.7% of males in that cohort participating in the workforce, before declining after the age of 49 years old. Beyond the age of 60 years, the male LFPR started to decline rapidly to the lowest level of 4.7% among those aged 80 years and above. In contrast, the female LFPR peaked at aged 25-29 years with 87.6% working, and thereafter, it declined gradually to the lowest rate of 1.7% among those aged 80 years and above. Looking at the trend over the last decade, it was evident that women and older residents were the two main driving forces behind the increase in LFPR. The female LFPR had been on the rise for those aged 30 years and above, with the fastest rate of increase occurring between those aged 35 and 64 years. This could be a result of a myriad of reasons such as females getting married and/or bearing children at a later age; more women remaining in the workforce even after child bearing; or older women returning to the workforce after their children had grown up. While the male LFPR had remained high up to the age of 50-54 years over the last ten years, increasingly more males aged 55 years and above had also been joining or remaining in the workforce. 27
Chart 2.4 Age-Sex Specific Labour Force Participation Rate of HDB Resident Population by Year Labour Force Participation Rate (%) 100 80 60 40 20 Female LFPR Male LFPR 0 80 & 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 Above Male (2013) 12.5 56.4 92.6 98.7 98.0 98.2 97.9 94.4 89.1 72.1 44.6 33.4 15.9 4.7 Male (2008) 8.4 62.0 91.8 97.9 97.8 99.0 97.9 96.2 87.0 71.9 46.1 23.5 11.3 1.9 Male (2003) 10.2 67.9 92.2 97.5 97.7 97.3 98.4 95.4 78.2 53.1 32.3 14.8 10 1.5 Female (2013) 6.7 59.1 87.6 84.2 79.0 75.6 71.2 66.7 54.0 37.9 20.9 11.7 5.2 1.7 Female (2008) 5.1 55.9 87.1 80.1 74.9 68.9 69.2 61.7 49.3 37.9 12.2 9.6 3.6 0.4 Female (2003) 9.7 65.9 86.8 72.4 62.2 58.6 61.6 49.1 40.3 16.7 10.1 6.2 4.4 2.2 Age distribution of employed resident population Chart 2.5(a) shows the age distribution of the employed resident population aged 15 years and above. Overall, 18.6% of the employed persons were aged between 15 and 29 years, a decline from 23.1% in 1998. Corresponding to the improved education profile of the residents over the years, younger residents were likely to delay their employment to a later age so as to pursue higher education. While two in five (42.5%) residents in the labour force were aged below 40 years, down from 53.6% in 1998, about one in five (20.0%) were aged 55 years and above, up from just 9.5% in 1998. With proportionally more older residents and less younger residents participating in the workforce, the resident labour force was clearly ageing. The median age of residents in the labour force increased from 38 years in 1998 to 42 years in 2013. Charts 2.5(b) and 2.5(c) show the age distribution of the male and female resident labour force, respectively. The proportion of employed females aged between 15 and 29 years fell more rapidly from 28.0% in 1998 to 20.5% in 2013, compared with their male counterparts. Close to a quarter of the male labour force (22.7%) were aged 55 years and above in 2013, compared with 11.5% in 1998. Relative to males, the proportion for females continued to be slightly lower, though it had also increased from 6.3% to 16.8% over the same period. The 28
median age of males and females in the labour force also continued to rise, reaching 44 years and 41 years in 2013, respectively. Chart 2.5 Age Distribution of Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Sex and Year (a) All Population 15 Median Age in 1998 = 38 years Median Age in 2013 = 42 years Population (%) 10 5 0 65 & 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 Above 1998 1.4 8.4 13.3 14.2 16.3 16.1 12.5 8.3 4.4 2.8 2.3 2003 1.2 7.9 12.0 14.6 14.6 15.0 14.3 9.9 5.9 2.6 2.0 2008 0.9 7.0 11.1 11.8 12.8 13.3 13.4 13.0 8.8 5.0 3.1 2013 1.1 6.9 10.6 12.0 11.9 12.7 13.1 11.7 9.5 6.2 4.3 (b) Male Population 15 Median Age in 1998 = 39 years Median Age in 2013 = 44 years Population (%) 10 5 0 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 & Above 1998 1.6 7.2 11.0 13.6 16.5 16.7 12.7 9.2 4.9 3.7 2.9 2003 1.2 7.1 9.9 13.1 14.9 16.1 15.0 10.8 6.2 3.2 2.5 2008 1.0 7.0 9.5 10.5 12.3 13.8 13.1 13.6 9.8 5.5 4.0 2013 1.5 6.3 9.3 11.1 11.4 12.2 12.9 12.5 10.1 7.3 5.3 (c) Female Population 15 Median Age in 1998 = 37 years Median Age in 2013 = 41 years Population (%) 10 5 0 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 & Above 1998 1.2 10.2 16.6 15.2 16.0 15.2 12.2 7.1 3.5 1.3 1.5 2003 1.1 9.2 14.9 16.7 14.3 13.5 13.2 8.6 5.5 1.7 1.3 2008 0.7 6.9 13.2 13.6 13.5 12.6 13.8 12.2 7.4 4.2 1.8 2013 0.7 7.6 12.2 13.0 12.6 13.2 13.3 10.7 8.8 4.9 3.1 29
Education level of employed resident population The education profile of the employed residents improved over the decades, as more residents pursued higher education. Slightly over two in ten (23.7%) of residents in the labour force were degree holders, up from one in ten (9.2%) in 1998 (Table 2.18). Those with tertiary education, including the ones with diploma or professional qualifications, constituted close to half of the employed residents (42.7%) in 2013, more than a two-fold increase from 19.9% in 1998. Only a very small proportion (1.5%) of the resident labour force did not receive any formal education. Table 2.18 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Education Level and Year Highest Education Level Attained 1998 2003 2008 2013 Never Attended School/No Formal Education Some/Completed Primary Some/Completed Secondary Completed Post-Secondary Completed Polytechnic/Other Diploma Completed University/Postgraduate Others (e.g. MINDS, special education schools) 11.8 25.9 35.4 6.9 10.7 9.2 0.1 10.2 23.0 33.6 5.1 12.8 14.2 1.1 8.2 22.3 32.9 4.5 15.3 16.1 0.7 1.5 13.8 33.2 8.7 19.0 23.7 0.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 1,265,739 1,289,369 1,468,972 1,573,872 * Excluding non-response cases The female employed residents were better educated than the males, with slightly more than a quarter (26.2%) of them possessing a university degree compared with males at 21.8% (Table 2.19). As better-educated women were more likely to participate in the labour market, an improvement in the education profile of the female labour force would have a positive impact on the female LFPR in the future. Analysing the education profile across age groups showed that the resident workforce was becoming better qualified as young residents who received higher education joined the workforce. At least half of the employed residents in the prime-working age of below 45 years had received tertiary education, compared with 26.3% for those aged 45-54 years and about less than one in ten among those aged 55 years and above (Table 2.20). 30
Table 2.19 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Education Level and Sex Highest Education Level Attained Male Female All Never Attended School/No Formal Education Some/Completed Primary Some/Completed Secondary Completed Post-Secondary Completed Polytechnic/Other Diploma Completed University/Postgraduate Others (e.g. MINDS, special education schools) 0.8 14.5 33.9 9.6 19.3 21.8 0.1 2.3 13.0 32.5 7.5 18.5 26.2-1.5 13.8 33.2 8.7 19.0 23.7 0.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 878,055 695,817 1,573,872 * Excluding non-response cases Table 2.20 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Education Level and Age Group Highest Education Level Attained 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above All Never Attended School/ No Formal Education 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.3 3.2 12.7 1.5 Some/Completed Primary Some/Completed Secondary Completed Post-Secondary Completed Polytechnic/Other Diploma Completed University/Postgraduate Others (e.g. MINDS, special education schools) 0.6 26.0 19.6 37.7 15.9 0.1 1.3 17.9 9.1 27.5 44.0 0.1 6.2 28.7 8.1 21.7 34.9-20.7 44.0 7.7 12.9 13.4-30.6 49.4 6.3 6.7 3.8-46.2 31.7 4.2 3.4 1.8-13.8 33.2 8.7 19.0 23.7 0.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 126,225 354,504 386,404 389,264 249,352 67,507 1,573,872 * Excluding non-response cases Occupation of employed resident population With improvements in the education profile of the resident workforce, a gradual shift in occupation towards higher-skilled jobs among the employed was evident over the last one and a half decade. The share of professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) in the resident workforce rose from 19.4% in 1998 to 27.8% in 2013 (Table 2.21). If we expand the PME category to include the associate professionals and technicians, the proportion of PMETs would climb to slightly more than half of the resident workforce (50.6%) in 2013, up from 40.4% in 1998. 31
At the same time, the proportion of employed residents in production and plant or machine operators decreased over the same period. The proportion of employed residents performing clerical work and services or sales related jobs had remained relatively stable, hovering between 12% and 14%. Table 2.21 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Occupation and Year Occupation* 1998 2003 2008 2013 Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers 10.9 PMEs Professionals PMETs 8.5 Associate Professionals & Technicians 21.0 Clerical Workers 13.6 Service, Shop & Market Sales Workers 12.7 Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/ 21.2 Plant & Machine Operators & Assemblers Cleaners, Labourers & Related Workers 8.1 Others 4.0 (e.g. NS, SAF personnel, agricultural & fishery workers) 11.4 11.2 20.8 13.5 12.8 17.8 8.6 3.9 10.7 11.9 22.6 12.8 12.6 15.0 10.7 3.7 13.3 14.5 22.8 12.9 11.8 11.9 9.2 3.6 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons** 1,265,739 1,289,369 1,448,206 1,542,428 * Based on Singapore Standard Occupational Classification 2010, Singapore Department of Statistics ** Excluding non-response cases Reflecting the lower education profile of older workers due to limited opportunities to pursue higher education in their earlier years, more than four in ten of the older employed residents aged 55 years and above were employed in lower-skilled jobs such as cleaners and labourers, production and plant or machine operators (Table 2.22). In sharp contrast, among the younger cohort aged 25 to 44 years, the share of PMETs was larger than the non-pmets. 32
Table 2.22 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Occupation and Age Group Occupation* 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above All Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers Professionals Associate Professionals & Technicians Clerical Workers Service, Shop & Market Sales Workers Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/ Plant & Machine Operators & Assemblers Cleaners, Labourers & Related Workers Others (e.g. NS, SAF personnel, agricultural & fishery workers) 4.5 10.6 20.7 13.3 12.7 2.4 2.5 33.3 13.0 24.9 31.8 13.9 8.5 4.6 1.5 1.8 19.6 20.1 24.1 13.2 9.3 8.2 4.7 0.8 14.4 9.2 21.5 14.0 11.8 17.2 11.2 0.7 9.7 4.3 15.8 10.8 16.9 22.9 19.0 0.6 3.6 4.0 7.3 6.7 21.6 17.7 38.7 0.4 13.3 14.5 22.8 12.9 11.8 11.9 9.2 3.6 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons** 124,338 341,517 378,909 383,798 246,201 67,005 1,542,428 * Based on Singapore Standard Occupational Classification 2010, Singapore Department of Statistics ** Excluding non-response cases With improved education attainment of the female workforce, more females were holding jobs as professionals, managers and executives, resulting in the narrowing gap between the proportions of males and females in PME jobs (Table 2.23). In 2013, 29.0% of employed male residents were PMEs, just 2.8 percentage points higher than employed female residents. The gap was much wider, close to 10 percentage points, in 1998. About half the males (51.8%) and females (49.1%) of the employed residents were PMETs. Among the non-pmet jobs, a higher proportion of males were in jobs such as production and plant or machine operators; whereas more females were in jobs such as clerical works, services and sales. 33
Table 2.23 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Occupation, Sex and Year Occupation* Male Female All 1998 2003 2008 2013 1998 2003 2008 2013 1998 2003 2008 2013 Legislators, senior officials & managers 14.1 13.6 12.5 15.1 6.0 8.2 8.1 11.1 10.9 11.4 10.7 13.3 Professionals 9.3 10.9 12.1 13.9 7.5 11.6 11.5 15.1 8.5 11.2 11.9 14.5 Associate professionals & technicians 19.6 20.3 21.4 22.8 23.2 21.5 24.4 22.9 21.0 20.8 22.6 22.8 Clerical workers 4.9 6.4 5.7 6.4 26.7 24.0 22.5 21.1 13.6 13.5 12.8 12.9 Service, shop & market sales workers 11.2 11.9 11.6 10.1 14.9 14.3 14.0 13.9 12.7 12.8 12.6 11.8 Production craftsmen & related workers/ Plant & machine operators & assemblers 26.3 23.4 21.3 18.1 13.4 9.7 6.4 4.1 21.2 17.8 15.0 11.9 Cleaners, labourers & related workers 8.2 7.2 9.2 7.4 7.9 10.5 12.7 11.5 8.1 8.6 10.7 9.2 Others (e.g. NS, SAF personnel, agricultural & fishery workers) 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.6 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons** 762,481 768,850 834,609 860,089 503,258 520,519 613,597 682,339 1,265,739 1,289,369 1,448,206 1,542,428 * Based on Singapore Standard Occupational Classification 2010, Singapore Department of Statistics ** Excluding non-response cases 34
Place of work of employed resident population Overall, about 1.2% of the employed residents were working overseas in 2013. Excluding those who were working overseas, close to half of employed residents (45.0%) were working beyond their adjoining towns of residence and another 18.9% were working in the Central Region (Table 2.24). The proportion working nearer to home, either in the same town as their place of residence or in adjoining towns, constituted 13.8% and 11.4% of the employed residents, respectively. Table 2.24 Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Place of Work and Year Place of Work in relation to Place of Residence 1998 2003 2008 2013 In same town In adjoining town Beyond adjoining town Central Region* Offshore island No fixed place of work 13.4 15.1 41.8 19.8 1.0 8.9 12.1 15.9 45.8 21.0 0.9 4.3 13.7 9.0 46.1 19.9 1.3 10.1 13.8 11.4 45.0 18.9 1.8 9.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons** 1,252,162 1,212,184 1,393,813 1,491,225 * Covering Bishan, Toa Payoh, Geylang, Kallang/Whampoa, Bukit Merah, Queenstown, Bukit Timah, Marine Parade and Central Area, as well as other areas such as Novena, Tanglin, Orchard, Downtown Core ** Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases 2.3 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population As our first cohort of post-war Baby Boomers turned 65 years old in 2012, Singapore will experience an unprecedented age shift between now and 2030. Coupled with rising singlehood, late marriages, low fertility rates and increasing life expectancy, Singapore has one of the fastest ageing populations in the world. By 2050, Singapore will have an inverted population structure with more in the older age groups than the younger age groups. As the population ages, the needs of the elderly, ranging from financial security, housing and healthcare, to family care, community support and social services, will be accentuated and become more pressing. It could also exert significant pressure on our economy, society and governance in the near future. 35
This section analyses the statistics pertaining to demographic and socioeconomic aspects of the elderly and future elderly population living in HDB flats. Detailed statistics on the elderly and the future elderly would provide planners and policy-makers with information to plan for and prioritise facilities and programmes. More details on social, housing and personal aspects of the elderly and future elderly households, are covered in monograph entitled Public Housing in Singapore: Social Well-Being of HDB Communities. 2.3.1 Demographic Characteristics Population size and growth rate The number of elderly and future elderly residents had been increasing steadily over the years. There were about 335,100 elderly residents living in HDB flats in 2013, constituting 11.0% of the total resident population (Chart 2.6). The elderly population grew at an annualised rate of 3.3% between 2008 and 2013, or an increase of about 50,000 elderly persons over the last five years. Future elderly residents numbered around 407,300 persons in 2013, accounting for 13.3% of the total resident population and an increase of about 68,000 persons over the last five years. This translates to an annualised growth rate of 3.7% during the five-year time period. Chart 2.6 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Year Number ('000 persons) 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 137 (5.7%) 162 (6.7%) 2,113 (87.6%) 195 (7.2%) 200 (7.4%) 2,308 (85.4%) 218 (7.6%) 247 (8.7%) 2,380 (83.7%) 285 (9.8%) 339 (11.6%) 2,299 (78.6%) 335 (11.0%) 407 (13.3%) 2,312 (75.7%) Detailed Breakdown: Young-Old (65-74 Years) 7.3% Old-Old (75-84 Years) 2.9% Oldest-Old (85 Years & Above) 0.8% Elderly Future Elderly Non-Elderly 0 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 36
Role and relationship with head of household Close to half of the elderly population (47.6%) were heads of households, slightly lower compared with 54.0% of the future elderly population (Table 2.25). The future elderly population had a higher proportion of co-lessees (36.0%); while the elderly population had a higher proportion of occupiers (29.9%). Table 2.25 Role and Relationship with Head of Household of HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population Role & Relationship with Head of Household Elderly Population Future Elderly Population Head of Household Lessee Registered Tenant Co-lessee Spouse Children/Children-in-law Parents/Parents-in-law Sibling/Sibling-in-law Other relative (e.g. uncle/aunt, grandparents, cousin, niece/nephew) Occupier Spouse Children/Children-in-law Parents/Parents-in-law Sibling/Sibling-in-law Other relative (e.g. uncle/aunt, grandparents, cousin, niece/nephew) Unrelated (including friend) 42.8 4.8 16.9 0.0 4.9 0.6 0.1 3.5 0.1 24.3 0.8 0.6 0.6 47.6 22.5 29.9 50.7 3.3 32.9 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.1 2.3 0.5 4.7 2.1 0.2 0.2 54.0 36.0 10.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 Persons 335,091 407,259 Age distribution The median age of the elderly population was 72 years (Table 2.26), with the majority aged between 65 and 74 years (Chart 2.6). The median age of the future elderly population was 59 years. Among the elderly population, females formed a higher proportion who were aged 80 years and above (22.1%), compared with their male counterparts (11.0%) as shown in Table 2.27. Hence, the female elderly population was slightly older with a median age of 72 years. There was no significant difference in the age distribution between males and females among the future elderly population. 37
Table 2.26 Average and Median Age of HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Year Age Elderly Population Future Elderly Population 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 Average Age (Years) Median Age (Years) 72.9 71 73.2 72 73.0 72 59.0 59 58.9 59 59.3 59 Table 2.27 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Age Group and Sex Age Group (Years) Male Elderly Population Female All Elderly Male Future Elderly Population Female All Future Elderly 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85 & Above - - 40.2 29.9 18.9 6.9 4.1 - - 36.3 26.8 14.8 12.1 10.0 - - 38.1 28.1 16.6 9.8 7.4 53.3 46.7 - - - - - 55.1 44.9 - - - - - 54.2 45.8 - - - - - Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 150,758 184,333 335,091 195,977 211,282 407,259 Average Age (Years) 72.1 73.7 73.0 59.3 59.2 59.3 Median Age (Years) 71 72 72 59 59 59 * Excluding non-response cases Geographical distribution In terms of absolute number, mature towns such as Bukit Merah, Kallang/Whampoa, Ang Mo Kio and Bedok, as well as middle-aged town like Tampines housed more elderly residents (Table 2.28). In the case of the future elderly, it can be seen that quite a large number of them resided in middle-aged towns such as Tampines, Jurong West and Hougang. 38
Table 2.28 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year HDB Town/Estate Elderly Population Future Elderly Population 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 Young Sengkang 6,398 ( 5.2%) 9,114 ( 5.9%) 8,802 ( 5.1%) 8,599 ( 7.0%) 12,822 ( 8.3%) 17,156 ( 9.9%) Towns Punggol 1,387 ( 3.6%) 2,715 ( 4.7%) 4,517 ( 4.8%) 2,715 ( 5.7%) 4,159 ( 7.2%) 7,651 ( 8.0%) Sembawang 2,262 ( 4.0%) 3,409 ( 5.4%) 2,842 ( 4.1%) 2,588 ( 4.5%) 4,797 ( 7.6%) 6,156 ( 9.0%) Middle-Aged Tampines 12,200 ( 5.3%) 17,936 ( 7.9%) 24,202 (10.2%) 13,420 ( 5.9%) 25,202 (11.1%) 30,397 (12.8%) Towns/Estate Woodlands 10,395 ( 4.9%) 10,813 ( 4.8%) 18,468 ( 8.0%) 11,196 ( 5.3%) 17,346 ( 7.7%) 22,494 ( 9.8%) Hougang 12,300 ( 7.1%) 16,186 ( 9.6%) 17,068 (10.3%) 11,744 ( 6.8%) 23,604 (14.0%) 25,737 (15.6%) Yishun 7,660 ( 4.8%) 9,840 ( 6.1%) 13,756 ( 8.0%) 12,755 ( 8.1%) 18,067 (11.2%) 23,372 (13.9%) Jurong West 11,885 ( 5.5%) 13,567 ( 5.8%) 13,670 ( 5.6%) 14,095 ( 6.5%) 24,094 (10.3%) 27,526 (11.4%) Bukit Panjang 6,823 ( 6.4%) 6,613 ( 6.2%) 11,008 ( 9.6%) 6,504 ( 6.1%) 12,053 (11.3%) 15,028 (13.1%) Bukit Batok 5,578 ( 5.2%) 7,362 ( 7.4%) 10,232 ( 9.4%) 6,228 ( 5.8%) 11,939 (12.0%) 15,156 (14.1%) Jurong East 5,354 ( 6.8%) 7,720 (10.1%) 9,023 (12.0%) 8,693 (11.0%) 10,702 (14.0%) 11,339 (15.1%) Bishan 3,829 ( 5.8%) 5,381 ( 8.4%) 8,936 (14.3%) 5,813 ( 8.8%) 6,726 (10.5%) 10,952 (17.6%) Choa Chu Kang 6,229 ( 4.3%) 7,199 ( 4.8%) 8,116 ( 5.2%) 8,035 ( 5.6%) 12,148 ( 8.1%) 14,063 ( 9.1%) Pasir Ris 4,510 ( 4.2%) 4,547 ( 4.3%) 7,502 ( 6.9%) 5,658 ( 5.3%) 8,670 ( 8.2%) 12,655 (11.7%) Serangoon 6,738 ( 9.1%) 7,826 (11.0%) 7,305 (10.1%) 6,128 ( 8.3%) 9,890 (13.9%) 11,775 (16.3%) Bukit Timah 1,006 (11.4%) 1,168 (13.9%) 1,301 (16.6%) 1,016 (11.6%) 1,059 (12.6%) 1,234 (15.8%) Mature Bukit Merah 20,261 (16.4%) 25,624 (18.8%) 25,134 (17.4%) 21,025 (17.0%) 22,080 (16.2%) 25,190 (17.4%) Towns/Estates Kallang/Whampoa 11,553 (12.3%) 17,401 (17.9%) 24,318 (23.5%) 13,206 (14.0%) 13,609 (14.0%) 14,952 (14.4%) Ang Mo Kio 13,739 ( 9.4%) 21,935 (15.2%) 24,314 (16.8%) 16,453 (11.2%) 19,338 (13.4%) 23,025 (16.0%) Bedok 16,234 ( 8.6%) 23,646 (12.9%) 21,499 (11.5%) 18,793 (10.0%) 25,846 (14.1%) 31,487 (16.8%) Toa Payoh 13,865 (13.6%) 18,098 (17.9%) 18,633 (18.2%) 11,989 (11.8%) 12,335 (12.2%) 15,219 (14.8%) Queenstown 12,634 (16.7%) 14,189 (18.0%) 15,316 (19.0%) 10,822 (14.4%) 9,853 (12.5%) 11,175 (13.8%) Geylang 8,179 ( 8.7%) 12,713 (14.0%) 15,015 (17.1%) 11,857 (12.7%) 12,077 (13.3%) 14,089 (16.1%) Clementi 7,656 (10.8%) 10,413 (15.2%) 12,727 (19.6%) 11,030 (15.5%) 12,674 (18.5%) 10,743 (16.5%) Central Area 5,352 (19.4%) 5,178 (18.1%) 6,817 (20.4%) 4,174 (15.1%) 5,264 (18.4%) 5,630 (16.9%) Marine Parade 3,542 (16.3%) 4,869 (23.4%) 4,570 (20.3%) 3,249 (15.0%) 3,142 (15.1%) 3,037 (13.5%) Total 217,568 ( 7.6%) 285,462 ( 9.8%) 335,091 (11.0%) 247,488 ( 8.7%) 339,496 (11.6%) 407,259 (13.3%) Note: Figures in (brackets) denote concentrations of elderly or future elderly population within the town 39
When measured against the town population, all mature towns/estates, except Bedok (11.5%), recorded high concentrations of elderly population, ranging from the lowest 16.8% in Ang Mo Kio to the highest 23.5% in Kallang/Whampoa. Within the category of middle-aged town/estate, Bukit Timah and Bishan also had higher concentrations of elderly population, constituting 16.6% and 14.3% of their respective population. Future elderly residents, on the other hand, accounted for around 13% to 18% of the population in all mature towns/estates and most of the middle-aged towns/estate. Type of dwelling by tenure and flat type Proportionately, slightly more elderly (7.3%) and future elderly (4.5%) residents were living in rental flats, compared with the overall resident population at 3.7% (Table 2.29). However, the proportion of elderly population living in rental flats had been on the decline, from 9.6% in 2003 to 8.9% in 2008 and 7.3% in 2013; while the proportion of future elderly population living in rental flats had remained at around 5% over the last decade. In terms of flat type, compared with the overall resident population, there were proportionately more elderly and future elderly residents living in 3-room or smaller flat types (Table 2.30). The proportion of elderly population living in 3- room or smaller flat types had remained quite stable, hovering around 40% over the last ten years. In contrast, a higher proportion of future elderly residents lived in 4-room and larger flat types over the years, up from 62.7% in 2003 to 71.9% in 2013. 40
Table 2.29 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Tenure and Year Tenure Elderly Population Future Elderly Population All 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 Sold Rental 90.4 9.6 91.1 8.9 92.7 7.3 95.1 4.9 95.1 4.9 95.5 4.5 97.1 2.9 97.0 3.0 96.3 3.7 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons 217,568 285,374 335,091 247,233 339,041 407,259 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,664 Table 2.30 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Flat Type and Year Flat Type Elderly Population Future Elderly Population All 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive 4.6 6.3 29.6 36.4 17.7 5.4 4.7 5.2 31.2 33.9 20.2 4.8 4.6 4.9 30.4 35.6 18.8 5.7 2.0 3.7 31.5 36.5 20.2 6.0 2.2 3.2 24.0 40.9 21.7 7.9 2.2 3.1 22.8 40.5 22.8 8.6 1.1 2.2 21.5 41.3 25.2 8.7 1.2 2.2 19.6 41.0 26.7 9.3 1.6 2.8 19.3 41.1 26.6 8.6 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons 217,568 285,374 335,091 247,233 339,041 407,259 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,664 41
Sex composition Due to longer life expectancy of females, they formed a larger proportion of the elderly and future elderly population at 55.0% and 51.9%, respectively (Table 2.31). Table 2.31 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Sex Sex Elderly Population Future Elderly Population All Male Female 45.0 55.0 48.1 51.9 48.8 51.2 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 335,091 407,259 3,057,056 * Excluding non-response cases Ethnic composition Compared with the overall population, there was over-representation of the Chinese among the elderly and future elderly population at 84.3% and 79.9%, respectively (Table 2.32). The proportion of Chinese among the elderly population had also increased steadily since 2003. The Malays comprised 10.0% of the elderly population and 13.0% of the future elderly population. The Indians, on the other hand, formed 4.9% and 6.2% of the elderly and future elderly population, respectively. Marital status Overall, 60.7% of elderly residents were married, 30.1% were widowed and 5.1% were single (Table 2.33). Reflecting the longer life expectancy of females, the proportion of widowed persons among female elderly residents (45.4%) was much higher than that of males (11.3%). Among future elderly residents, the majority, or 87.1% of males and 73.2% of females, were married. However, the proportion of divorced/separated persons among females had increased slightly from 6.5% to 7.7% over the last ten years. In addition, the proportion of singles among future elderly residents had been on the rise, with the proportion of single males rising from 5.5% to 9.0% and for the proportion of single females, from 7.0% to 10.2%, over the same period. 42
Table 2.32 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Ethnic Group and Year Ethnic Group Elderly Population Future Elderly Population All 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 Chinese Malay Indian Others 80.4 12.2 6.1 1.3 83.2 10.2 5.5 1.1 84.3 10.0 4.9 0.8 81.8 11.4 6.1 0.6 79.0 12.6 7.0 1.4 79.9 13.0 6.2 0.9 74.4 16.5 8.0 1.1 73.8 16.3 8.2 1.6 73.5 15.6 8.9 2.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons 217,568 285,374 335,091 247,233 339,041 407,259 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,535 Table 2.33 HDB Elderly & Future Elderly Resident Population by Marital Status, Sex and Year Marital Status Male Female All Elderly/ Future Elderly Population 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 Elderly Population Married Widowed Divorced/Separated Single 79.3 12.4 3.3 5.0 79.8 12.3 2.8 5.0 80.9 11.3 3.2 4.6 40.9 49.8 4.1 5.3 42.6 49.0 5.1 3.3 44.2 45.4 4.9 5.5 58.9 32.3 3.7 5.1 59.2 32.7 4.1 4.1 60.7 30.1 4.1 5.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons 102,110 126,845 150,758 115,458 158,529 184,333 217,568 285,374 335,091 Future Elderly Population Married Widowed Divorced/Separated Single 87.5 3.3 3.7 5.5 85.6 1.9 3.6 8.9 87.1 1.6 2.3 9.0 71.3 15.2 6.5 7.0 72.0 11.8 7.0 9.1 73.2 8.9 7.7 10.2 78.9 9.6 5.2 6.3 78.8 6.9 5.3 9.0 79.9 5.4 5.1 9.6 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons 116,784 168,322 195,977 130,449 170,719 211,282 247,233 339,041 407,259 43
Ambulant status The state of health of elderly and future elderly residents was positive. The majority 90.2% of the elderly and 98.4% of the future elderly population were ambulant and physically independent (Table 2.34). Table 2.34 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Ambulant Status and Year Ambulant Status* Elderly Population Future Elderly Population 2008 2013 2008 2013 Ambulant & physically independent Ambulant & physically independent but require walking aids Require some physical assistance to move around Not bedridden but require total physical assistance Bedridden & require regular turning in bed 87.4 7.2 3.8 1.3 0.3 90.2 4.3 3.5 1.2 0.8 98.1 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 98.4 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons** 285,374 333,645 339,041 406,991 * Classification adapted from the National Survey of Senior Citizens (NSSC) 2005 ** Excluding non-response cases 2.3.2 Economic Characteristics Economic status While the majority of elderly residents (79.4%) were economically inactive, the proportion remaining in or entering the workforce had increased from 12.6% in 2003 to 20.6% in 2013 (Table 2.35). Among the future elderly, there was also an increasing trend for them to be in the workforce. Close to two-thirds (63.2%) were economically active in 2013, up from 47.8% a decade ago. More elderly and future elderly residents may have chosen to remain in the workforce to enhance their financial security and sense of well-being, if their health condition permits. In general, with higher education levels attained, they were also likely to continue working. Analysis by sex showed that the proportions of both male and female elderly residents who were economically active had been on the rise, from 19.5% in 2003 to 31.3% in 2013 for the former, and from 6.5% to 11.8% for the latter over the same period (Table 2.36). Similar trends were observed for the future elderly population. 44
Table 2.35 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Economic Status and Year Economic Status Elderly Population Future Elderly Population All 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 Economically Active 12.6 16.4 20.6 47.8 62.7 63.2 49.2 52.6 54.1 Working Full-Time 5.9 8.6 11.1 27.9 43.1 43.8 36.4 42.3 43.9 Working Part-Time 3.2 5.6 8.1 7.9 11.6 12.4 4.0 5.1 5.6 Own Account Worker 2.3 1.7 1.1 8.2 5.0 5.0 4.7 3.0 2.4 Others * 0.3 0.2-0.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.2 - Unemployed 0.9 0.3 0.3 3.3 2.5 1.9 3.8 2.0 2.2 Economically Inactive 87.4 83.6 79.4 52.2 37.3 36.8 50.8 47.4 45.9 Retiree/Pensioner 58.7 46.8 52.6 24.4 14.5 15.2 6.9 6.4 7.7 Homemaker 25.9 35.9 26.1 26.5 21.4 21.0 12.6 12.0 10.6 Disabled/Hospitalised 2.8 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 Others ** - - - 0.3 0.2-30.8 28.5 27.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons*** 217,568 285,374 334,299 247,233 339,041 406,760 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,050,250 * Including employers and unpaid family workers ** Including before school-going age, full-time students, waiting for NS or exam results, in prison/drug rehabilitative centre *** Excluding non-response cases 45
Table 2.36 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Economic Status, Sex and Year Economic Status Male Female All Elderly/ Future Elderly Population 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 Elderly Population Economically Active 19.5 27.5 31.3 6.5 7.4 11.8 12.6 16.4 20.6 Economically Inactive 80.5 72.5 68.7 93.5 92.6 88.2 87.4 83.6 79.4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 102,110 126,845 150,403 115,458 158,529 183,896 217,568 285,374 334,299 Future Elderly Population Economically Active 67.8 81.2 81.1 30.0 44.4 46.7 47.8 62.7 63.2 Economically Inactive 32.2 18.8 18.9 70.0 55.6 53.3 52.2 37.3 36.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 116,784 168,322 195,550 130,449 170,719 211,210 247,233 339,041 406,760 * Excluding non-response cases 46
Education level of employed elderly and future elderly resident population The education level of the current cohort of the employed elderly population was low, with the majority (58.9%) having no formal education or just primary education (Table 2.37). The future elderly cohort attained higher education level with about two-thirds (66.2%) having at least some or completed secondary education. Table 2.37 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Education Level Highest Education Level Attained Elderly Population Future Elderly Population All Never Attended School/No Formal Education Some/Completed Primary Education Some/Completed Secondary Education Completed Post-Secondary Education Completed Polytechnic/Other Diploma Completed University/Postgraduate Others (e.g. MINDS, special education schools) 12.7 46.2 31.7 4.2 3.4 1.8-3.2 30.6 49.4 6.3 6.7 3.8-1.5 13.8 33.2 8.7 19.0 23.7 0.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons* 67,507 249,353 1,573,872 * Excluding non-response cases Occupation of employed elderly and future elderly resident population In general, education level correlates highly with occupational status. Due to the lower education attainment of the employed elderly cohort, more than half (56.4%) of them were holding lower-skilled jobs such as cleaners, production workers, or plant and machine operators (Table 2.38). However, the proportion of those in higher-skilled jobs such as services and sales had risen from 17.6% in 2008 to 21.7% in 2013. Due to the better education profile of the future elderly cohort, about three in ten (29.9%) were working as PMETs, higher compared with 14.9% among the elderly cohort. This proportion had also increased over the years, from 23.0% in 2003 to 29.9% in 2013. Clearly, a shift in occupation towards higher-skilled jobs was evident among this cohort group. 47
Place of work of employed resident population Taking town of residence as the point of reference, some 35.9% of employed elderly residents and 28.6% of employed future elderly residents commuted within the same town or to adjoining towns for work. This was slightly higher than the overall population of 25.2% (Table 2.39). Compared with five years ago, slightly higher proportions of elderly and future elderly residents were working near their homes. About two in ten of employed elderly (17.0%) and employed future elderly (17.1%) residents had no fixed place of work, much higher than the overall population of 9.1%. 48
Table 2.38 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Occupation and Year Occupation* Elderly Population Future Elderly Population All 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 Legislators, senior officials & managers Professionals Associate professionals & technicians Clerical workers Service, shop & market sales workers Production craftsmen & related workers/ Plant & machine operators & assemblers Cleaners, labourers & related workers Others (e.g. NS, SAF personnel, agricultural & fishery workers) 10.8 4.0 3.4 5.8 22.7 19.4 33.9-5.9 3.1 6.2 5.0 17.6 20.1 42.1-3.6 4.0 7.3 6.7 21.7 17.7 38.7 0.3 9.8 2.5 10.7 8.3 17.8 25.8 24.9 0.2 8.1 4.2 12.7 11.2 14.8 26.1 22.6 0.3 9.7 4.3 15.9 10.8 16.9 22.9 19.0 0.5 11.4 11.2 20.8 13.5 12.8 17.8 8.6 3.9 10.7 11.9 22.6 12.8 12.6 15.0 10.7 3.7 13.3 14.5 22.8 12.9 11.8 11.9 9.2 3.6 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons** 25,379 44,194 67,005 109,360 200,104 246,201 1,289,369 1,448,206 1,542,428 * Based on Singapore Standard Occupational Classification 2010, Singapore Department of Statistics ** Excluding non-response cases Table 2.39 Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Place of Work and Year Place of Work in relation to Place of Residence Elderly Population Future Elderly Population All 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 2003 2008 2013 In same town In adjoining town Beyond adjoining town Central Region* Offshore island No fixed place of work 23.6 10.5 33.7 24.5 0.9 6.9 23.1 6.9 36.7 13.7 0.2 19.3 23.1 12.8 32.0 14.4 0.7 17.0 20.1 18.0 37.7 15.9 0.8 7.5 16.7 9.0 40.1 15.0 1.1 18.2 17.7 10.9 38.8 14.6 0.9 17.1 12.1 15.9 45.8 21.0 0.9 4.3 13.7 9.0 46.1 19.9 1.3 10.1 13.8 11.4 45.0 18.9 1.8 9.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Persons** 25,023 43,143 65,327 104,334 196,248 241,653 1,212,184 1,393,813 1,491,225 * Covering Bishan, Toa Payoh, Geylang, Kallang/Whampoa, Bukit Merah, Queenstown, Bukit Timah, Marine Parade and Central Area, as well as other areas such as Novena, Tanglin, Orchard, Downtown Core ** Excluding persons working abroad and non-response cases 49
2.4 Summary of Findings As of April 2013, the HDB resident population (excluding subtenants) stood at 3.06 million, registering an annualised growth rate of 0.9% from 2008 to 2013. The majority of the resident population lived in sold flats, predominantly in 4-room flats. With the increase in the supply of rental and smaller flat types in recent years, the proportions of residents living in rental flats or 1- and 2-room flats increased slightly over the last five years. Jurong West, Tampines and Woodlands remained as the three most populous towns, while Punggol and Sengkang experienced the highest population growth due to more intensive developments in these two towns in recent years. Slightly more than half of the resident population were economically active. The majority of the employed residents were employees holding full-time jobs, while only 2.2% were unemployed. Amid a tight labour market, the labour force participation rate of the resident population rose to a new high of 64.9%, mainly driven by more females and older workers joining or remaining in the workforce. A significant improvement in education profile and a gradual shift towards higherskilled jobs among the employed resident population were evident. Reflecting increasing longevity and declining fertility rates, the median age of the resident population continued to inch up to 39 years as the population matured. Elderly and future elderly residents constituted 11.0% and 13.3% of the total resident population, respectively, with higher concentrations of them in mature and middle-aged towns/estates. The majority of the elderly (90.2%) and future elderly population (98.4%) were ambulant and physically independent. While the majority of elderly residents (79.4%) were economically inactive, the proportion remaining in or entering the workforce had increased from 12.6% in 2003 to 20.6% in 2013. Among the future elderly, 63.2% were economically active, compared with 47.8% a decade ago. 50
3 Profile of HDB Households
Chapter 3 Profile of HDB Households This chapter provides the analysis on the demographic and socio-economic profile of HDB resident households. Trend analysis will be used, where available, to highlight the various social changes that have taken place over time. Changes in the profile of households would have important implications for housing policies. The analysis here will enable HDB to better cater to the changing needs and expectations of residents. 3.1 Households Living in HDB Towns/Estates Size and growth rate of HDB resident households Over the last five years, from 2008 to 2013, the number of residents living in HDB flats continued to increase at an annual growth rate of 0.9% (Table 3.1). The annualised growth rate of households of 1.0% from 2008 to 2013 was slightly higher than that for resident population (0.9%) over the same period. The average household size had remained unchanged over the last five years, averaging 3.4 persons. Table 3.1 HDB Resident Population and Households by Year HDB Resident Population & Households 2003 2008 2013 Annualised Growth Rate (%) (2003-2008) (2008-2013) HDB Resident Population 2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,664 0.5 0.9 HDB Resident Households 821,126 866,026 908,499 1.1 1.0 Average Household Size 3.5 3.4 3.4-0.5 0.0 53
Type of dwelling by tenure, flat type and ethnic group of head of household Of the 908,499 resident households living in HDB flats, the majority (94.6%) were living in sold flats (Chart 3.1). This proportion was slightly lower compared with 2008. The proportion of resident households in HDB rental flats increased slightly from 4.7% in 2008 to 5.4% in 2013, as more rental flats were built to meet the demand of vulnerable families over the last five years. Chart 3.1 HDB Households by Tenure and Year 100 8.8 6.6 4.5 4.7 5.4 Households (%) 80 60 40 20 91.2 93.4 95.5 95.3 94.6 Rental Sold 0 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Among sold flats, most households were living in 4-room flats (41.3%), followed by 3-room (25.1%) and 5-room flats (24.9%) as shown in Table 3.2. With more 4-room flats being built over the past five years, this had resulted in an increase of about 22,800 households living in such flat types. Rental housing units were made up of predominantly 1- and 2-room flats. In 2013, the number of households living in rental flats was 49,162, an increase of 19.6% from 2008. Table 3.2 HDB Households by Flat Type, Tenure and Year Sold Rental All Flat Type 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 % N % N % N % N % N % N 1-Room* 0.1 475 0.1 832 44.0 18,087 48.3 23,741 2.1 18,562 2.7 24,573 2-Room* 0.7 5,739 1.0 8,830 55.7 22,875 51.6 25,374 3.3 28,614 3.8 34,204 3-Room 25.9 213,711 25.1 216,116 0.4 146 0.1 47 24.7 213,857 23.8 216,163 4-Room 40.2 331,739 41.3 354,526 - - - - 38.3 331,739 39.0 354,526 5-Room 25.1 206,799 24.9 214,074 - - - - 23.9 206,799 23.6 214,074 Executive 8.1 66,455 7.6 64,959 - - - - 7.7 66,455 7.1 64,959 Total 100.0 824,918 100.0 859,337 100.0 41,108 100.0 49,162 100.0 866,026 100.0 908,499 * Including Studio Apartments 54
Further analysis by ethnic group of head of household showed that the proportions of households living in rental flats among the Malay- and Indianheaded households had increased over the last five years (Table 3.3). Comparing across flat types, the proportions of Malay- and Indian-headed households living in 1- and 2-room flats experienced a greater increase than Chinese- and Others-headed households (Table 3.4). Table 3.3 HDB Households by Tenure, Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year Tenure Chinese Malay Indian Others All 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Sold 95.8 95.8 92.9 88.3 94.2 92.7 94.8 95.0 95.3 94.6 Rental 4.2 4.2 7.1 11.7 5.8 7.3 5.2 5.0 4.7 5.4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 669,919 702,366 115,260 113,489 71,727 78,759 9,120 13,885 866,026 908,499 Table 3.4 HDB Households by Flat Type, Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year Flat Type Chinese Malay Indian Others All 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 1-Room* 2.0 2.3 2.7 5.1 2.8 3.5 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.7 2-Room* 2.9 3.0 5.1 7.8 3.9 4.5 4.3 3.5 3.3 3.8 3-Room 25.0 24.2 23.5 22.5 24.0 22.6 21.7 19.9 24.7 23.8 4-Room 37.9 39.1 41.1 38.8 38.2 38.3 36.5 38.7 38.3 39.0 5-Room 24.5 24.2 21.0 19.4 22.5 23.2 26.1 28.0 23.9 23.6 Executive 7.7 7.2 6.7 6.4 8.7 7.9 9.3 7.4 7.7 7.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 669,919 702,366 115,260 113,489 71,727 78,759 9,120 13,885 866,026 908,499 * Including Studio Apartments 55
Geographical distribution Jurong West, Tampines, Bedok and Woodlands were among the towns with relatively more households (Chart 3.2). Compared with 2008, the towns that had the largest increase in number of households were Punggol, Jurong West and Sengkang, as there were generally more new flats being built in these areas over the last five years. A higher proportion of smaller flat types (3-room or smaller) was located in mature towns/estates whereas a higher proportion of bigger flat types (4-room or larger) was concentrated in young and middle-aged towns/estate (Table 3.5). Chart 3.2 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Year Number of Households ('000) 80 60 40 20 0 41.6 49.1 16.7 27.8 17.6 18.4 58.7 67.7 61.0 63.3 57.5 59.4 45.9 48.6 47.5 48.1 39.1 40.2 31.2 31.7 29.4 30.6 27.1 27.5 21.9 22.8 21.1 21.2 19.3 19.6 2.4 2.4 58.4 58.8 47.8 49.4 47.5 48.4 2008 2013 35.2 36.1 33.7 35.4 28.1 29.3 29.2 28.7 23.3 23.9 10.4 12.4 7.8 7.8 Sengkang Punggol Sembawang Jurong West Tampines Woodlands Yishun Hougang Choa Chu Kang Bukit Batok Bukit Panjang Pasir Ris Jurong East Serangoon Bishan Bukit Timah Bedok Bukit Merah Ang Mo Kio Toa Payoh Kallang/Whampoa Queenstown Geylang Clementi Central Area Marine Parade Young Towns Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Mature Towns/Estates 56
Table 3.5 HDB Households by Town/Estate and Flat Type HDB Town/Estate 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive Young Towns Total % N Punggol 2.5 2.0 4.1 46.3 41.1 4.0 100.0 27,814 Sengkang 0.8 1.7 3.1 45.5 39.9 9.0 100.0 49,131 Sembawang 0.9 0.6-41.8 41.1 15.6 100.0 18,402 Bishan 2.3 0.6 11.9 47.6 29.1 8.5 100.0 19,582 Bukit Batok 0.7 0.3 31.8 43.3 15.3 8.6 100.0 31,673 Bukit Panjang 0.7 0.4 9.1 47.6 31.1 11.1 100.0 30,558 Bukit Timah - - 18.2 38.0 28.1 15.7 100.0 2,413 Choa Chu Kang 0.8 1.6 3.6 48.7 33.4 11.9 100.0 40,151 Hougang 0.8 1.4 19.7 48.5 20.6 9.0 100.0 48,110 Jurong East 1.3 1.5 28.7 34.3 26.0 8.2 100.0 22,774 Jurong West 0.7 2.2 16.5 40.2 30.8 9.6 100.0 67,694 Pasir Ris 0.6 0.2 0.6 38.6 32.9 27.1 100.0 27,462 Serangoon 0.8 1.0 21.3 48.0 17.7 11.2 100.0 21,162 Tampines 1.3 1.0 19.3 42.9 26.3 9.2 100.0 63,281 Woodlands 2.2 1.2 9.5 44.4 32.3 10.4 100.0 59,395 Yishun 1.1 1.1 27.2 50.1 14.9 5.6 100.0 48,642 Ang Mo Kio 2.7 7.3 49.3 28.0 11.7 1.0 100.0 48,379 Bedok 3.8 3.2 37.7 33.4 17.3 4.6 100.0 58,793 Bukit Merah 9.8 12.0 31.0 28.8 18.3 0.1 100.0 49,448 Central Area 16.4 10.5 37.6 28.2 7.2 0.1 100.0 12,421 Clementi 1.9 2.4 48.3 33.3 11.5 2.6 100.0 23,919 Geylang 3.2 11.1 38.4 31.9 12.5 2.9 100.0 28,657 Kallang/Whampoa 12.3 6.8 36.7 27.7 15.1 1.4 100.0 35,414 Marine Parade - 17.1 38.6 22.9 21.4-100.0 7,814 Queenstown 2.2 11.0 48.1 25.0 12.5 1.2 100.0 29,277 Toa Payoh 3.2 10.2 41.1 26.5 16.6 2.4 100.0 36,133 All 2.7 3.8 23.8 39.0 23.6 7.1 100.0 908,499 Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Mature Towns/Estates 3.2 Household Composition The household composition reflects the characteristics of the people living together and how they are related to one another. Changes to household composition could be a result of changes to family structure due to events such as marriage, divorce, birth or death, which eventually could lead to changes in household size. The analysis of household composition under this section focuses mainly on the types of family nucleus, number of generations in the households and household size. 57
Type of family nucleus Family-based households remained the predominant household type, accounting for 90.8% of HDB households, though the proportion had declined over the years (Table 3.6). Nuclear families formed the majority of family-based households at 76.3%. Compared with 2008, the proportion of family-based households remained unchanged. However, within family-based households, the proportion of extended nuclear and multi-nuclear families rose from 7.4% in 2008 to 8.3% in 2013 and from 4.1% to 6.2% over the same period, respectively. Conversely, the proportion of nuclear family households declined from 79.4% in 2008 to 76.3% in 2013. Table 3.6 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus and Year Type of Family Nucleus 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Family-Based Household 96.9 94.5 91.3 90.9 90.8 Nuclear Family 82.2 82.6 80.4 79.4 76.3 Extended Nuclear Family 8.7 7.5 7.7 7.4 8.3 Multi-Nuclear Family 6.0 4.4 3.2 4.1 6.2 Non-Family Based Household 3.1 5.5 8.7 9.2 9.2 One-Person 2.0 4.6 7.1 8.0 8.4 Unrelated/Distantly Related 1.1 0.9 1.6 1.2 0.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 594,179 728,815 821,126 866,026 908,499 Type of family nucleus by tenure and flat type About 68.4% of the rental households were family-based households, with nuclear families forming the majority (Table 3.7). However, this proportion was lower compared with family-based households in sold flats (92.1%). There were higher proportions of one-person households (23.7%) and households with unrelated or distantly related persons (7.9%) living in HDB rental flats. Compared with 2008, the proportion of family-based households in rental flats had increased while the proportion of non-family based households had decreased. 58
Table 3.7 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Tenure and Year Type of Family Nucleus Rental Sold All 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Family-Based Household 64.2 68.4 92.1 92.1 90.9 90.8 Nuclear Family 60.5 63.1 80.3 77.2 79.4 76.3 Extended Nuclear Family 3.1 3.7 7.6 8.5 7.4 8.3 Multi-Nuclear Family 0.6 1.6 4.2 6.4 4.1 6.2 Non-Family Based Household 35.8 31.6 7.9 7.9 9.2 9.2 One-Person 23.8 23.7 7.3 7.5 8.0 8.4 Unrelated/Distantly Related 12.0 7.9 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 41,108 49,162 824,918 859,337 866,026 908,499 Family-based households were more predominant in the bigger flat types, ranging from 95.7% in 4-room flats to 98.9% in Executive flats (Table 3.8). In relative terms, there were proportionately more non-family based households, especially one-person households, in 3-room and smaller flat types. Nevertheless, the proportion of family-based households in smaller flat types, especially in 1-room flats, had increased from 47.9% in 2008 to 57.2% in 2013. Type of family nucleus by ethnic group of head of household Family-based households remained the most prevalent household type across ethnic groups. While more than 90% of households headed by Malays, Indians and Others consisted of family-based households, the proportion of family-based households headed by Chinese was relatively lower at 89.9% (Table 3.9). There were more one-person households among Chinese households at 9.3%. Among family-based households, nuclear families were the predominant household type across all ethnic groups. However, the proportion of nuclear families for Chinese, Malay and Indian households had declined over the last five years as there was an increase in extended nuclear and multi-nuclear families among these households. Malay nuclear families registered the largest decline as more extended nuclear and multi-nuclear families were formed. 59
Table 3.8 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Flat Type and Year Type of Family Nucleus 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Family-Based Household 47.9 57.2 72.6 74.3 79.8 79.9 95.9 95.7 97.8 97.8 99.2 98.9 90.9 90.8 Nuclear Family 44.8 51.5 69.2 69.4 72.7 69.9 83.1 79.5 83.6 80.8 83.6 79.5 79.4 76.3 Extended Nuclear Family 2.4 3.8 2.4 3.2 5.0 6.0 7.4 9.5 9.5 9.9 11.5 7.8 7.4 8.3 Multi-Nuclear Family 0.7 1.9 1.0 1.7 2.1 4.0 5.4 6.7 4.7 7.0 4.1 11.6 4.1 6.2 Non-Family Based Household 52.1 42.8 27.5 25.7 20.3 20.1 4.1 4.3 2.2 2.3 0.9 1.1 9.2 9.2 One-Person 33.0 29.2 22.6 23.8 19.3 19.2 3.4 3.9 1.7 2.3 0.6 1.1 8.0 8.4 Unrelated/Distantly Related 19.1 13.6 4.9 1.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.5-0.3-1.2 0.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 18,562 24,573 28,614 34,204 213,857 216,163 331,739 354,526 206,799 214,074 66,455 64,959 866,026 908,499 Table 3.9 HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year Type of Family Nucleus Chinese Malay Indian Others All 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Family-Based Household 90.3 89.9 93.4 94.3 92.0 94.1 90.1 94.7 90.9 90.8 Nuclear Family 79.9 76.6 75.9 72.5 79.9 79.7 78.1 80.8 79.4 76.3 Extended Nuclear Family 7.0 7.9 9.4 10.6 8.3 8.3 8.7 7.5 7.4 8.3 Multi-Nuclear Family 3.4 5.4 8.1 11.2 3.8 6.1 3.3 6.4 4.1 6.2 Non-Family Based Household 9.8 10.1 6.6 5.7 7.9 5.9 9.9 5.3 9.2 9.2 One-Person 8.5 9.3 5.9 5.3 6.8 5.0 7.9 4.8 8.0 8.4 Unrelated/Distantly Related 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.4 1.1 0.9 2.0 0.5 1.2 0.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 669,919 702,366 115,260 113,489 71,727 78,759 9,120 13,885 866,026 908,499 60
Number of generations in family-based households Out of the 90.8% family-based households, 66.8% were two-generation families, followed by one-generation families (13.9%) and families with three or more generations (10.1%) as shown in Table 3.10. The proportion of households with two-generation families continued to decline, from 69.9% in 2003 to 66.8% in 2013 while households with three or more generations continued to increase from 7.9% in 2003 to 10.1% in 2013. This is in line with the general increase in extended nuclear and multi-nuclear families as shown in earlier findings in Table 3.6. Table 3.10 HDB Households by Number of Generations and Year Number of Generations 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Family-Based Household 96.9 94.5 91.3 90.9 90.8 One Generation 7.6 10.9 13.5 15.1 13.9 Two Generations 79.4 75.4 69.9 67.2 66.8 Three or More Generations 9.9 8.2 7.9 8.6 10.1 Non-Family Based Household 3.1 5.5 8.7 9.2 9.2 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 594,179 728,815 821,126 866,026 908,499 61
Number of generations in family-based households by flat type There were proportionately more one-generation families in 3-room and smaller flat types. In contrast, higher proportions of households with two or more generations were living in 4-room and bigger flat types (Table 3.11). Compared with 2008, the proportion of one-generation families in 1-room flats increased significantly, from 16.4% to 22.5%. Many of these households comprised siblings living together. There was also a shift in the proportion of one-generation to two-generation families among households living in 2-room flats. Number of generations in family-based households by ethnic group of head of household Two-generation families remained the predominant type of family-based household across different ethnic groups. In particular, there were proportionately more two-generation families among households headed by Malays, Indians and Others (Table 3.12). Compared with 2008, households headed by Indians and Others had registered an increase in the proportion of two-generation families, in line with the increase in family-based households. The proportion of households with three or more generations had also grown across all ethnic groups, as evident from the increase in extended and multi-nuclear families as shown in Table 3.9. 62
Table 3.11 HDB Households by Number of Generations, Flat Type and Year Generations in the Family 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Family-Based Household 47.9 57.2 72.6 74.4 79.8 79.9 95.9 95.7 97.8 97.7 99.1 98.9 90.9 90.8 One Generation 16.4 22.5 21.9 17.0 20.5 18.2 13.0 13.0 13.6 11.0 9.4 9.2 15.1 13.9 Two Generations 29.6 30.9 47.7 54.5 54.4 55.3 73.5 71.3 72.7 74.8 78.2 74.2 67.2 66.8 Three or More Generations 1.9 3.8 3.0 2.9 4.9 6.4 9.4 11.4 11.5 11.9 11.5 15.5 8.6 10.1 Non-Family Based Household 52.1 42.8 27.5 25.6 20.3 20.1 4.1 4.3 2.2 2.3 0.9 1.1 9.2 9.2 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 18,562 24,573 28,614 34,204 213,857 216,163 331,739 354,526 206,799 214,074 66,455 64,959 866,026 908,499 Table 3.12 HDB Households by Number of Generations, Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year Generations in the Family Chinese Malay Indian Others All 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Family-Based Household 90.3 89.9 93.4 94.3 92.0 94.1 90.1 94.7 90.9 90.8 One Generation 16.6 15.2 7.6 7.2 12.7 12.4 16.8 14.3 15.1 13.9 Two Generations 66.1 65.5 71.4 71.5 70.1 71.4 65.6 71.4 67.2 66.8 Three or More Generations 7.5 9.2 14.4 15.6 9.3 10.3 7.7 9.0 8.6 10.1 Non-Family Based Household 9.8 10.1 6.6 5.7 7.9 5.9 9.9 5.3 9.2 9.2 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 669,919 702,366 115,260 113,489 71,727 78,759 9,120 13,885 866,026 908,499 63
Household size Although the average household size had declined since 1968 (Chart 3.3), the rate of decline had slowed down since 1998, from -1.8% in 1998 to -1.2% in 2003 and to -0.5% in 2008. The average household size remained unchanged between 2008 and 2013, at an average of 3.4 persons. Chart 3.3 Average HDB Household Size by Year Household Size (Persons) Annual Rate of Decline (%) 8 6 4 2 0-2 -4 6.2 5.7 5.2 4.8 4.4 4.1-1.7-2.3-1.8-1.5-1.4-1.8 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4-1.2-0.5 0.0 1968 1973 1977 1981 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Average Household Size (Persons) Annual Rate of Decline (%) Household size by flat type Household size increased progressively with size of flat, from an average of 2.0 persons in 1-room flats to 4.1 persons in Executive flats (Table 3.13). Compared with 2008, resident households in almost all flat types exhibited higher average household sizes except for those occupying 4-room and Executive flats. Household size by ethnic group of head of household While the overall average household size stood at 3.4 persons, Malay households had the largest average household size at 4.2 persons (Table 3.14). In comparison, Chinese households had the smallest average household size at 3.3 persons. Between 2008 and 2013, average household size had increased for all ethnic groups, except Chinese households. 64
Table 3.13 HDB Households by Household Size, Flat Type and Year Household Size (Persons) 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 1 Person 33.0 29.2 22.6 23.7 19.3 19.1 3.4 3.9 1.7 2.3 0.6 1.1 8.0 8.4 2 Persons 53.0 51.1 47.2 32.5 29.5 27.8 18.3 18.3 17.6 13.8 10.8 10.6 22.0 20.4 3 Persons 8.8 13.4 16.6 23.6 24.3 23.6 24.3 25.4 20.0 23.7 17.4 17.9 22.1 23.6 4 Persons 3.6 3.7 6.6 11.3 17.8 18.8 31.4 29.2 33.2 32.9 33.1 36.0 27.2 26.7 5 Persons 1.1 2.1 5.0 4.5 6.8 6.9 14.1 14.9 18.2 18.0 27.1 21.8 13.7 13.5 6 or More Persons 0.5 0.5 2.0 4.4 2.3 3.8 8.5 8.3 9.4 9.3 11.0 12.6 7.0 7.4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 18,562 24,573 28,614 34,204 213,857 216,163 331,739 354,526 206,799 214,074 66,455 64,959 866,026 908,499 Household Size (Persons) Average Median 1.9 2 2.0 2 2.3 2 2.6 2 2.7 3 2.8 3 3.7 4 3.6 4 3.8 4 3.9 4 4.1 4 4.1 4 3.4 3 3.4 3 Table 3.14 HDB Households by Household Size, Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year Household Size (Persons) Chinese Malay Indian Others All 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 1 Person 8.5 9.3 5.9 5.3 6.8 5.0 7.9 4.8 8.0 8.4 2 Persons 23.8 22.1 13.5 12.0 18.8 18.4 18.9 16.1 22.0 20.4 3 Persons 22.9 24.7 17.6 18.4 22.5 21.8 25.1 25.2 22.1 23.6 4 Persons 28.1 26.9 20.6 20.4 29.5 33.4 26.3 30.7 27.2 26.7 5 Persons 12.1 12.1 22.2 21.7 14.8 13.6 13.8 13.6 13.7 13.5 6 or More Persons 4.7 4.9 20.2 22.2 7.7 7.8 8.1 9.6 7.0 7.4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 669,919 702,366 115,260 113,489 71,727 78,759 9,120 13,885 866,026 908,499 Household Size (Persons) Average Median 3.3 3 3.3 3 4.1 4 4.2 4 3.5 4 3.6 4 3.4 3 3.7 4 3.4 3 3.4 3 65
Household size by type of family nucleus Multi-nuclear families had the largest average household size of 5.8 persons, followed by extended nuclear families of 4.7 persons (Table 3.15). Even though the overall average household size remained unchanged, the proportion of nuclear families with a household size of four or more persons had declined. Similarly, the proportion of extended nuclear families with five or more persons had dropped as well. On the other hand, the average household size of multinuclear families expanded slightly, with a higher proportion having six or more persons living in the same flat. Table 3.15 HDB Households by Household Size, Type of Family Nucleus and Year Household Size (Persons) Nuclear Family Family-Based Households Extended Nuclear Family Multi-Nuclear Family Non-Family Based Households All 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 1 Person - - - - - - 86.9 91.3 8.0 8.4 2 Persons 26.2 25.7 - - - - 12.9 8.4 22.0 20.4 3 Persons 26.5 29.3 14.6 14.7 - - 0.2 0.3 22.1 23.6 4 Persons 31.0 29.9 23.2 31.0 21.8 20.9 - - 27.2 26.7 5 Persons 12.3 11.9 37.2 32.7 28.4 27.7 - - 13.7 13.5 6 or More Persons 4.0 3.2 25.1 21.6 49.8 51.4 - - 7.0 7.4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 687,224 693,950 64,101 75,114 35,151 56,072 79,550 83,364 866,026 908,499 Household Size (Persons) Average Median 3.4 3 3.4 3 4.8 5 4.7 5 5.8 5 5.8 6 1.1 1 1.1 1 3.4 3 3.4 3 Household size by town/estate Table 3.16 shows the distribution of household size in different HDB towns/estates. Similar to previous years, households in mature towns/estates had a smaller household size, ranging from an average of 2.8 to 3.3 persons. Average household sizes for young towns ranged between 3.5 and 3.8 persons whereas average household sizes in middle-aged towns/estate were generally larger, ranging from 3.2 to 4.0 persons. 66
The findings showed that household size could change with different life-cycle stages of a family, which accounted for the variations in household size across HDB towns/estates. For instance, young towns generally had smaller household sizes compared with middle-aged towns/estate as more residents in young towns were in their early stages of their family life-cycle. Most of these residents in young towns could be newly married couples planning to have children or married with young dependent children. On the other hand, households in mature towns/estates comprised mainly older residents with grown-up children. Most of their adult children would have likely been married and moved out to start their own family. Table 3.16 Average and Median HDB Household Size by Town/Estate and Year HDB Town/Estate Average Household Size (Persons) Median Household Size (Persons) 2008 2013 2008 2013 Average Age of Town in 2013 (Years)* Young Towns Middle-Aged Towns/ Estate Mature Towns/ Estates Punggol 3.5 3.5 3 3 6.0 Sengkang 3.7 3.6 4 4 8.1 Sembawang 3.6 3.8 4 4 8.7 Bishan 3.3 3.2 3 3 21.2 Bukit Batok 3.2 3.5 3 4 20.6 Bukit Panjang 3.7 3.9 4 4 14.9 Bukit Timah 3.5 3.3 4 3 23.8 Choa Chu Kang 3.9 3.9 4 4 14.5 Hougang 3.6 3.5 3 4 19.5 Jurong East 3.5 3.4 4 3 23.1 Jurong West 3.6 3.6 4 4 17.3 Pasir Ris 3.9 4.0 4 4 16.0 Serangoon 3.4 3.5 3 4 21.2 Tampines 3.7 3.9 4 4 20.1 Woodlands 4.0 4.0 4 4 16.4 Yishun 3.6 3.6 4 4 22.2 Ang Mo Kio 3.1 3.0 3 3 28.6 Bedok 3.2 3.3 3 3 26.6 Bukit Merah 2.9 3.0 3 3 28.3 Central Area 2.8 2.8 3 2 31.9 Clementi 3.0 2.8 3 3 28.3 Geylang 3.2 3.1 3 3 29.6 Kallang/Whampoa 2.9 3.0 3 3 29.2 Marine Parade 2.7 2.9 2 3 33.6 Queenstown 2.9 2.8 3 3 32.4 Toa Payoh 2.9 2.9 3 3 29.0 All 3.4 3.4 3 3 21.5 * Based on average age of blocks in town/estate 67
3.3 Economic Characteristics of Households This section focuses on two aspects, namely, the number of income earners in a household and car ownership. 3.3.1 Number of Income Earners With low unemployment rate and a higher labour force participation rate, the average number of income earners continued to increase from 1.7 persons in 2008 to 1.8 persons in 2013 (Chart 3.4). There were proportionately more households with at least two income earners, rising from 57.0% in 2008 to 59.3% in 2013. Chart 3.4 HDB Households by Number of Income Earners and Year Households (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 8.2 5.2 3.1 9.7 9.1 11.3 12.1 12.1 57.7 55.9 50.9 57.0 38.7 41.0 37.4 40.9 41.2 59.3 40.5 39.7 38.7 35.2 32.2 2.6 5.4 8.5 7.8 8.5 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 Average Number of Income Earners (Persons) * Excluding non-response cases Four or more income earners Three income earners Two income earners One income earner No income earner 68
Number of income earners by flat type Generally, households from most flat types had more income earners in 2013 compared with 2008 (Table 3.17). In particular, the increase in the proportion of households with two or more income earners registered a higher growth for households in 2- to 4-room flats. Hence, households living in these flat types recorded a higher average number of income earners. The proportion of households with three or more income earners in 5-room flats had also increased, albeit at a slower rate. Hence, the average number of income earners in 5-room flats remained unchanged. Conversely, there were fewer working persons in households living in 1-room flats. The proportion of households living in 1-room flats with two income earners dropped from 18.8% in 2008 to 13.1% in 2013, whereas the proportion with no income earners increased from 26.5% to 30.8% over the same period. 69
Table 3.17 HDB Households by Number of Income Earners, Flat Type and Year Number of Income Earners (Persons) 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 None 26.5 30.8 26.5 23.1 13.3 13.9 5.2 5.8 3.6 4.1 1.4 3.1 7.7 8.5 1 Person 54.5 54.9 48.5 48.5 45.1 41.0 33.8 28.5 27.8 26.2 24.6 26.5 35.4 32.2 2 Persons 18.8 13.1 21.3 23.8 30.9 32.4 40.9 44.5 51.9 49.2 53.9 47.0 40.9 41.2 3 Persons 0.3 1.2 3.0 3.8 8.0 8.5 14.3 13.9 10.6 13.9 15.6 15.6 11.3 12.1 4 or More Persons - - 0.8 0.8 2.7 4.2 5.9 7.3 6.1 6.6 4.6 7.8 4.8 6.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N* 18,562 24,346 28,211 33,638 213,404 214,501 331,233 351,058 206,379 212,278 66,319 64,409 864,107 900,230 Average Number of Income Earners (Persons) 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.8 * Excluding non-response cases 70
3.3.2 Car Ownership The growth in car ownership tapered off in the period 2008-2013 compared with the preceding period, 2003-2008, arising from the reduction in the vehicle population growth rate since 2009 5. The proportion of households owning cars increased slightly from 31.8% in 2008 to 32.8% in 2013 (Chart 3.5). Chart 3.5 Ownership of Cars of HDB Households by Year Households (%) 40 30 20 10 23.5 27.7 24.5 31.8 32.8 0 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Car ownership by town/estate Compared with 2008, car ownership remained the highest in Punggol, with 51.8% of households owning at least one car (Chart 3.6). This was followed by Pasir Ris (48.8%), Bukit Timah (42.2%) and Bishan (42.0%). Chart 3.6 Ownership of Cars of HDB Households by Town/Estate and Year 100 2008 2013 Households (%) 80 60 40 20 59.2 51.8 44.5 38.4 36.0 37.3 45.2 48.8 47.6 42.2 46.7 42.0 39.4 38.4 34.1 38.3 35.6 38.0 34.6 37.8 34.7 33.1 33.3 32.2 26.3 34.4 35.8 29.9 35.0 29.8 28.2 27.0 26.7 33.5 32.3 30.0 21.8 29.4 23.8 26.6 20.7 26.4 20.6 24.7 19.9 24.7 20.2 24.2 21.6 24.1 12.0 19.3 31.8 32.8 0 Punggol Sengkang Sembawang Pasir Ris Bukit Timah Bishan Tampines Bukit Panjang Choa Chu Kang Woodlands Jurong East Serangoon Bukit Batok Hougang Jurong West Yishun Marine Parade Bedok Bukit Merah Ang Mo Kio Toa Payoh Kallang/Whampoa Clementi Geylang Queenstown Central Area All Young Towns Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Mature Towns/Estates 5 Source: Land Transport Authority, Land Transport Masterplan 2013 71
3.4 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households This section focuses on the socio-economic characteristics of HDB households headed by an elderly person. The profile data covered in Chapter 2.3 and Chapter 3.4 of this monograph provides an analysis of the HDB elderly and future elderly population and households. Number and proportion of elderly and future elderly households In 2013, elderly households made up 18.7% of the total number of households living in HDB flats (Chart 3.7). The number of elderly households had increased significantly in the past five years from 125,603 in 2008 to 169,756 in 2013 (an increase of 4.2 percentage points), reflecting the national trend towards an ageing population. Similarly, the number of future elderly households had also increased over the last five years, from 186,768 in 2008, to 226,549 in 2013. This translates to an increase of 3.3 percentage points, bringing the proportion of future elderly households close to a quarter (24.9%) of all HDB households. Chart 3.7 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Year No. of Households ('000) 1,000 800 600 400 200 186.8 (21.6%) 125.6 (14.5%) 553.6 866.0 226.5 (24.9%) 169.8 (18.7%) 512.2 908.5 Elderly Households Future Elderly Households Non-Elderly Households All Households 0 2008 2013 Type of dwelling by tenure and flat type Although the overall proportion of rental households had increased over the last five years, the proportion of elderly households living in rental flats had declined, from 13.0% in 2008 to 9.7% in 2013 (Table 3.18). This brought the proportion of 72
elderly households living in sold flats to a high of 90.3%, an increase from 87.0% in 2008. The majority of elderly households lived in 3-room (35.9%) and 4-room (34.1%) flats (Table 3.19). Over the past five years, the proportion of elderly households living in 3-room and smaller flat types had declined while the proportion of elderly households living in 4-room and bigger flat types had increased. For future elderly households, the proportions living in 2- to 4-room flats had declined, while the proportions living in 5-room and Executive flats had risen. Table 3.18 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Tenure and Year Tenure Elderly Households Future Elderly Households Non-Elderly Households All Households 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Sold 87.0 90.3 93.8 94.0 97.6 96.2 95.3 94.6 Rental 13.0 9.7 6.2 6.0 2.4 3.8 4.7 5.4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 125,603 169,756 186,768 226,549 553,655 512,194 866,026 908,499 Table 3.19 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Flat Type and Year Flat Type Elderly Households Future Elderly Households Non-Elderly Households All Households 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 1-Room 7.0 6.1 2.8 2.8 0.8 1.6 2.1 2.7 2-Room 7.6 6.5 4.2 4.0 2.1 2.8 3.3 3.8 3-Room 40.3 35.9 24.4 24.2 21.3 19.6 24.7 23.8 4-Room 30.2 34.1 40.8 38.5 39.3 40.9 38.3 39.0 5-Room 12.3 13.4 20.9 21.5 27.5 27.8 23.9 23.6 Executive 2.6 4.0 6.9 9.0 9.1 7.3 7.7 7.1 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 125,603 169,756 186,768 226,549 553,655 512,194 866,026 908,499 Geographical distribution The proportion of elderly households had increased across all towns/estates, except Punggol, Sembawang and Jurong West (Table 3.20). Mature towns/estates had higher proportions of elderly households, ranging from 22.1% 73
in Bedok to 37.9% in Marine Parade. The towns/estates which had the largest increase in the proportion of elderly households were Bishan, Kallang/Whampoa and Bukit Timah. Middle-aged towns/estate had higher proportions of future elderly households compared with mature towns/estates. Yishun and Pasir Ris had the highest increase in the proportion of future elderly households over the last five years. Table 3.20 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Town/Estate and Year Households (%) Total Young Towns Middle-Aged Towns/Estate Mature Towns/Estates HDB Town/Estate Elderly Households Future Elderly Households Non-Elderly Households 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Punggol 3.3 3.0 9.0 13.0 87.7 84.0 100.0 16,693 27,814 Sembawang 4.4 3.7 13.7 19.0 81.9 77.3 100.0 17,640 18,402 Sengkang 2.6 5.0 16.0 18.9 81.4 76.2 100.0 41,571 49,131 Bishan 10.3 24.7 22.1 30.1 67.6 45.2 100.0 19,283 19,582 Bukit Batok 9.6 16.7 23.0 25.5 67.4 57.9 100.0 31,226 31,673 Bukit Panjang 6.3 15.1 23.9 26.1 69.8 58.8 100.0 29,357 30,558 Bukit Timah 21.4 31.2 24.9 29.2 53.7 39.6 100.0 2,414 2,413 Choa Chu Kang 3.8 5.3 18.8 20.6 77.4 74.1 100.0 39,050 40,151 Hougang 15.7 17.7 25.4 28.0 58.9 54.3 100.0 47,535 48,110 Jurong East 16.2 22.6 27.2 27.0 56.6 50.4 100.0 21,899 22,774 Jurong West 9.3 8.5 17.8 23.3 72.9 68.2 100.0 65,353 67,694 Pasir Ris 4.4 7.3 19.4 27.7 76.2 65.0 100.0 27,144 27,462 Serangoon 17.4 18.2 25.3 31.5 57.3 50.3 100.0 21,121 21,162 Tampines 8.5 16.0 25.0 27.5 66.5 56.5 100.0 61,031 63,281 Woodlands 4.7 9.2 15.7 21.5 79.6 69.3 100.0 57,522 59,395 Yishun 9.3 14.1 20.6 29.7 70.1 56.2 100.0 45,920 48,642 Ang Mo Kio 24.7 30.6 20.1 26.0 55.2 43.4 100.0 47,478 48,379 Bedok 17.6 22.1 25.2 29.4 57.2 48.5 100.0 58,358 58,793 Bukit Merah 30.0 30.1 23.7 27.2 46.3 42.7 100.0 47,836 49,448 Central Area 29.1 36.5 25.8 23.0 45.1 40.5 100.0 10,419 12,421 Clementi 23.1 31.2 30.1 24.5 46.8 44.3 100.0 23,297 23,919 Geylang 21.6 30.3 24.7 29.4 53.7 40.3 100.0 29,179 28,657 Kallang/Whampoa 25.1 37.2 22.8 24.3 52.1 38.5 100.0 33,656 35,414 Marine Parade 33.6 37.9 24.7 22.5 41.7 39.6 100.0 7,814 7,814 Queenstown 27.0 34.0 19.9 19.0 53.1 47.0 100.0 28,073 29,277 Toa Payoh 29.8 30.4 23.0 24.0 47.2 45.6 100.0 35,157 36,133 All 14.5 18.7 21.6 24.9 63.9 56.4 100.0 866,026 908,499 % N 74
Type of family nucleus and household size Close to seven in ten of elderly households (68.9%) comprised nuclear families. This proportion was relatively lower compared with future elderly households at 76.0% and non-elderly households at 79.0% (Table 3.21). There were proportionately more one-person households among elderly households (16.6%) compared with future elderly and non-elderly households. Over the last five years, the proportion of elderly and future elderly households with multi-nuclear families had risen slightly, indicating more married children living with their elderly parents. Elderly and future elderly households continued to have a smaller average household size of 2.7 and 3.4 persons, respectively, compared with the average household size of 3.7 persons among non-elderly households. Table 3.21 HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Type of Family Nucleus and Year Type of Family Nucleus Elderly Households Future Elderly Households Non-Elderly Households All Households 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Family-Based Household 80.3 81.7 90.2 89.5 93.4 94.4 90.9 90.8 Nuclear Family 69.7 68.9 79.3 76.0 81.6 79.0 79.4 76.3 Extended Nuclear Family 6.4 5.8 6.3 6.3 8.0 10.0 7.4 8.3 Multi-Nuclear Family 4.2 7.0 4.6 7.2 3.8 5.4 4.1 6.2 Non-Family Based Household 19.8 18.3 9.8 10.5 6.6 5.6 9.2 9.2 One-Person 17.5 16.6 7.8 9.9 6.0 5.0 8.0 8.4 Unrelated/Distantly Related 2.3 1.7 2.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 125,603 169,756 186,768 226,549 553,655 512,194 866,026 908,499 Household Size (Persons) Average Median 2.6 2 2.7 2 3.3 3 3.4 3 3.6 4 3.7 4 3.4 3 3.4 3 75
3.5 Summary of Findings The total number of occupied HDB households stood at 908,499 in 2013, registering an annual growth rate of 1.0% for the period 2008-2013. The majority 94.6% of households was living in sold flats, with 4-room flats being the predominant flat type, followed by 3-room and 5-room flats. With the increase in the supply of rental and smaller flat types in recent years to help the vulnerable families, the proportions of rental and sold 1- and 2-room flats increased slightly over the past five years. Family-based households remained the predominant household type (90.8%), though the proportion had declined over the years. While nuclear families were on the decline, extended nuclear and multi-nuclear families were on the rise. Non-family based households accounted for 9.2% of all households in 2013, a significant increase from 3.1% in 1993. The increase was mainly attributed to the rising proportion of one-person households, from just 2.0% to 8.4% over the same period. Overall, the average household size for HDB households remained at 3.4 persons, reflecting growing trends of fewer children per family and oneperson households, amid the trend of increasing number of extended nuclear and multi-nuclear families. Elderly households accounted for 18.7% of the total households living in HDB flats, an increase of 4.2 percentage points over the past five years. The majority of elderly households were living in 3- and 4-room flats, though there was also a sizeable proportion living in rental 1- and 2-room flats. However, compared with five years ago, the proportion of those living in rental flats had dropped. There were proportionately more one-person households among the elderly households. This proportion had dropped over the past five years with more of them living in multi-nuclear families. With improved labour market and higher labour force participation rate, households with two or more income earners continued to increase from 50.9% in 2003 to 59.3% in 2013, giving rise to an average of 1.8 income earners per household. Car ownership level had increased slightly from 31.8% in 2008 to 32.8% in 2013. 76
Part 1 Conclusion Profile of HDB Population and Households
Part 1 Profile of HDB Population and Households Conclusion Amid globalisation, HDB communities are becoming more diverse with an increase in the proportion of minority ethnic groups living in the heartlands. The ideal community would be one that accepts and respects every individual regardless of class, culture, beliefs and interests. Such a community would preserve social harmony with strong social integration and cohesion. Given the availability and opportunity to pursue higher education, the education profile of the employed resident population had improved significantly compared with the population in the past. Coupled with a strong economic growth in recent years, improved productivity, as well as continual training and upgrading, a gradual shift in occupation towards higher-skilled jobs was evident. Hence, maintaining a sustainable, dynamic, vibrant and competitive economy is crucial in creating good jobs and opportunities for growth to meet the aspirations of residents and to provide them with a good quality of life. HDB, as a housing provider, would need to regularly review its products and services to cater to the changing needs and expectations of the residents. Against the backdrop of changing socio-demographic profiles of the population, the landscape of the household composition is also changing. While familybased households remained the predominant household type, the proportion had declined over the years. Correspondingly, non-family based households, mainly one-person households, were emerging. Within family-based households, there was an increasing trend of extended nuclear and multi-nuclear families, while nuclear families were on the decline. Therefore, it is important to keep track of these changes as it would have bearing on housing policies and development. 79
Increasing longevity, rising singlehood, late marriages and declining fertility rates resulted in a fast-ageing resident population over the years. To cater to the ageing population and to facilitate ageing-in-place, there is a need to gear up initiatives and programmes to improve the physical and social living environment. In addition, there is also a need to improve elderly residents economic well-being. This could be done by enhancing their employability through expanding employment opportunities, enhancing cost competitiveness, upgrading of skills, and shaping a positive perception of ageing. These would help to keep them physically active and socially engaged, thus enabling them to live through their silver years with grace and dignity. Keeping tab of these changes and evolutions are important as HDB caters to a diverse group of individuals with different housing aspirations and needs. 80
Part 2 Housing Satisfaction and Preferences
Part 2 Housing Satisfaction and Preferences Introduction With over 80% of the resident population living in HDB towns/estates, the HDB living is a way of life for most residents in Singapore. The 23 towns and three estates are planned to be self-sufficient with a comprehensive range of estate facilities at the precinct, neighbourhood and town/estate level. As a public housing provider, HDB has been instrumental in creating and maintaining the physical environment in which residents live and interact over the past 54 years. With the growing population over recent years, the living density has increased and is expected to grow further in the coming years. Changing demographics and an ageing population would also have implications on the physical provision in the towns/estates. In order to continually and progressively enhance the design of its flats and neighbourhoods, and to meet the needs and aspirations of the residents, it is important to track their changing needs. The findings in this part of the monograph assessed residents satisfaction with housing in terms of their physical living environment and facilities provided in HDB estates and their pride and attachment to their homes. Residents housing preferences were assessed in terms of their residential mobility (both in the past and within next five years) and housing aspirations, which would provide a more complete assessment of the HDB living experience. These findings would serve as a useful reference for HDB to continually review its provisions in its role as a public housing provider. 83
Objectives The objectives of Part 2 are as follows: a) To determine residents satisfaction with their physical living environment, whether they find their flat to be value for money and sense of pride towards their flat; b) To understand aspects that make residents proud of or be attached to their homes; c) To examine residents housing preferences by looking at past residential mobility and their housing aspirations; and d) To understand the perception of ageing-in-place among residents of different cohort groups Framework The HDB living experience is examined through drawing associations between housing satisfaction and housing preferences. Housing satisfaction is assessed in terms of residents satisfaction with their physical living environment which includes flat, neighbourhood and estate facilities; views on value for money of flat and sense of pride towards their flat. Aspects about HDB living environment that residents like and dislike are also identified, as well as perception of lift reliability. Housing preferences include the aspects of residential mobility and housing aspirations. Residential mobility examines residents length of residence, information on their previous move(s), as well as residents intentions to move within the next five years. Housing aspirations look at the housing types that residents are content with as well as their perception of ageing-in-place. This section has three chapters. Chapters 4 and 5 cover residents satisfaction with their immediate (flat) and external living environment (neighbourhood and estate facilities), as well as their sentiments towards other aspects of the flat. Housing preferences in terms of mobility and aspirations are discussed in Chapter 6. 84
Framework for Housing Satisfaction and Preferences Overall Physical Living Environment Satisfaction with Flat & Neighbourhood Likes and Dislikes about HDB Living Environment Perception of Lift Reliability Pride & Attachment to Home Value for Money of Flat Sense of Pride towards Flat Aspects that Define a Flat as a Home Estate Facilities Satisfaction & Usage of Estate Facilities Suggestions for Additional Facilities Places Residents Spent Their Time HDB Living Experience Physical Living Environment Housing Aspirations Ageing-In-Place Residential Mobility Housing Aspirations Length of Residence Types of Move Movement across Housing Types & Towns Intention to Move Within Next 5 Years - Types of move - Preferred housing type Housing Type Content With Perception of Ageing-In-Place 85
4 Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment
Chapter 4 Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment As a public housing provider in Singapore, it is crucial that HDB provides quality internal and external living environment for its residents. This chapter looks at households satisfaction with flat and neighbourhood, liked and disliked aspects of the HDB living environment, perception of lift reliability, views on whether their flat is value for money, sense of pride towards flat as well as aspects that define HDB flat as a home. 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat and Neighbourhood Typically, residents tended to associate flat with physical aspects such as size, design and layout, condition and view from flat. Non-physical aspects such as what defines a home, as well as the economic value of the flat could also be associated with flat. The subject neighbourhood includes physical attributes such as cleanliness and maintenance, safety and security, provision of estate facilities and location; as well as social attributes such as relationships with neighbours. In this section, residents satisfaction with the physical aspects of flat and neighbourhood are discussed. 89
Majority satisfied with their flat Overall, 91.6% of households expressed satisfaction with their flat (Chart 4.1). Although this proportion had remained high at more than 90% across the years, it was observed that the proportion of households who was satisfied with their flat dropped by about five percentage points compared with 2008. For households who were satisfied with their flat, reasons cited included having no major problems with their flat, flat was spacious or it was comfortable. For households who were dissatisfied with their flat, the main reason was due to the condition associated with ageing flats. Chart 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat by Year 100 93.4 93.3 94.3 94.2 96.4 91.6 Households (%) 80 60 40 20 0 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Satisfaction with flat remained high across all flat types, with proportions ranging from 87.7% for 1-room to 92.9% for 5-room flats (Table 4.1). Generally, lower proportions of households living in smaller flat types were satisfied with their flat. In comparison with 2008, the proportion of households who was satisfied with their flat had declined across all flat types in 2013. Table 4.1 Satisfaction with Flat by Flat Type and Year Flat Type Households (%) 2003 2008 2013 1-Room 96.1 98.5 87.7 2-Room 96.9 95.3 89.8 3-Room 95.9 96.5 91.4 4-Room 94.3 96.5 91.2 5-Room 92.8 96.5 92.9 Executive 90.9 94.7 92.1 * Excluding non-response cases 90
The satisfaction level with flat was high, at above 90%, across all households of various socio-economic attributes such as tenure of flat, age of residents and length of residence. However, analysis by age showed that a higher proportion of elderly households (aged 65 and above) was satisfied with their flat (95.4%) compared with other age groups (ranging from 90.3% to 91.3%). Majority satisfied with their neighbourhood The majority of households (92.0%) expressed satisfaction with their neighbourhood in 2013 (Chart 4.2). Although this was a slight decrease compared with previous years, satisfaction levels had remained consistently high at above 90% for the past few decades. The main reason for satisfaction was attributed to friendly environment/neighbours or peaceful/quiet environment. Those who were dissatisfied cited noisy, inconsiderate or unfriendly neighbours. Chart 4.2 Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Year 100 95.7 95.3 95.5 93.3 95.1 92.0 Households (%) 80 60 40 20 0 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 The satisfaction level with neighbourhood was high across households of various socio-economic attributes such as tenure of flat, flat type, age of residents and length of residence. Further analysis showed that satisfaction with neighbourhood generally increased with length of residence. Similar to satisfaction with flat, households who expressed the highest satisfaction level for neighbourhood were likely to be elderly households who were living in the same neighbourhood for a longer period of time. 91
Greater sense of belonging among residents satisfied with neighbourhood The analysis of residents sense of belonging attempts to find out whether residents are satisfied with their neighbourhood and if they have a sense of familiarity to the people and the living environment. For those who were satisfied with their neighbourhood, a higher proportion expressed a sense of belonging towards their towns/estates (99.4%) compared with those who were dissatisfied (91.9%). The survey showed an association between satisfaction with neighbourhood and sense of belonging towards the town/estate. 4.2 Likes and Dislikes about HDB Living Environment Residents liked the location and transportation network of their living environment This section examines the aspects that residents like and dislike about the HDB living environment. During the survey, residents were asked to indicate the aspects that they liked and disliked about the HDB living environment, followed by the main reason for their most-liked and most-disliked aspect. Aspects that residents liked most were the Location of their flat/neighbourhood (39.5%) and Transportation Network (14.7%), as shown in Table 4.2. Among households who chose Location as their most-liked aspect, they attributed it to being close to facilities/town centre and transportation or it was conveniently located and easy to get to places. As for households who chose Transportation Network as their most-liked aspect, the main reason was that it was convenient to travel around. 92
Table 4.2 Most-Liked Aspects about HDB Living Environment Aspects 2013 1. Location 39.5 2. Transportation Network 14.7 3. Size of Flat 7.2 4. Provision of Estate Facilities 5.6 5. Safety/Security 4.0 6. Upgrading Programmes 3.6 7. Neighbours 3.5 8. Adequacy of Open/Green Spaces 3.2 9. View from Flat 2.7 10. Cleanliness & Maintenance 2.6 11. Flat Design/Layout 2.6 12. Ventilation (Flat) 2.5 13. Purchased Price of Flat 1.9 14. Privacy 1.6 15. Walkability 1.3 16. Provision of Carpark 0.9 17. Protection from Weather 0.9 18. Block Design 0.6 19. Choice of Flat Types 0.5 20. Safety from Traffic 0.4 21. Seats/Benches 0.2 Total % 100.0 N* 890,260 * Excluding non-response cases In contrast, aspects that residents disliked most were Noise (19.2%) and Cleanliness and Maintenance (19.1%), as shown in Table 4.3. Among households who indicated Noise as their most-disliked aspect, they disliked the noise from their environment such as from nearby facilities, neighbours and traffic. As for households who pointed out Cleanliness and Maintenance as their mostdisliked aspect, the main reason cited was that the area was generally dirty, not regularly cleaned or maintained, or littering/disposal of bulky items by inconsiderate neighbours. Town Council s involvement by improving the cleanliness and maintenance of the estates, as well as educating residents on good social behaviour could address these concerns. 93
Table 4.3 Most-Disliked Aspects about HDB Living Environment Aspects 2013 1. Noise 19.2 2. Cleanliness & Maintenance 19.1 3. Transportation Network 8.2 4. Provision of Carpark 7.1 5. Protection from Weather 5.8 6. Safety from Traffic 4.4 7. Safety/Security 4.3 8. Purchased Price of Flat 4.1 9. Provision of Estate Facilities 3.6 10. Upgrading Programmes 3.5 11. Flat Design/Layout 2.9 12. Neighbours 2.6 13. Seats/Benches 2.5 14. Ventilation (Flat) 2.2 15. View from Flat 2.1 16. Size of Flat 1.8 17. Block Design 1.3 18. Adequacy of Open/Green Spaces 1.3 19. Privacy 1.1 20. Location 0.9 21. Walkability 0.7 22. Choice of Flat Types 0.1 23. Others (e.g. pests, workmanship of flat) 1.2 Total % 100.0 N* 707,799 * Excluding non-response cases 4.3 Perception of Lift Reliability Majority of the residents felt that their lifts were reliable Lift reliability is an important component in high-rise living. With ageing population, it is crucial that lifts are reliable so as to facilitate living within a highrise environment. The majority of households viewed the reliability of lift services in their estate positively, with 85.6% of them perceiving the lift to be reliable (Chart 4.3). This proportion had remained the same compared with ten years ago. The main reason cited among those who felt otherwise was frequent lift breakdowns. Several households also felt that the lift was unresponsive or had slow response. 94
Chart 4.3 Perception of Lift Reliability by Year 100 80 85.6 85.6 Households (%) 60 40 20 0 2003 2013 Note: Lift reliability was not included in SHS 2008 4.4 Value for Money and Sense of Pride towards Flat The HDB Resale Price Index (RPI), which tracks the overall price movement of the public residential market, serves as a general guide on the prices of HDB flats over the years. The RPI has been increasing steadily from 2008 to mid- 2013. Hence, it is important to find out whether residents still find their flat value for money since the last SHS in 2008. In addition, it is also important to know homeowners sense of pride towards their home. This sense of pride encompasses not only their flat, but also their external living environment, such as location and the provision of facilities. Majority found HDB flats value for money Overall, the majority of households (90.3%) from sold and rental flats agreed that their flat was value for money. There was an increase in the proportion of homeowners from 85.7% in 2008 to 90.4% in 2013 who agreed that their flats were value for money (Chart 4.4), with Executive flats having the most substantial increase of 13.9 percentage points over the past five years (Charts 4.5). The highest proportions of households who felt that their flat was value for money were mainly those living in 3- and 4-room flats (93.2% and 91.5%, respectively). The main reason cited by households living in sold flats was price appreciation, lower/reasonable/affordable purchase price or good/convenient location of the flat. Households living in rental flats, which comprised mainly 1- and 2-room flats, 95
cited paying reasonable/affordable rental, cheap/lower rent than market rate or good/convenient location of flat as their main reason. Chart 4.4 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Tenure and Year 100 86.7 87.1 85.7 90.4 85.8 90.3 Households (%) 80 60 40 20 2008 2013 0 Rental Sold All Chart 4.5 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year Households (%) 100 80 60 40 20 85.7 85.8 88.0 86.4 90.0 93.2 87.4 91.5 87.5 82.7 86.5 85.8 90.3 72.6 2008 2013 0 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All Across all blocks of various ages, households living in blocks aged 6 to 10 years (93.6%) and more than 30 years (93.4%) had the highest proportion of those who agreed that their flat was value for money (Chart 4.6). Besides price appreciation, those living in blocks aged 6 to 10 years claimed that they were able to purchase their flat at a reasonable/affordable price, while those living in blocks aged above 30 years felt that their flat was in a good/convenient location. Households who lived in blocks aged 6 to 10 years bought their flats during a relatively stable period of the property cycle from 2003 to 2007, where the HDB RPI fluctuated between 98.2 and 121.7. This was before the rise of HDB RPI from 126.2 to 202.9 from 2008 to 2012. As for households living in blocks aged above 30 years, most of them live in mature towns/estates with a good spread of facilities and where the towns/estates are well-connected by transportation networks. Lower proportion of households living in blocks aged below 6 years and between 11 and 15 years agreed that their flat was value for money, at 86.0% and 86.9%, 96
respectively. The main reason cited was due to the high purchase price. All households from blocks aged below 6 years and a large proportion of households living in blocks aged 11 to 15 years who bought their flats between 2008 and 2012, could be affected by the rise in property prices during that period. Chart 4.6 Value for Money of HDB Flat by Age of Block Households (%) 100 80 60 40 86.0 93.6 86.9 89.5 88.2 90.5 93.4 90.3 20 0 Below 6 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31 & Above Age of Block (Years) All Higher pride level among flat owners Overall, 70.4% of households living in sold and rental flats were proud of their flat (Chart 4.7). The main reason for being proud of flat was due to their sense of ownership or good/convenient location; while those who were neutral or not proud cited that it was common to live in an HDB flat or that housing was considered a basic necessity. However, the proportion of those who were proud of their flat dropped by about 10 percentage points from 2008 to 2013 for both sold and rental flats. While the proportion of households who were not proud remained about the same over the past five years, those who felt neutral towards their flat had increased by 10.4 percentage points in sold flats and 8.8 percentage points in rental flats. The proportion of households who was proud of their flat was significantly higher among residents living in sold flats (71.0%) compared with rental flats (59.2%). Many homeowners cited having a spacious flat as the main reason, besides having good/convenient location or the ability to own the flat they lived in. The main reason for feeling neutral or not proud from rental tenants was because they had no emotional attachment towards their flat or they felt it was common to live in an HDB flat. 97
Chart 4.7 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Tenure and Year Households (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 8.1 10.2 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.1 21.8 14.8 15.2 25.2 30.6 25.5 70.1 81.2 80.7 71.0 59.2 70.4 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 Rental Sold All Not Proud Neutral Proud A higher proportion of households living in Executive flats was proud of their flat (74.0%) as shown in Chart 4.8. Besides having a sense of ownership, households living in Executive flats cited having a spacious flat as their reason for feeling proud. The proportion of those who were neutral towards their flat had increased across all flat types from 2008 to 2013, with 4-room flats having the largest increment of 12.4 percentage points. Chart 4.8 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year Households (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 5.3 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.7 1.7 4.7 4.1 4.1 16.5 25.0 78.2 70.9 15.4 80.7 27.8 68.4 13.1 83.1 23.7 71.6 15.2 83.1 21.3 74.0 15.2 80.7 25.5 70.4 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All & Smaller Not Proud Neutral Proud Further analysis by length of residence showed that households who lived in their flat for more than 20 years had the highest pride level (Chart 4.9). They felt proud of their flat due to their ability to own it or that the flat was in a good/convenient location. Higher proportions of households who lived in their flat for less than 21 years were neutral towards their flat. Those who were neutral towards their flat felt that living in an HDB flat was common. Households who lived in their flat for less than 98
6 years had a slightly higher proportion who was not proud (5.7%). The main reason cited by these households was a lack of emotional attachment towards their flat. Chart 4.9 Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Length of Residence 100 5.7 3.8 4.0 3.1 2.9 3.3 4.1 Households (%) 80 60 40 20 25.8 27.6 26.0 26.3 22.8 21.8 25.5 68.5 68.6 70.0 70.6 74.3 74.9 70.4 Not Proud Neutral Proud 0 Below 6 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 31 & Above Length of Residence (Years) All Residents regarded HDB flat as a home This section examines aspects of a home, a new section introduced in SHS 2013 to understand residents perspective of what they consider as important in transforming their flat into a home. Residents were first asked for the reason that motivated them to purchase their current flat, after which they were asked to select the aspects that were important to them with regard to their home. A high proportion of households (93.8%) bought their current flat as a home to live in, while 4.9% of households bought their current flat as a home to live in and as an investment (Table 4.4). This implied that residents main purpose in buying a flat was to provide a home for their family, more than just an investment. Table 4.4 Reasons for Buying Current HDB Flat (Sold Flats) Reasons All As a home to live in 93.8 Both as a home to live in and an investment 4.9 As an investment 0.3 Others (e.g. good location, stay near parents/relatives) 1.0 Total % 100.0 N* 858,121 * Excluding non-response cases 99
Family a defining aspect of a home The majority of households (83.4%) viewed family as an important aspect that made a flat a home (Table 4.5). This was followed by sense of privacy and security that a home could provide (63.8%). Table 4.5 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important when Defining a Home Aspects Household (%) Family 83.4 Privacy/Security of Home/Comfort 63.8 Sense of Ownership 30.5 Neighbours/Community 25.5 Sense of Attachment 8.5 By Household Life-Cycle Stage Non-family households had the lowest proportion who viewed family (41.7%) as an important aspect. Higher proportions of them valued privacy/security of home/comfort (74.6%) and sense of ownership (40.5%), compared with familybased households (Table 4.6). A higher proportion of families without children placed emphasis on privacy/security of home/comfort and sense of ownership. These families were likely to be young couples who felt a sense of accomplishment to be able to purchase their first flat. Table 4.6 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important when Defining a Home by Household Life-Cycle Stage Households (%) Aspects Family without Children Family with Young Children Family with Teenaged Children Family with Unmarried Grown-up Children Family with Married Children Elderly Couple Living Alone Non-Family Households Family 82.7 90.0 90.0 88.3 90.0 83.9 41.7 Privacy/Security of Home/Comfort 67.8 64.1 63.2 60.4 61.1 62.8 74.6 Sense of Ownership 34.3 27.9 24.0 31.1 27.8 35.5 40.5 Neighbours/Community 24.2 24.8 25.0 23.5 29.2 26.3 29.4 Sense of Attachment 8.1 6.9 8.3 8.7 7.2 5.4 13.4 100
By Marital Status The majority of the married, widowed and divorced/separated residents (Table 4.7) viewed family as an important aspect of a home while higher proportion of singles viewed sense of privacy as an important aspect. This finding was consistent with the analysis by life-cycle stages whereby non-family households placed more emphasis on privacy/security of home/comfort and sense of ownership. Table 4.7 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important when Defining a Home by Marital Status Households (%) Aspects Married Single Widowed Divorced/ Separated All Family 89.0 56.5 80.4 70.5 83.4 Privacy/Security of Home/Comfort 62.1 75.8 60.3 64.9 63.8 Sense of Ownership 28.8 37.4 35.9 31.6 30.5 Neighbours/Community 25.0 25.9 28.1 28.3 25.5 Sense of Attachment 7.5 13.0 10.2 10.1 8.5 By Length of Residence The proportion of households who valued sense of ownership was higher for those with length of residence of more than 20 years (Table 4.8). This coincided with the finding that their sense of pride was also higher. Table 4.8 Aspects that Households Perceived as Important when Defining a Home by Length of Residence Households (%) Aspects Below 6 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-30 years 31 years & Above All Family 79.6 86.6 83.4 83.7 87.0 83.3 83.4 Privacy/Security of Home/Comfort 66.8 66.7 63.2 63.9 57.0 60.1 63.8 Sense of Ownership 30.5 28.8 27.7 26.5 34.1 45.0 30.5 Neighbours/Community 26.3 25.9 22.6 29.1 26.0 25.2 25.5 Sense of Attachment 8.4 10.1 7.5 6.7 9.0 10.1 8.5 101
4.5 Summary of Findings Satisfaction levels with the HDB physical living environment continued to be high among HDB households despite a slight decline compared with past years. The majority of HDB households was satisfied with their flat (91.6%) and neighbourhood (92.0%). Location and Transportation Network were identified by residents as the most-liked aspects in the living environment. In addition, the majority of households also perceived the lift to be reliable (85.6%). A high proportion of households (90.4%) who purchased their current flat agreed that their flat was value for money, mainly due to price appreciation. Although seven in ten households were proud of their homes, this was a decrease compared with five years ago. Relatively, the proportion who felt neutral towards their flat had increased as the majority of them felt that it was common to live in an HDB flat and housing was a basic necessity. The majority of households (93.8%) bought their flat primarily as a home to live in and less so for investment purposes. More than eight in ten households viewed family as an important aspect that made a flat a home. Close to two-thirds felt that their home was a place that provided them with a sense of privacy and security. 102
5 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities
Chapter 5 Satisfaction and Usage of Estate Facilities HDB Towns are planned comprehensively to be self-sufficient, providing not just residential homes but also a convenient environment where residents can enjoy a wide range of facilities and amenities that can increasingly meet their lifestyle needs. In short, it is an environment wherein they can work, live, play and learn. With changing demographics and transformations in society and the economy, it is important to continually monitor residents satisfaction with and usage level of the various facilities in HDB towns/estates. This will allow HDB to meet the needs and expectations of residents due to changing lifestyle. This chapter looks at residents satisfaction with estate facilities, acceptance level of facilities at mid-level deck, usage of estate facilities and places in the estate where residents usually spend their time. 5.1 Satisfaction with Estate Facilities High satisfaction with provision of estate facilities Overall satisfaction with provision of estate facilities remained high at 96.1%, a slight increase from 94.4% in 2008 (Chart 5.1). Chart 5.1 Overall Satisfaction with Estate Facilities by Year 100 89.6 87.2 93.4 94.4 96.1 Households (%) 80 60 40 20 0 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 105
Estate facilities catered to residents different needs Satisfaction with specific categories of estate facilities was also high, ranging from 80.4% for transportation facilities to 95.0% for education facilities (Table 5.1). Compared with five years ago, satisfaction levels with most of these facilities had remained high. The facilities that had garnered higher satisfaction level over the past five years were markets or market-produce shops/stalls (from 87.5% in 2008 to 94.7% in 2013), sports facilities (from 85.2% in 2008 to 88.9% in 2013) and eating establishments (from 89.0% in 2008 to 92.4% in 2013). Table 5.1 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Year Types of Estate Facilities Households (%) 2003 2008 2013 Commercial Facilities (i) General Retail Shops - HDB shop/neighbourhood centre - 89.1 89.9 - Shopping centre/shopping mall - 89.9 90.8 - Overall 85.6 93.3 93.4 (ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls - Dry/wet market - - 85.4 - Supermarket - - 94.1 - Overall 83.6 87.5 94.7 (iii) Eating Facilities - Hawker centre - - 86.3 - Eating house (e.g. coffee shop) - - 88.3 - Food court - - 89.1 - Fast food outlet - - 94.2 - Overall 85.5 89.0 92.4 Transportation Facilities 84.1 84.1 80.4 Sports Facilities 81.8 85.2 88.9 Recreational & Leisure Facilities 86.3 89.1 91.7 Precinct Facilities 88.5 88.7 86.7 Community Facilities 94.3 94.6 Education Facilities 96.0 96.5 95.0 Health/Medical Facilities 87.8 90.1 85.7 Financial Facilities 80.7 85.5 86.7 Overall Satisfaction 93.4 94.4 96.1 The types of facilities that had decreased in satisfaction were health/medical facilities (85.7%) and transportation facilities (80.4%). For health/medical facilities, the proportion of residents who were satisfied decreased from 90.1% in 2008 to 85.7% in 2013. Among those who were 106
dissatisfied with health/medical facilities (14.3%), they found the number of polyclinics insufficient or that the polyclinics were located too far away from their home (30.9%). Residents also claimed to have faced long waiting time at the polyclinics (27.7%). This situation will likely be alleviated with MOH s plans to build more polyclinics in the near future. New polyclinics can be expected in Punggol and Jurong West area. Existing polyclinics in Tampines, Ang Mo Kio and Bedok are being refurbished or redeveloped. 6 The proportion of households who expressed satisfaction with transportation facilities was the lowest, compared with other estate facilities, at 80.4%. Among the two in ten residents who were dissatisfied with transportation facilities, over two-thirds of them (67.4%) felt that bus services were either limited/incomprehensive (29.4%), irregular (23.1%) or overcrowded (7.5%). Under the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP), about 40 new services will be introduced and 800 buses will be added. This will help improve the waiting time for buses and provide a more comfortable journey. 7 Residents in smaller flat types more satisfied Generally, overall satisfaction level with estate facilities decreased as flat size increased (Table 5.2). This was likely due to the higher expectations of residents living in bigger flat types. Nonetheless, the overall satisfaction with provision of estate facilities ranged from 93.4% to 98.6% across all flat types. It was observed that slightly lower proportions of households living in 1- and 2- room flats were satisfied with food courts and hawker centres, respectively. Main reason cited was due to lack of such facilities in their estates. For those living in 3-room flats, they were concerned with the lack of financial facilities such as banks and ATMs. Households living in 3-room and bigger flat types were also concerned with transportation facilities, in particular, insufficient and irregular bus services. 6 7 Ministry of Health: COS Speech by Minister for Health Gan Kim Yong Better Health for All, 12 March 2013. Retrieved on 15 September 2014 (https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/pressroom/speeches_d/ 2013/COS2013SpeechBetterHealthforAllPart1of2.html). Land Transport Authority: Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP). Retrieved on 15 September 2014 (http://www.publictransport.sg/content/publictransport/en/homepage/bus-service-enhancement-programmebsep.html). 107
Table 5.2 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Flat Type Types of Estate Facilities Households (%) 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All Commercial Facilities (i) General Retail Shops - HDB shop/neighbourhood centre 95.7 95.4 95.5 89.3 85.5 84.3 89.9 - Shopping centre/shopping mall 94.6 94.5 95.0 90.0 87.6 88.0 90.8 - Overall 98.0 97.0 97.0 93.4 89.9 89.6 93.4 (ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls - Dry/wet market 94.2 89.6 93.0 83.7 80.7 79.6 85.4 - Supermarket 94.0 94.6 96.3 94.2 92.4 91.8 94.1 - Overall 98.1 95.4 97.7 94.3 92.1 93.8 94.7 (iii) Eating Facilities - Hawker centre 91.9 88.1 93.5 83.4 82.9 80.4 86.3 - Eating house (e.g. coffee shop) 94.0 92.3 93.9 87.4 85.3 80.3 88.3 - Food court 88.8 93.7 94.0 88.6 86.5 83.6 89.1 - Fast food outlet 93.4 94.1 95.9 93.6 93.7 93.1 94.2 - Overall 96.7 94.9 96.7 91.7 90.3 85.7 92.4 Transportation Facilities 90.3 91.1 88.0 79.5 74.0 72.4 80.4 Sports Facilities 95.3 96.7 91.6 89.8 85.0 81.7 88.9 Recreational & Leisure Facilities 98.6 97.5 94.6 91.0 89.4 87.6 91.7 Precinct Facilities 94.6 93.8 88.7 86.5 85.5 79.0 86.7 Community Facilities 99.3 95.5 95.7 95.4 93.4 88.7 94.6 Education Facilities 98.7 98.6 96.4 94.7 93.8 93.6 95.0 Health/Medical Facilities 93.3 96.1 90.2 84.7 81.4 82.7 85.7 Financial Facilities 92.2 88.8 87.8 86.2 85.3 87.0 86.7 Overall Satisfaction 97.6 98.1 98.6 95.8 94.3 93.4 96.1 * Excluding non-response cases Satisfaction differed across various household life-cycle stages Overall satisfaction with estate facilities was high at above 94%, across all households with families in different life-cycle stages (Table 5.3). Among them, with the exception of elderly couples living alone, a lower proportion of households was satisfied with transportation facilities. The main reason cited was insufficient or irregular bus services. For elderly couples living alone, a lower proportion was satisfied with health/medical facilities as they had concerns with long waiting time at polyclinics and lack of polyclinics in the vicinity. 108
Table 5.3 Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Household Life-Cycle Stage Households (%) Types of Estate Facilities Family without Children Family with Young Children Family with Teenaged Children Family with Unmarried Grown-up Children Family with Married Children Elderly Couple Living Alone Non-Family Household All Commercial Facilities (i) General Retail Shops - HDB shop/neighbourhood centre 87.7 86.3 89.7 91.4 87.3 93.6 94.9 89.9 - Shopping centre/shopping mall 86.0 86.7 91.5 92.3 89.4 95.4 94.8 90.8 - Overall 90.6 90.2 93.8 94.5 91.7 96.6 97.6 93.4 (ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls - Dry/wet market 83.3 80.9 84.9 85.9 85.7 87.0 92.1 85.4 - Supermarket 93.2 93.5 94.3 94.8 92.9 93.8 95.2 94.1 - Overall 93.3 93.7 95.0 94.7 94.4 95.4 97.0 94.7 (iii) Eating Facilities - Hawker centre 83.5 83.0 85.8 87.0 83.7 92.6 91.2 86.3 - Eating house (e.g. coffee shop) 85.6 85.7 87.8 89.2 85.2 93.2 94.1 88.3 - Food court 86.6 89.0 88.1 89.8 87.7 89.3 92.6 89.1 - Fast food outlet 93.2 94.0 93.9 94.7 93.5 93.2 95.4 94.2 - Overall 89.8 90.7 92.4 92.7 91.3 94.1 96.3 92.4 Transportation Facilities 73.6 76.6 77.9 82.0 79.7 91.8 86.1 80.4 Sports Facilities 88.9 85.3 88.0 90.2 86.4 94.5 92.6 88.9 Recreational & Leisure Facilities 89.7 88.3 92.0 93.0 89.9 96.2 94.6 91.7 Precinct Facilities 86.3 85.3 84.9 87.6 85.8 89.6 89.2 86.7 Community Facilities 94.1 92.9 95.2 95.4 93.1 94.9 96.5 94.6 Education Facilities 96.1 86.2 96.7 97.9 93.5 96.6 99.2 95.0 Health/Medical Facilities 86.2 85.3 83.9 85.2 84.5 86.1 91.7 85.7 Financial Facilities 84.1 85.6 85.1 86.7 85.3 91.4 91.9 86.7 Overall Satisfaction 94.9 94.1 96.4 96.6 95.6 97.5 98.0 96.1 * Excluding non-response cases 109
5.2 Facilities at Mid-Level Deck Questions related to mid-level deck facilities were incorporated in SHS 2013, to understand residents acceptance of such facilities. Mid-level deck facilities refer to any facilities that are provided above ground level in a block of flats. With increased living density, provision of mid-level deck within a block could be explored to optimise space usage. Existing contracts with such provisions include Central Horizon and Pinnacle@Duxton. Examples of some facilities provided at mid-level deck were fitness corner for adults and senior citizens, children playground and viewing deck. Residents liked the idea of having facilities at mid-level deck within block About 60% of residents liked the idea of having facilities located at mid-level deck within the block (Table 5.4). The main reason cited was convenience/easy accessibility (25.4%) or more space for activities/social gatherings (15.8%). For those who did not like the idea, they were concerned about noise generated by residents using these facilities (16.5%). Table 5.4 Reasons for Liking/Not Liking the Idea of Having Facilities at Mid-Level Deck Reasons All Yes 60.1 Convenience/easy accessibility 25.4 More space for activities/social gatherings 15.8 Like the idea/do not mind 5.5 Able to meet neighbours/like-minded people 2.4 Sheltered 1.9 Others (e.g. nice view, more greenery) 9.1 No 39.9 Noise 16.5 Not necessary/nobody will use/waste of space 4.3 Might be overcrowded due to limited space 3.6 No privacy/security 3.2 Prefer ground floor facilities 3.0 Make the place dirty/messy 1.5 Others (e.g. need to take lift to facilities, no benefit) 7.8 Total % 100.0 N* 885,854 * Excluding non-response cases 110
Residents who liked the idea of having facilities at mid-level deck were asked to suggest up to three facilities. They suggested providing facilities such as garden (20.6%), fitness corner/station (14.5%) and seats & benches (8.3%) on the midlevel deck (Table 5.5). Table 5.5 Suggestions for Facilities at Mid-Level Deck Facilities All Recreational/Leisure Facilities 36.1 Garden 20.6 Playground 7.5 Library 1.4 Gardening plot 1.3 Leisure facilities in general 0.9 Others (e.g. karaoke, elderly facilities in general) 4.4 Sports Facilities 26.6 Fitness corner/station 14.5 Gym 5.9 Jogging track 2.3 Swimming pool/complex 1.8 Others (e.g. indoor courts, multi-purpose courts) 2.1 Precinct Facilities 24.7 Seat/bench 8.3 Resident/senior resident corner 4.6 BBQ Pit 3.1 Study corner/reading room 2.8 Function room 1.5 Others (e.g. chit-chat corner, more lightings) 4.4 Commercial 5.2 Provision shop/convenience store/minimart/kiosk 2.0 Others (e.g. eating facilities, supermarket) 3.2 Education Facilities 4.3 Kindergarten/playgroup facilities 3.5 Others (e.g. education/enrichment centre) 0.8 Others (e.g. community/public facilities, medical facilities) 3.1 Total % 100.0 No. of Responses* 913,473 * Residents were asked to suggest up to three mid-level deck facilities Younger residents more receptive to having facilities at mid-level deck For residents who were less receptive to the idea of having facilities at mid-level deck within the block, a higher proportion of them was living in Executive flats. Their main concern was about noise generated by residents using these facilities. Comparatively, younger residents below 35 years old, families with young or teenage children and families without children were more receptive to the idea as 111
they cited convenience/easy accessibility of having facilities sited at mid-level deck (Table 5.6). Table 5.6 Preference for Facilities at Mid-Level Deck within the Block by Attributes Attributes Whether Liked the Idea of Facilities at Mid-Level Deck Total Yes No % N* Flat Type 1-Room 61.9 38.1 100.0 23,961 2-Room 65.0 35.0 100.0 34,097 3-Room 60.3 39.7 100.0 212,567 4-Room 60.1 39.9 100.0 351,021 5-Room 60.0 40.0 100.0 212,484 Executive 56.2 43.8 100.0 64,816 Age Group (Years) Below 35 68.4 31.6 100.0 85,048 35-44 61.6 38.5 100.0 207,163 45-54 61.0 39.0 100.0 260,857 55-64 56.8 43.2 100.0 207,098 65 & Above 55.9 44.1 100.0 138,779 Household Life-Cycle Stage * Excluding non-response cases Family without children 64.8 35.2 100.0 71,296 Family with young children 64.9 35.1 100.0 148,549 Family with teenaged children 60.0 40.0 100.0 134,185 Family with unmarried grown-up children 58.3 41.7 100.0 285,572 Family with married children 58.8 41.2 100.0 121,133 Elderly couples living alone 55.3 44.7 100.0 42,198 Non-family households 58.2 41.8 100.0 95,718 5.3 Usage of Estate Facilities To determine usage levels, residents were asked about the frequency of use of various estate facilities, either by themselves or by their family members. The list of estate facilities covered can be seen in Table 5.7. 112
Table 5.7 Usage Level of Estate Facilities Types of Estate Facilities Commercial Facilities At Least Once a Week Households (%) Less Than Once a Week Total Never Use % N* Supermarket 80.0 18.3 1.7 100.0 901,364 Wet/dry market 72.0 19.3 8.8 100.0 881,841 Shop 63.5 31.3 5.2 100.0 897,073 Hawker centre 64.4 29.6 6.0 100.0 681,765 Eating house/coffee shop 61.6 31.3 7.1 100.0 894,322 Food court 45.3 43.1 11.6 100.0 838,549 Fast food outlet 22.7 54.1 23.2 100.0 870,278 Sports & Recreational Facilities Fitness station/jogging track 27.4 28.8 43.9 100.0 880,978 Neighbourhood park/common green 19.8 37.2 43.0 100.0 875,233 Regional/town park 16.9 36.8 46.3 100.0 814,959 Playground 16.5 17.0 66.5 100.0 891,345 Roof garden at top level of MSCP 8.4 20.6 71.0 100.0 193,665 Hard/multi-purpose court 4.7 18.2 77.1 100.0 756,767 Precinct & Community Facilities Covered linkway 82.3 14.4 3.2 100.0 878,094 Drop-off porch 36.2 38.3 25.6 100.0 791,242 Precinct pavilion 16.6 30.9 52.5 100.0 725,942 Pavilion shelter 16.4 33.6 49.9 100.0 739,859 Void deck 25.6 36.6 37.9 100.0 870,270 Regional/community library 15.4 42.8 41.9 100.0 860,102 Trellis 13.6 27.5 58.9 100.0 587,700 Community club 9.0 35.9 55.1 100.0 877,536 * Excluding non-response cases ** Analysis was based on responses of residents who were provided with the facility and were aware of the presence of such a facility in their estates/neighbourhoods or towns Commercial facilities important and well-patronised In general, commercial facilities were well-utilised except for fast food outlets, which households patronised less frequently. The proportion who patronised the various commercial facilities at least once a week ranged from 22.7% for fast food outlets to 80.0% for supermarkets. Generally, only a small proportion of households did not patronise such facilities. Households were found to patronise supermarkets more frequently than dry/wet markets possibly because they offered a wider range of products, better 113
shopping environment and longer operating hours. While patronage levels for hawker centres and eating houses/coffee shops were comparable, it was lower for food courts and fast food outlets, probably due to higher food prices and limited choices of food served. As commercial facilities were provided to meet the daily needs of residents, their patronage levels were significantly higher compared with sports and recreational facilities, as well as precinct and community facilities. Sports & recreational facilities, as well as precinct & community facilities well-utilised Among those who used the facilities at least once a week, fitness corner/jogging tracks (27.4%) and neighbourhood parks/common greens (19.8%) had the highest usage levels for sports and recreational facilities. On the other hand, usage levels for roof gardens at top level of multi-storey carpark (MSCP) and hard/multi-purpose courts were lower at 8.4% and 4.7%, respectively. Lower usage levels, however, did not mean that the facilities were under-utilised, as they catered to residents of different age groups. Moreover, within a typical precinct of about 800 dwelling units, a 5% usage level of at least once a week translates to at least 40 households using the facilities once or more often within a week. The covered linkway (82.3%) was the most frequently used facility compared with other precinct facilities. This indicates that they are useful for providing sheltered linkages for residents to get to different activity nodes in the precinct. Besides covered linkways, usage of drop-off porches and void decks were also significant, with about 36.2% and 25.6% of households using them at least once a week. Usage levels of estate facilities generally lower among households in smaller flat types As households living in smaller flat types were more likely to be older or had lower household incomes, they patronised commercial facilities less often than those living in bigger flat types (Table 5.8). They also patronised wet/dry markets more frequently, compared with supermarkets and HDB shops. On the other 114
hand, higher proportions of households from bigger flat types patronised the eating houses/coffee shops, food courts and fast food outlets compared with those living in smaller flat types. Hawker centres offered affordable food and variety, thus they were popular among households of all flat types. For sports and recreational facilities, higher usage levels were observed among households living in bigger flat types compared with smaller flat types. This could be due to higher proportions of older residents in smaller flat types having lower household income. In terms of precinct and community facilities, the covered linkway was the most frequently used facility across all flat types. Higher usage levels for drop-off porches and regional/community libraries were also observed among households living in bigger flat types. Table 5.8 Proportion of Households who Used Estate Facilities at Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Flat Type Types of Estate Facilities Households (%) 1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All Commercial Facilities Wet/dry market 57.7 65.4 75.2 74.2 69.1 66.8 72.0 Supermarket 51.6 64.3 74.0 82.8 84.7 87.5 80.0 Shop 51.4 56.5 61.4 66.0 63.9 63.9 63.5 Hawker centre 55.6 54.0 68.0 64.1 64.4 61.4 64.4 Eating house/coffee shop 52.7 52.3 59.9 63.3 62.7 63.1 61.6 Food court 17.6 24.5 34.7 46.7 55.0 58.0 45.3 Fast food outlet 8.0 10.1 15.1 23.8 28.9 33.9 22.7 Sports & Recreational Facilities Fitness station/jogging track 16.3 15.5 24.5 29.1 30.4 28.4 27.4 Playground 4.9 13.2 12.0 19.1 18.1 18.5 16.5 Regional/town park 6.1 10.1 13.5 18.3 19.2 20.8 16.9 Neighbourhood park/common green 9.0 11.4 15.4 22.0 22.5 21.8 19.8 Roof garden at top level of MSCP 0.7 0.9 4.8 10.4 11.2 8.4 8.4 Hard/multi-purpose court 0.5 3.0 3.5 5.4 5.2 5.6 4.7 Precinct & Community Facilities Covered linkway 69.9 81.8 82.5 83.6 82.5 79.4 82.3 Drop-off porch 15.7 26.9 29.9 36.2 44.6 42.8 36.2 Precinct pavilion 13.7 21.4 19.0 16.2 15.6 12.5 16.6 Pavilion shelter 15.3 20.6 19.3 15.6 15.7 12.4 16.4 Trellis 10.3 17.6 15.9 13.6 12.7 7.2 13.6 Void deck 22.9 16.8 26.9 28.0 23.5 19.8 25.6 Regional/community library 4.6 8.1 9.4 16.2 20.9 20.8 15.4 Community club 5.7 5.0 7.0 9.9 10.1 9.6 9.0 * Excluding non-response cases 115
Usage levels of estate facilities differed across various household life-cycle stages Families at different life-cycle stages have different needs, which are reflected in the usage levels of various estate facilities provided in their living environment (Table 5.9). Commercial facilities were found to be well-utilised by all households across the different life-cycle stages. A higher proportion of elderly couples living alone patronised wet/dry markets. It was also observed that lower proportion of households with elderly couples living alone and non-family household patronised HDB shops, food courts and fast food outlets. In general, a higher proportion of families with young children used sports and recreational facilities more often compared with other households. Playgrounds, in particular, had the highest usage level among other facilities. Nonetheless, fitness stations/jogging tracks were well-used by households across all family lifecycle stages. Precinct and community facilities, such as covered linkways, were well-used by all households across the various family life-cycle stages. A higher proportion of families with young children also used the precinct and community facilities more often, compared with other households. The usage level of drop-off porches was observed to be lower for elderly couples living alone and non-family households. It was found that a higher proportion of elderly couples living alone, spent their time at void decks. It can be seen that void deck spaces are potential bonding spaces for residents to meet and interact, especially for elderly residents who tend to meet within the block or near their homes. 116
Table 5.9 Proportion of Households who Used Estate Facilities at Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Household Life-Cycle Stage Households (%) Types of Estate Facilities Family without Children Family with Young Children Family with Teenaged Children Family with Unmarried Grown-up Children Family with Married Children Elderly Couple Living Alone Non-Family Household All Commercial Facilities Wet/dry market 63.2 69.6 73.9 75.0 76.6 82.1 59.9 72.0 Supermarket 80.2 87.7 84.2 78.9 80.4 78.1 66.0 80.0 Shop 64.5 73.4 63.2 61.7 64.5 54.1 56.7 63.5 Hawker centre 70.1 64.8 61.0 64.7 61.9 65.5 65.3 64.4 Eating house/coffee shop 69.6 65.5 59.8 60.6 60.0 53.7 60.9 61.6 Food court 52.8 57.0 49.7 41.6 43.7 29.1 34.9 45.3 Fast food outlet 23.8 37.3 31.4 17.5 23.9 4.8 9.8 22.8 Sports & Recreational Facilities Fitness station/jogging track 27.4 31.7 30.4 26.1 27.3 27.9 20.5 27.4 Playground 4.9 49.2 14.6 6.1 24.2 7.0 2.5 16.5 Regional/town park 18.9 22.6 20.1 13.9 17.9 12.7 11.6 16.9 Neighbourhood park/common green 18.9 26.1 20.7 17.9 20.7 21.7 13.8 19.8 Roof garden at top level of MSCP 6.7 14.5 9.6 6.9 9.4 3.9 3.6 8.4 Hard/multi-purpose court 2.8 7.8 6.7 3.7 5.2 2.7 1.7 4.7 Precinct & Community Facilities Covered linkway 84.1 85.2 82.5 81.8 82.4 82.5 77.9 82.3 Drop-off porch 37.6 49.5 39.0 32.6 39.9 21.2 23.5 36.2 Precinct pavilion 16.1 20.8 17.1 13.8 17.4 12.9 18.0 16.6 Pavilion shelter 17.2 21.3 16.5 13.7 17.5 14.1 16.0 16.4 Trellis 13.7 19.4 12.9 12.0 12.7 10.4 12.7 13.6 Void deck 22.2 30.3 21.1 24.9 26.6 32.9 24.3 25.5 Regional/community library 10.1 30.4 22.8 9.8 15.3 4.3 7.5 15.4 Community club 7.0 13.6 10.1 7.0 9.1 8.3 7.7 9.0 * Excluding non-response cases 117
Usage levels reflected changing lifestyle of residents In general, usage levels for commercial facilities had increased over the past five years. This could be a reflection of the changing lifestyles due to rising affluence or shift in preferences. In particular, there was increased patronage of supermarkets and eating establishments such as hawker centres, eating houses/coffee shops and food courts (Table 5.10). Usage of sports and recreational facilities continued to rise as more residents engaged in sports and were conscious of leading healthier lifestyles. This was reflected by a slight increase in the usage levels for most of the sports and recreational facilities, in particular, fitness corners/jogging tracks and parks. Over the years, the usage level of covered linkways had continued to increase. However, usage levels for other precinct facilities such as precinct pavilions and void decks had decreased significantly over the past five years. As void deck spaces are also used for siting social communal facilities such as childcare/eldercare facilities and Residents Committee, the available void spaces have reduced. The drop in overall usage level showed a shift in residents preferences as there were other alternatives such as shopping centres, coffee shops or parks. In addition to void deck spaces, the precinct pavilion also provides a place for social functions and informal gatherings for residents. It is a popular venue for residents to hold functions such as weddings and funerals. The drop in usage of precinct pavilions could be partly attributed to changing lifestyle needs or availability of alternative venues for such functions. 118
Table 5.10 Proportion of Households who Used Estate Facilities at Least Once a Week by Types of Estate Facilities and Year Types of Estate Facilities Households (%) 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 Commercial Facilities Market/supermarket 89.2 89.6 85.7 87.1* 89.2* Wet/dry market - - - - 72.0 Supermarket - - - 72.6 80.0 Shop 77.1 78.4 63.6 59.3 63.5 Hawker centre 59.0 67.7 60.6 57.7 64.4 Eating house/coffee shop/food court 47.6 61.9 57.3 62.8* 66.3* Eating house/coffee shop - - - 59.5 61.6 Food court - - - 44.4 45.3 Fast food outlet - - - - 22.8 Sports & Recreational Facilities Fitness station/jogging track - 10.2 18.8 24.6 27.4 Playground - 23.2 17.9 16.3 16.5 Park 16.8 23.3 16.1 20.7* 22.4* Regional/town park - - - 11.3 16.9 Neighbourhood park/common green - - - 18.3 19.8 Roof garden at top level of MSCP - - - - 8.4 Hard/multi-purpose court - 8.3 5.3 5.9 4.7 Precinct & Community Facilities Covered linkway - - 69.1 77.3 82.3 Drop-off porch - - 20.5 35.7 36.2 Precinct pavilion - - 23.7 42.6 16.6 Pavilion shelter - - 12.3 20.6 16.4 Trellis - - - 13.8 13.6 Void deck - - 20.3 32.3 25.6 Regional/community library - - 20.1 17.7 15.4 Community club - - 7.1 8.9 9.0 * Items mentioned were grouped for the purpose of trend analysis 5.4 Places in Estate where Residents Usually Spent their Time A new set of questions was added in this SHS to find common places within the estate, where residents usually spent their time, either alone or in groups. Residents were asked to name one location or facility and what attracted them to that place. They were also asked on the main activity carried out and who they carried out the activity with. 119
Residents usually spent their time at commercial facilities Overall, close to seven in ten residents usually spent their time at commercial facilities such as shopping centres/complexes (34.0%) and coffee shops (10.5%) as shown in Table 5.11. About 16.1% of them spent their time mostly at recreational/leisure facilities such as parks/gardens (8.8%). Table 5.11 Places where Residents Usually Spent their Time in Estate Facilities All Commercial Facilities 68.5 Shopping centre/complex 34.0 Coffee shop 10.5 Supermarket 6.4 Market/stall 5.5 Hawker centre 4.4 Shops at town centre 3.4 Food court/eating house 1.4 Provision shop/convenience store/minimart/kiosk 0.9 Others (e.g. neighbourhood/hdb shop) 2.0 Recreational/Leisure Facilities 16.1 Park/garden 8.8 Playground 3.3 Library 1.9 Park connector/promenade 0.8 Others (e.g. SAFRA/club house/civil service club) 1.3 Precinct Facilities 5.8 Void deck 4.0 Resident/senior citizen corner 0.4 Pavilion shelter 0.4 Others (e.g. corridor, precinct pavilion) 1.0 Sports Facilities 4.1 Fitness corner/station 1.6 Jogging track 0.9 Sports complex/stadium 0.6 Swimming pool/complex 0.5 Others (e.g. gym) 0.5 Community Facilities 3.8 Community centre 1.9 Religious institution 1.6 Others (e.g. RC) 0.3 Others (e.g. family/relative s/sibling s home) 1.7 Total % 100.0 N* 846,712 *Excluding non-response cases 120
Further analysis was carried out on the top three facilities within the estate where residents usually spent their time. For shopping centres/complexes, the main attractions were the availability of a good variety of shops, supermarket within the premises and the convenient location of the shopping centres/complexes. Generally, residents patronised the shopping centres/complexes with their family members for general and grocery shopping, as well as for dining. Residents also spent their time at the nearby coffee shops for the variety of food available. The coffee shops served as a good social setting for residents to mingle and bond with their friends and family members over meals. Residents also liked to spend time at the nearby parks/gardens to enjoy the nature/greenery while exercising or walking/strolling, with their family members or on their own. 5.5 Summary of Findings Overall satisfaction with the provision of estate facilities remained high at 96.1%, a slight increase from 94.4% in 2008. Satisfaction levels with the various categories of estate facilities were also high, ranging from 80.4% for transportation to 95.0% for education facilities. About 60% of residents liked the idea of having facilities at mid-level deck within the block due to convenience/easy accessibility, or having more spaces for activities/social gatherings. Residents who liked the idea suggested facilities such as garden (20.6%), fitness corner/station (14.5%) and seat & bench (8.3%) at the mid-level deck. For those who did not like the idea, they were concerned with the noise generated by residents using these facilities. With an increased living density, the provision of mid-level deck facilities within a block could be explored to optimise space usage. Weekly usage levels for estate facilities had remained encouraging with most facilities experiencing an increase in usage over the last five years. In particular, more patronised supermarkets, as well as eating establishments such as hawker centres, eating houses/coffee shops and food courts over the past five years. Compared with commercial facilities, usage levels for sports and recreational facilities, as well as precinct and community facilities were generally lower. 121
Some of these facilities catered to the needs of specific groups of residents. However, compared with five years ago, usage levels for sports and recreational facilities had increased, in particular, fitness corners/jogging tracks and parks. Covered linkways were most frequently used compared with other precinct facilities. Over the years, the usage level of covered linkways had continued to increase, while usage levels for other precinct facilities, such as precinct pavilions and void decks, had decreased. The top three common places within the estate where residents spent most of their time were shopping centres/complexes (34.0%), coffee shops (10.5%) and parks/gardens (8.8%). 122
6 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations
Chapter 6 Residential Mobility and Housing Aspirations Residents housing needs, expectations and aspirations change over time due to various factors such as changes in household size, household income and the general economic performance of Singapore as well as in personal life. In addition, housing prices and housing types offered, as well as housing policies that encourage homeownership over different periods of time also play important roles in shaping residents housing mobility and aspirations. Another significant factor to be taken into consideration is the changing demographic profile of the residents, especially in view of the increasing population of older residents among the HDB population. As HDB continues to strive towards providing affordable homes, it is therefore important to examine how residential mobility and housing aspirations of residents have changed over the years. Specifically, tracing the patterns of residential movement provides HDB with a better understanding of the residents preferred towns and housing types. These would be useful information for HDB s planning and policy reviews related to housing provision. 6.1 Past Residential Mobility This section tracks the residential movement of households since marriage 8. It presents the findings on the type of housing families first started living in when they got married, the length of residence in their previous housing unit 9 and the type of move they made from previous to current housing. 8 Refers to the marriage of the head of household. 9 Refers to the housing unit that resident lived in before moving to the current flat. 125
Among the 908,499 households surveyed, 87.8% of the household heads were either married or had ever been married 10. Among them, a higher proportion of these households started their marriage life living rent-free with their parents/relatives/friends (20.4%) or in a sold 3-room (19.2%) or 4-room (20.8%) flat after they got married (Table 6.1). The first housing unit of younger residents tended to be bigger as more lived in sold 4- or 5-room flats, compared with older residents whose first housing unit tended to be 3-room flats. About 27.4% of them indicated that they had not moved from their current flats since their marriage. The remaining 72.6% had moved at least once. Table 6.1 First Housing Type Lived in After Getting Married First Housing Type Age of Head of Household (Years) Below 35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above All Stayed Rent-Free 20.9 18.2 19.4 22.3 22.0 20.4 HDB Rental Flat 4.7 2.1 4.8 14.2 17.9 8.6 Rental* 21.2 17.2 10.7 10.9 23.2 15.2 Attap/Shop Houses/ Staff Quarters - - - 0.1 1.1 0.2 1- & 2-Room 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.6 1.6 0.9 3-Room 9.6 11.2 21.9 25.3 21.6 19.2 4-Room 21.8 27.5 26.2 16.1 8.9 20.8 5-Room 18.3 20.1 12.2 7.3 1.9 11.6 Executive 3.2 2.4 3.1 1.2 0.5 2.1 Private Housing** - 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N*** 64,303 163,199 215,571 174,907 124,840 742,820 * Including rental of HDB flat and private housing from open market ** Refers to private condominiums, apartments, terrace houses, detached houses, etc. *** Excluding non-response cases Length of residence remained the same over past five years In 1998, households average length of residence in their previous housing was 8.7 years. This had since increased to 10.2 years in 2008 and had remained the same in the next five years leading to 2013 (Chart 6.1). This trend suggested a certain degree of moderation in residents desire to change residences over the years. As an increasing proportion of younger residents are now residing in 4- room or bigger flats upon marriage, these flat types would still be able to meet their needs for more space even upon the arrival of children. 10 Refers to household heads who were previously married, but separated, divorced or widowed at the time of survey 126
Chart 6.1 Average Length of Residence in Previous Housing Unit by Year Length of Residence (Years) 12 8 4 0 10.2 10.2 9.4 8.7 1998 2003 2008 2013 More households made lateral moves in past five years Among households who indicated at least one change in residence since their marriage, the majority had upgraded 11 their residences (Chart 6.2). However, compared with 2008, the proportion of households who upgraded had decreased slightly from 70.1% to 67.5%. While the proportion who downgraded remained relatively constant, the proportion that moved laterally had increased. These changes in mobility pattern could be due to a multitude of factors. The higher property prices over the past five years could have dampened the upgrading pattern as fewer households could afford to do so. In addition, residents who got married in recent years tended to purchase 4-room or bigger flat types. Thus, there was a lower possibility of them upgrading and even if they wanted to move, it was more likely to be a lateral move to the same flat type, perhaps for reasons such as moving to an estate/town with more facilities or to be near relatives/friends. 11 For easy reference and discussion, the terms Upgrade, Lateral Move and Downgrade are used to describe residents housing mobility. Residents have upgraded when they moved from a smaller to a bigger flat type or from a rental housing unit to a sold flat. Residents who made lateral moves are those who moved across similar flat types, with tenure remaining the same. Residents have downgraded when they moved from a bigger to a smaller flat type or from private housing to current flat or from sold housing unit to an HDB rental flat. As residents may move for various reasons, the terms should not be interpreted as positive when residents upgrade or negative when residents downgrade e.g. a resident could have downgraded due to a decrease in household size instead of financial difficulty. 127
Chart 6.2 Types of Move by Year 100 Households (%) 80 60 40 20 70.1 65.5 67.5 20.0 16.9 14.4 14.5 15.5 15.6 2003 2008 2013 0 Upgrade Lateral Move Downgrade Among households who upgraded from their previous housing unit, the main reasons were that they needed a bigger flat, mainly due to an increase in household size or a preference to upgrade (Table 6.2). Other more commonly cited reasons included moving out of parents /sibling s place to start their own family due to marriage and moving to a place with more facilities. For households who made lateral moves, besides the main reason of wanting more facilities, they also wanted a location that was nearer to their family members or relatives or a place that offered a conducive/pleasant environment. Among households who downgraded, housing affordability was the most common reason cited. Another reason mentioned was that they wanted to obtain cash gain from the sale of their previous flat. This was more prominent among those who moved in the past five years due to the appreciation of flat prices in recent years. Other reasons included wanting a smaller flat due to personal preference or decrease in household size and wanting a location that offered more facilities. 128
Table 6.2 Reasons for Moving to Present Flat by Type of Move Reasons for Moving to Present Flat Upgrade Type of Move Lateral Move Downgrade All Bigger flat/upgrade (due to e.g. increase in household size/ personal preference) 30.8 - - 21.7 Moved out of parents /sibling s place to start own family 15.0 11.4 3.6 12.7 More facilities 10.8 19.2 11.5 12.1 Able to afford flat at the location 9.6 10.9 19.8 11.4 To be closer to family members or relatives 7.0 14.1 9.2 8.4 Conducive/pleasant environment 7.1 12.3 5.3 7.6 Better accessibility to place of work 4.8 10.2 4.5 5.5 To make cash gain through sale of previous flat 1.5 6.4 16.3 4.5 To own a flat 4.5 0.7 0.1 3.3 Previous housing affected by housing programmes (e.g. SERS, resettlement) Smaller flat/downgrade (due to e.g. personal preference/ decrease in household size) 2.2 3.9 1.5 2.3 - - 14.1 2.2 Divorced 0.5 0.8 6.2 1.4 Accessibility to school 1.1 2.3 2.3 1.4 Others (e.g. familiar with neighbourhood, convenient location, good transportation network) 5.1 7.8 5.6 5.5 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 No. of Responses* 333,167 66,478 74,585 474,229 * Excluding non-response cases A higher proportion of younger residents upgraded compared with older residents, where about 70.0% of residents aged below 45 years old upgraded, compared with less than 60.0% of those aged 45 years and above who did so (Table 6.3). Younger residents were upgrading to fulfil their housing aspiration and could afford to do so as many of them were gainfully employed and had many more working years ahead. Older residents, on the other hand, might choose to move into a smaller flat as household size would decrease once their children got married and moved out. Some would have monetised for retirement needs. 129
Table 6.3 Types of Move by Age Group of Residents at Point of Move Age Group at Point of Move (Years) Type of Move Total Upgrade Lateral Move Downgrade % N* Below 35 78.5 15.3 6.2 100.0 175,409 35-44 71.5 16.2 12.3 100.0 208,915 45-54 58.7 20.9 20.4 100.0 90,959 55-64 37.9 20.9 41.2 100.0 34,323 65 & Above 29.0 18.2 52.8 100.0 22,460 All 67.5 16.9 15.6 100.0 554,238 * Excluding non-response cases Among households who had moved at least once, 39.6% of them were previously living in the same town/estate (Chart 6.3). Analysis by present towns/estates showed that generally, middle-aged (41.6%) and mature (43.2%) towns/estates had higher proportions of households who were previously residing in the same towns, compared with young towns (15.6%). Chart 6.3 Extent of Geographical Move of HDB Households by Present Town/Estate 100 80 Same town/estate Other town/estate 78.1 87.7 94.7 41.2 50.6 51.7 55.4 58.1 59.6 62.2 63.6 72.9 74.8 74.9 75.2 83.7 51.1 51.7 52.0 55.2 57.7 59.0 58.7 59.3 66.7 69.3 60.4 Households (%) 60 40 20 0 21.9 12.3 5.3 58.8 49.4 48.3 44.6 41.9 40.4 37.8 36.4 27.1 25.2 25.1 24.8 16.3 48.9 48.3 48.0 44.8 42.3 41.0 41.3 40.7 33.3 30.7 39.6 Sengkang Sembawang Punggol Jurong West Tampines Woodlands Bukit Batok Yishun Choa Chu Kang Jurong East Hougang Pasir Ris Bishan Serangoon Bukit Panjang Bukit Timah Bedok Clementi Bukit Merah Queenstown Ang Mo Kio Toa Payoh Geylang Central Area Marine Parade Kallang/Whampoa All Young Towns (15.6%)* Middle-Aged Towns/Estate (41.6%)* Mature Towns/Estates (43.2%)* * Overall proportion of households who moved within same town in the specific town category 130
6.2 Intention to Move within Next Five Years Intention to move stabilised over past five years More than one in ten households (12.4%) intended to move within the next five years (Chart 6.4). Intention to move had decreased since 1998 and had started to stabilise from 2008. Chart 6.4 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Year Households (%) 40 20 0 35.7 18.6 11.5 12.4 1998 2003 2008 2013 The stabilisation in mobility trend towards the later years suggested that more households intended to remain in their current place. This could be due to their familiarity with the living environment and also the satisfaction with their flat. Further analysis showed that compared with households who intended to move, those who had no intention to move in the near future were more satisfied with their flats, neighbourhood and estate facilities. A higher proportion of them was proud of their flats and viewed their flats as value for money. Younger residents or those living in smaller flat types had greater intention to move The intention to move was more prevalent among younger residents aged below 45 years with at least 19.4% of them intended to do so in the near future (Chart 6.5). In contrast, lower proportion of older residents had the intention to move. This reflects the greater sense of attachment that older residents have to their place of residence. Households living in smaller flat types were more inclined to move (Chart 6.6). Among households living in 1- and 2-room flats, 17.3% of them expressed their intention to move compared with 8.0% of those living in Executive flats. 131
Chart 6.5 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Age Group 30 24.4 Households (%) 20 10 19.4 11.1 7.8 4.2 12.4 0 Below 35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above All Age Group (Years) Chart 6.6 Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Flat Type Households (%) 20 17.3 15.0 11.1 11.8 8.0 12.4 0 1- & 2- Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All Note: 1- & 2-room flats are grouped together to ensure sufficient sample size Proportion of residents intending to upgrade increased over past decade Among households who intended to move within the next five years, about six in ten wanted to upgrade to either a bigger HDB flat or private property (Chart 6.7). While the proportion of households that intended to upgrade to another HDB flat had increased over the past decade from 34.0% to 48.5%, those who planned to downgrade had decreased from 32.6% to 19.2%. Chart 6.7 Type of Potential Move by Year Households (%) 60 40 20 32.6 29.5 19.2 18.0 19.4 17.7 37.9 34.0 48.5 15.4 13.2 14.6 2003 (N*=152,805) 2008 (N*=96,492) 2013 (N*=109,870) 0 Downgrade Lateral Move Upgrade (HDB) * Excluding non-response cases Upgrade (Private Properties) 132
Higher preference for 4-room flat Overall, about 27.0% of households who intended to move indicated their preference for 4-room flats (Chart 6.8). This was followed by 22.1% who preferred 5-room flats and 16.1% who preferred private housing. Although 4-room flats had remained the most popular choice, the proportion of households who preferred this flat type continued to drop over the past decade from 38.6% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2013. Households preference to upgrade either to a bigger flat or move into private housing was observed to have risen as preference for 5-room flat and private properties had increased since 2008. The preference for Studio Apartment (SA) had also increased over the past decade from 0.5% in 2003 to 2.5% in 2013. This increase is likely due to a rise in the elderly population, where those aged 55 years and above are eligible to apply for SA. Chart 6.8 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Year Households (%) 60 40 20 0.5 0.7 2.5 4.8 3.5 3.4 19.0 20.5 14.4 38.6 30.8 26.9 15.8 16.0 22.1 5.0 6.5 5.9 2003 (N*=152,805) 2008 (N*=96,492) 2013 (N*=110,530) 14.5 13.3 16.1 1.8 8.7 8.7 0 Studio Apartment 1- & 2- Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive Flat Private Housing Others** * Excluding non-response cases ** Including households who intended to rent a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, live in family members /friends place The desire to upgrade was prevalent among households who intended to move within the next five years (Table 6.4). Generally, a higher proportion of upgraders chose to move to a flat type that was one size larger than their current flat. For example, a higher proportion of households living in 4-room flats preferred 5- room flats (38.4%). This suggests that households will choose a flat that is within their affordability when they upgrade. 133
Table 6.4 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Present Flat Type Preferred Housing Type to Move to 1-, 2- & 3- Room*** Present Flat Type 4-Room 5-Room & Executive*** All HDB Studio Apartment 2.7 1.8 3.0 2.5 1- & 2-Room 7.5 1.3 0.6 3.4 3-Room 20.7 10.1 11.3 14.4 4-Room 36.7 24.1 16.7 26.9 5-Room 13.6 38.4 12.8 22.1 Executive 0.8 7.8 10.4 5.9 Private Executive Condominium 1.9 6.0 12.5 6.2 Condominium 0.8 4.7 22.5 8.0 Apartment - 1.8 2.6 1.3 Landed Properties - - 2.1 0.6 Others* 15.3 4.0 5.5 8.7 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N** 41,976 38,963 29,589 110,528 * Including renting a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, living in family members / friends place ** Excluding non-response cases *** 1-, 2- & 3-room and 5-room & Executive flats are grouped together to ensure sufficient sample size Residents housing preference also differed with age. Generally, preference for bigger or better housing decreased with age. Compared with households aged 55 years and above, more than half of the households aged below 55 years old intended to move to 4-room or bigger flats (Table 6.5). Younger residents tended to choose bigger flat types as they would expect a longer employment period and higher income earning capacity while older residents would find smaller flats more suitable for retirement. In addition, a higher proportion of older households aged 55 years and above planned to either rent a room/housing unit in the public/private property market or live in family members /friends place in the near future. 134
Table 6.5 Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Age Group Preferred Housing Type to Move to Age Group (Years) Below 35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above All HDB Studio Apartment - - 1.1 9.4 15.2 2.5 1- & 2-Room 0.2 1.5 4.2 9.2 9.3 3.4 3-Room 12.5 8.5 17.1 25.6 19.2 14.4 4-Room 29.4 27.7 32.8 15.4 15.5 26.9 5-Room 24.6 28.1 20.9 11.9 5.8 22.1 Executive 11.0 6.0 6.3 - - 5.9 Private Executive Condominium 6.4 9.6 5.1 1.7-6.2 Condominium 10.2 13.9 3.9 0.5-8.0 Apartment 1.7 1.6 1.7 - - 1.3 Landed Properties 0.1 1.2 0.5 - - 0.6 Others* 3.9 1.9 6.4 26.3 35.0 8.7 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N** 20,551 40,000 28,418 15,599 5,960 110,528 * Including renting a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, living in family members / friends place ** Excluding non-response cases 6.3 Housing Aspirations More residents content with bigger or better housing Residents housing aspiration is dependent on several factors among which economic performance is one of the major determinants. With the poor economic performance between 1997 and 2006, the trend of rising housing aspirations had moderated. This was reflected in 2008 when the proportion of households who aspired for better housing 12 continued to shrink and those who were content with their present flat type increased compared with a decade ago. After the prolonged poor economic performance, the economy began to show signs of improvement in 2007. With the improvement in the economy, coupled with rising incomes and growing affluence, more households were aspiring for better housing. This was seen in 2013 where the proportion of households who were content with better housing grew from 28.6% in 2008 to 35.0% (Chart 6.9). The proportion of households who were content with their current flat had 12 Refers to private housing or bigger flat type compared with current flat type 135
remained relatively constant at 57.5%. Such an observation suggests that residents are satisfied with where they are living and the tendency for them to move is lower. Chart 6.9 Housing Aspirations by Year 80 Households (%) 60 40 20 51.6 42.8 5.6 55.0 58.7 57.5 29.9 28.6 35.0 15.1 12.7 7.5 Content with Better Housing Content with Present Flat Type Content with Smaller Flat Type 0 1998 2003 2008 2013 Rising housing aspiration among residents living in smaller flat types In 2013, at least half of the households across all flat types were content with their current flat. The housing aspiration of households living in 1- and 2-room flats had risen significantly since 2003, with a continual increase in the proportion who aspired for better housing, from 27.6% in 2003 to 47.1% in 2013 (Chart 6.10). The proportion who was content with their present flat decreased from 72.4% in 2003 to 50.6% in 2013. On the other hand, the proportion of households living in 5-room or Executive flats who were content with their current flat had increased over the past ten years. This could be because the 5-room or Executive flat dwellers were already living in flat types that offered them a bigger area and served their spatial needs. Chart 6.10 Housing Aspirations by Flat Type and Year Content with Better Housing Content with Present Flat Type Content with Smaller Flat Type 100 4.3 2.3 4.2 5.5 4.0 13.5 11.8 7.4 26.6 18.1 10.7 37.4 30.4 14.4 15.1 12.7 7.5 Households (%) 80 60 40 20 0 72.4 58.4 50.6 56.9 60.8 56.7 60.0 63.4 59.3 48.0 54.1 57.1 31.7 42.5 57.6 55.0 58.7 57.5 27.6 37.3 47.1 38.9 33.7 39.3 26.5 24.8 33.3 25.4 27.8 32.2 30.9 27.1 28.0 29.9 28.6 35.0 2003 2008 2013 2003. 2008.2 2013.3 2003.4 2008.5 2013.6 2003.7 2008.8 2013.9 2003.10 2008.11 2013.12 2003.13 2008.14 2013.15 1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive All Note: 1- & 2-room flats are grouped together to ensure sufficient sample size 136
More residents content with 4-room flats For most households, 4-room flats remained the flat type that they were content with over the past decade, with 30.9% of households indicating contentment with this flat type in 2013 (Chart 6.11). However, this proportion had decreased from 33.9% in 2003 to 30.9% in 2013. The proportion of households who were content with 3-room or smaller flats, had decreased. On the other hand, those who were content with 5-room or bigger flats had increased compared with ten years ago. Aspiration for private properties had also increased from 12.7% to 15.9% over the past five years. These findings point towards an increase in housing aspirations among HDB households. Chart 6.11 Housing Type Content With by Year Households (%) 40 20 0 0.60.7 0.9 HDB Studio Apartment 6.0 5.4 4.8 22.8 21.4 18.3 33.9 34.0 30.9 19.8 20.4 18.4 15.9 13.2 12.7 8.8 5.2 6.1 1- & 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive Private Properties 2003 2008 2013 Younger residents, with more working years ahead and a higher income earning potential, tended to have higher housing aspirations. While at least half of household heads aged below 55 years were content with 4- and 5-room flat type, those aged 55 years and above were content with 3- and 4-room flat type (Table 6.6). A higher proportion of younger head of households aged below 45 also aspired to live in private housing (at least 25.2%), compared with those who were older. 137
Table 6.6 Housing Type Residents Content With by Age Group Housing Type Content With HDB Age Group (Years) Below 35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above All Studio Apartments 0.4 0.2 0.6 2.0 1.1 0.9 1- & 2-Room 1.1 1.3 2.5 6.2 14.1 4.8 3-Room 6.5 8.4 16.6 24.8 56.6 33.5 63.7 18.3 4-Room 27.3 27.7 51.7 34.4 54.1 55.8 31.8 30.2 30.9 5-Room 24.4 26.4 21.4 17.4 12.0 20.4 Executive 10.4 10.8 10.2 7.7 3.9 8.8 Private Executive Condominium 8.4 3.9 2.4 1.0 0.1 2.7 Condominium 15.7 12.9 5.9 4.3 1.0 7.4 Landed Properties 5.8 29.9 8.2 25.2 5.6 14.3 4.4 10.1 3.9 5.2 5.8 Others* - 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N** 84,849 206,972 262,069 209,363 142,629 905,882 * Including private apartments, shop houses, kampong houses and overseas properties ** Excluding non-response cases 6.4 Ageing-in-Place Residents perception of Ageing-in-Place may differ as they could define the Place as their current flat or community within the same estate/town. While some residents may prefer to live in a familiar environment such as their current flat or estate/town when they age, there are others who may want to live near relatives or friends or do not mind living anywhere. Older residents preferred to age in existing flats At least half of the household heads aged 55 years and above would like to continue living in their existing flat as they advanced in age (Table 6.7), as they were comfortable with their current home. There was also sufficient provision of various precinct facilities such as commercial and recreational facilities as well as good transportation network in their estates. In addition, some of them preferred to live near their relatives/friends, who were already living in the vicinity of their current residence. 138
Close to half of the younger heads of households aged below 35 years old had not thought about where they would like to live when they grew old. However, among those who had thought about it, a higher proportion of them did not mind living in different towns or flats when they grew old. Table 6.7 Place to Live in when Old by Age Group of Head of Household Place to Live in when Old Age Group (Years) Below 35 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 & Above All Live in existing flat 21.5 31.7 48.1 60.9 80.2 49.9 Have never thought about it 46.2 39.5 28.9 18.7 10.7 27.7 Do not mind living in different flat and town Do not mind living in different flat but same town 12.4 12.3 9.3 8.4 3.6 9.2 10.1 8.9 7.8 6.9 3.2 7.3 Do not know what to do 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.5 1.5 2.2 Retire overseas/migrate 5.4 3.4 1.8 1.0 0.2 2.1 Do not mind living anywhere except institution (e.g. old folk s/nursing home) Others (e.g. old folk s home, retirement village, children s home) 2.1 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.6 1.2 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.7-0.4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N* 84,936 207,193 262,675 209,494 143,086 907,384 * Excluding non-response cases 6.5 Summary of Findings Among the 908,499 households surveyed, 87.8% of the household heads were either married or had ever been married. Among these household heads, about 72.6% made at least one move after marriage. The average length of residence in their previous housing unit had remained the same as 2008, at 10.2 years, after increasing from 8.7 years since 1998. This trend shows a certain degree of moderation in residents desire to change residences, suggesting that the residential mobility has slowed down over the past ten years. Among the households that indicated at least one change in residence since their marriage, 67.5% had upgraded, either from rental housing to sold flats; or from smaller to bigger flats. Another 16.9% had made lateral moves, i.e. across similar flat types or from one rental unit to another and the remaining 15.6% had 139
downgraded to smaller flats, or from sold to rental flats. Compared with 2008, the proportion of households who upgraded had decreased slightly from 70.1% to 67.5%. The proportion who downgraded remained relatively constant, while those who moved laterally had increased. Compared with 2008, the proportion of households who intended to move within the next five years (11.5%) had remained about the same at 12.4% in 2013. The inclination to move was higher among households that were younger or living in smaller flat types. Among the households that intended to move in the next five years, about twothirds wanted to upgrade. This was an increase compared with 49.4% in 2003. While 4-room flats remained the preferred flat type, its popularity had dwindled over the past decade. Preference for HDB Studio Apartments, 5-room flats and private properties was observed to have increased. Close to six in ten of the households were content with their current flat (57.5%). This was comparable to the proportion (58.7%) in 2008. However, those who were content with better housing had increased from 28.6% in 2008 to 35.0% in 2013. In terms of flat type, a higher proportion of households (30.9%) was content with 4-room flats. However, compared with past years, contentment with 4-room or smaller flat types (excluding HDB Studio Apartment) had started to decrease. Aspiration for bigger flat types such as 5-room and Executive flats, as well as private properties had risen. These findings point towards an increase in housing aspirations among HDB households. While at least half of the household heads aged 55 years and above would like to live in their existing flat as they advanced in age, those aged below 35 years old did not mind living in different flats or towns when they grew old. Older residents preferred to age in the existing flat mainly because they were comfortable with their current home. There was also sufficient provision of various precinct facilities such as commercial and recreational facilities as well as good transportation network in their estates. In addition, some of them preferred to live near their relatives/friends, who were already in the vicinity of their current residence. 140
Part 2 Conclusion Housing Satisfaction and Preferences
Part 2 Housing Satisfaction and Preferences Conclusion With the growing population over recent years, the living density has increased. Despite the increase, survey findings showed that residents liked most aspects about the HDB living environment. Aspects that required further improvement were noise (i.e. to mitigate noise generation) and cleanliness. In addition, most residents remained highly satisfied with their physical living environment. This was evident in the high satisfaction levels achieved in residents assessment of their flat, neighbourhood and the provision of estate facilities. A high proportion of residents felt that lifts were reliable. With high-rise living, lifts are becoming an important component. Lift reliability would enhance residents living experience and also cater to Singapore s ageing population. Moving forward, optimisation of space would be the way to cope with the density increase. Provision of facilities at mid-level deck within block could be explored to optimise space usage, taking into consideration noise and privacy issues when siting these mid-level deck facilities. Besides meeting the needs of residents, estate facilities also play an important role in promoting social interactions and forging community bonds among residents. With rising affluence, changing lifestyles and varying demographic profiles of residents in different towns, the challenge is to provide a variety of facilities that would best suit the different needs of residents. Although more residents felt neutral towards their flat as they viewed housing as a basic necessity, it is heartening to observe that most residents viewed HDB flat as a home where family is formed. In addition, the flat provided residents with a sense of privacy and security. The majority of residents bought their flat as a home to live in instead of treating it as an investment tool. A high proportion 143
agreed that their flat was value for money mainly due to flat price appreciation. This viewpoint augurs well for HDB in fulfilling its mission of providing homes of quality and value for its residents. At least half of the households were content with their current flats, and the proportion of households who intended to move within the next five years remained similar to that in 2008. In general, those with no intention to move expressed higher satisfaction with their neighbourhoods and estate facilities. They also shared a higher sense of pride for their flats, and viewed them as value for money. Older residents would like to continue living in their existing flat because they were comfortable with their current home. There was also sufficient provision of various precinct facilities such as commercial and recreational facilities, as well as good transportation network in their estates. In addition, some of them already had relatives/friends living in the vicinity of their current residence. As a public housing provider, HDB will continue to enhance its built environment to meet residents needs comprehensively. The continual monitoring of residents sentiments is important and it will help HDB better understand the changing needs and lifestyle patterns of residents across different demographic sectors. 144
WOODLANDS SEMBAWANG YISHUN CHOA CHU KANG BUKIT PANJANG ANG MO KIO HOUGANG PUNGGOL SENGKANG PASIR RIS CHANGI VILLAGE JURONG WEST BUKIT BATOK JURONG EAST BUKIT TIMAH ESTATE CLEMENTI FARRER ROAD QUEENSTOWN BUKIT MERAH BISHAN TOA PAYOH KALLANG WHAMPOA CENTRAL AREA SERANGOON GEYLANG MARINE PARADE ESTATE BEDOK TAMPINES HDB DEVELOPMENT AREAS EXPRESSWAY CHANGI AIRPORT 0 2000 4000 1000 3000 5000 Metres HDB TOWNS AND ESTATES
HDBHub480Lorong6ToaPayohSingapore310480 HDBInfoWEB:www.hdb.gov.sg ISBN978-981-09-3827-7