Profile of HDB Population and Households

Transcription

Publ
i
cHous
i
ngi
nS
i
nga
por
e:
Res
i
dent
s
’
Pr
ol
e,
Hous
i
ngS
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
on
a
ndPr
ef
er
enc
es
HDBS
a
mpl
eHous
ehol
dS
ur
v
ey2013
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
i
CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF TABLES
v
LIST OF CHARTS
ix
KEY INDICATORS
xii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
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
CONCLUSION
79
PART 1
iii
Contents
Page
PART 2
HOUSING SATISFACTION AND PREFERENCES
Chapter 4
Satisfaction with Physical Living Environment
83
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
Chapter 5
102
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
CONCLUSION
143
PART 2
iv
List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1
Role and Relationship of HDB Resident Population
with Head of Household by Sex
Table 2.2
HDB Resident Population by Tenure and Year
Table 2.3
HDB Resident Population by Flat Type and Year
Table 2.4
HDB Resident Population by Town/Estate and Year
Table 2.5
HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Year
Table 2.6
HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Sex
Table 2.7
HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Ethnic Group
Table 2.8
HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Flat Type
Table 2.9
HDB Resident Population by Age Group and Town/Estate
Table 2.10
Age Dependency Ratio of HDB Resident Population by Year .... 21
Table 2.11
HDB Resident Population by Sex and Year
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
and Year
....................
23
Table 2.15
HDB Resident Population by Marital Status and Year
.....................
24
Table 2.16
HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above
by Marital Status and Age Group
......................
25
Table 2.17
by Marital Status and Sex
......................
25
Table 2.18
Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years
and Above by Education Level and Year
.......................
30
Table 2.19
and Above by Education Level and Sex
.......................
31
Table 2.20
and Above by Education Level and Age Group
.......................
31
Table 2.21
and Above by Occupation and Year
.......................
32
Table 2.22
and Above by Occupation and Age Group
.......................
33
Table 2.23
by Occupation, Sex and Year
.......................
34
Table 2.24
and Above by Place of Work and Year
.......................
35
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
Resident Population by Year
v
..........................
14
.....................................
15
................................
15
........................
16
............................
17
..............................
18
.......
18
.................
19
.........
.............................................
...
20
22
38
List of Tables
Page
Table 2.27
HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population ....................... 38
by Age Group and Sex
Table 2.28
by Town/Estate and Year
Table 2.29
by Tenure and Year
Table 2.30
by Flat Type and Year
Table 2.31
HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Sex
Table 2.32
by Ethnic Group and Year
Table 2.33
by Marital Status, Sex and Year
Table 2.34
by Ambulant Status and Year
Table 2.35
by Economic Status and Year
Table 2.36
by Economic Status, Sex and Year
Table 2.37
Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident
by Education Level
.......................
47
Table 2.38
Population by Occupation and Year
........................
49
Table 2.39
Population by Place of Work and Year
........................
49
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
Head of Household and Year
Table 3.4
HDB Households by Flat Type, Ethnic Group of
...................................
55
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
and Year
Table 3.8
HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Flat Type
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
vi
....
........................................
.....................
...............
..................
42
55
59
60
61
List of Tables
Page
Table 3.11
HDB Households by Number of Generations,
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
Table 3.15
HDB Households by Household Size, Type of
Family Nucleus and Year
Table 3.16
Average and Median HDB Household Size
Table 3.17
HDB Households by Number of Income Earners,
Flat Type and Year
Table 3.18
........................................
63
...................
65
.......................................
66
..............................................
67
...............................
70
by Tenure and Year
...........................................
73
Table 3.19
by Flat Type and Year
...........................................
73
Table 3.20
...........................................
74
Table 3.21
by Type of Family Nucleus and Year
...........................................
75
Table 4.1
Satisfaction with Flat by Flat Type and Year ............................................. 90
Table 4.2
Most-Liked Aspects about HDB Living Environment
Table 4.3
Most-Disliked Aspects about HDB Living Environment .................... 94
Table 4.4
Reasons for Buying Current HDB Flat (Sold Flats)
Table 4.5
Aspects that Households Perceived as Important ................................ 100
when Defining a Home
Table 4.6
Defining a Home by Household Life-Cycle Stage
Table 4.7
when Defining a Home by Marital Status
Table 4.8
when Defining a Home by Length of Residence
Table 5.1
Satisfaction with Types of Estate Facilities by Year
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
vii
.........................
............................
...........................
...........................................
93
99
106
111
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
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
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
Table 6.3
Types of Move by Age Group of Residents at Point of Move
Table 6.4
Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Present Flat Type
Table 6.5
Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Age Group
Table 6.6
Housing Type Residents Content With by Age Group
Table 6.7
Place to Live in when Old by Age Group of
Head of Household
viii
...............
......
.....................
117
120
129
.....
130
............
134
.............................
135
.....................
138
..............................................
139
List of Charts
Page
13
Chart 2.1
HDB Resident Population and Growth Rate by Year
Chart 2.2
Economic Status of HDB Resident Population ....................................... 26
Chart 2.3
Labour Force Participation Rate of .................................................................. 27
Chart 2.4
Age-Sex Specific Labour Force Participation Rate
of HDB Resident Population by Year
Chart 2.5
Age Distribution of Employed HDB Resident Population
Aged 15 Years and Above by Sex and Year
Chart 2.6
HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Year
Chart 3.1
HDB Households by Tenure and Year
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
and Year
Chart 3.7
HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Year
Chart 4.1
Satisfaction with Flat by Year
Chart 4.2
Satisfaction with Neighbourhood by Year
Chart 4.3
Perception of Lift Reliability by Year
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
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
by Year
Chart 6.2
Types of Move by Year
Chart 6.3
Extent of Geographical Move of HDB Households
by Present Town/Estate
.............................
130
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
Chart 6.6
Intention to Move within Next Five Years by Flat Type .................... 132
Chart 6.7
Type of Potential Move by Year .......................................................................... 132
........................
.............................
...............
28
29
..
36
..........................................................
54
...............
71
......................
72
...............................................................................
90
...................................................
91
...............................................................
95
........................................
97
...............
127
..............................................................................................
128
ix
................
132
List of Charts
Page
............................................
133
.................................................................................
136
Chart 6.8
Preferred Housing Type to Move to by Year
Chart 6.9
Housing Aspirations by Year
Chart 6.10
Housing Aspirations by Flat Type and Year
Chart 6.11
Housing Type Content With by Year ................................................................ 137
x
.............................................
136
Key Indicators
Key Indicators of HDB Population by Ethnic Group (2008 & 2013)
Total
Chinese
Malay
2008
2013
2008
2013
2008
Indian
Others
2013
2008
2013
2008
2013
Demographic Characteristics
Resident Population
(‘000)
2,923
3,058
2,158
2,248
478
476
240
272
47
62
(Excluding subtenants)
(%)
100.0
100.0
73.8
73.5
16.3
15.6
8.2
8.9
1.6
2.0
Sex
(%)
Male
49.4
48.8
49.7
49.1
48.8
48.0
49.1
49.2
47.8
42.2
Female
50.6
51.2
50.3
50.9
51.2
52.0
50.9
50.8
52.2
57.8
Average Age
(Years)
36.9
37.9
38.4
39.5
32.4
33.7
33.7
33.2
34.2
32.5
Median Age
(Years)
37
39
39
40
30
31
34
34
35
34
Persons Aged Below 15 Years
(%)
17.7
16.7
15.8
15.1
23.7
19.9
22.3
23.2
21.1
23.0
Persons Aged 15–64 Years
(%)
72.6
72.3
73.2
72.3
70.2
73.1
71.2
70.9
72.2
72.8
Persons Aged 65 Years & Above
(%)
9.8
11.0
11.0
12.6
6.1
7.0
6.5
5.9
6.7
4.2
Old-Age Dependency Ratio
13.5
15.2
15.0
17.4
8.7
9.6
9.1
8.3
9.3
5.8
Child Dependency Ratio
24.4
23.1
21.6
20.9
33.8
27.2
31.3
32.7
29.2
31.6
1-Room
1.2
1.6
1.1
1.2
1.4
2.9
1.6
2.2
1.4
2.6
2-Room
2.2
2.8
1.9
1.9
3.5
6.3
3.0
3.7
1.7
2.1
3-Room
19.6
19.3
19.7
19.3
17.8
19.8
21.0
19.1
21.7
17.4
4-Room
41.0
41.1
40.6
41.2
44.0
41.6
39.8
39.6
39.2
39.9
5-Room
26.7
26.6
27.4
27.6
24.8
22.0
24.4
25.9
27.0
28.0
9.3
8.6
9.4
8.8
8.6
7.4
10.3
9.5
9.0
10.0
2,403
2,543
1,815
1,907
364
380
187
209
37
48
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
1,539
1,649
1,183
1,246
214
236
118
133
24
33
1,480
1,583
1,141
1,202
204
222
112
126
23
32
59
66
42
44
10
14
6
7
1
1
64.0
64.9
65.2
65.5
58.8
62.4
63.2
64.0
63.8
69.5
Male LFPR
75.4
74.6
75.3
73.7
75.0
76.0
77.1
80.7
78.4
79.5
Female LFPR
53.1
55.8
55.4
57.8
43.8
50.0
49.9
48.0
51.2
62.5
Based on Per 100 Population
Aged 15-64
Flat Type
(%)
Executive
Economic Characteristics
(Persons Aged 15 Years & Above)
Persons Aged 15 Years & Above (‘000)
Sex
(%)
Male
Female
Economically Active
(‘000)
Employed
Unemployed
Labour Force Participation Rate
(LFPR)
(%)
xii
Key Indicators of HDB Population by Flat Type (2008 & 2013)
Total
2008
1-Room
2013
2-Room
3-Room
2008 2013 2008 2013 2008
2013
4-Room
2008
5-Room
Executive
2013 2008 2013 2008 2013
(‘000) 2,923 3,058
35
48
65
85
572
592 1,199 1,256
780
813
273
264
(Excluding subtenants)
Resident Population
(%) 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
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
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
2,403 2,543
33
43
57
69
498
518
Aged 15-64
(Persons Aged 15 Years & Above)
Persons Aged 15 Years & Above (‘000)
Sex
988 1,050
615
650
211
213
(%)
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
1,480 1,583
17
21
29
37
300
318
610
669
391
411
133
128
Employed
Unemployed
59
66
1
2
3
4
15
14
24
28
12
12
4
5
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
75.4
74.6
66.9
63.0
69.5
68.3
75.6
74.0
75.8
76.5
75.6
75.3
75.8
70.9
Female LFPR
53.1
55.8
42.6
41.1
43.3
46.3
51.8
55.4
52.7
57.2
55.6
55.9
55.1
54.5
Labour Force Participation Rate
(LFPR)
(%)
xiii
Key Indicators of HDB Households by Ethnic Group (2008 & 2013)
Total
2008
Chinese
2013
2008
2013
Malay
2008
Indian
2013
2008
Others
2013
2008
2013
Total Number of Households
Type of Family Nucleus
866,026
908,499 669,919
702,366 115,260 113,489 71,727 78,759
9,120 13,885
(%)
Nuclear Family
79.4
76.3
79.9
76.6
75.9
72.5
79.9
79.7
78.1
80.8
Extended Nuclear Family
7.4
8.3
7.0
7.9
9.4
10.6
8.3
8.3
8.7
7.5
Multi-Nuclear Family
4.1
6.2
3.4
5.4
8.1
11.2
3.8
6.1
3.3
6.4
Non-Nuclear Family
9.2
9.2
9.8
10.1
6.6
5.7
7.9
5.9
9.9
5.3
Household Size
(%)
1 Person
8.0
8.4
8.5
9.3
5.9
5.3
6.8
5.0
7.9
4.8
2 Persons
22.0
20.4
23.8
22.1
13.5
12.0
18.8
18.4
18.9
16.1
3 Persons
22.1
23.6
22.9
24.7
17.6
18.4
22.5
21.8
25.1
25.2
4 Persons
27.2
26.7
28.1
26.9
20.6
20.4
29.5
33.4
26.3
30.7
5 Persons
13.7
13.5
12.1
12.1
22.2
21.7
14.8
13.6
13.8
13.6
6 or More Persons
7.0
7.4
4.7
4.9
20.2
22.2
7.7
7.8
8.1
9.6
Average Household Size
(Persons)
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
4.1
4.2
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.7
Median Household Size
(Persons)
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
1-Room
2.1
2.7
2.0
2.3
2.7
5.1
2.8
3.5
2.1
2.5
2-Room
3.3
3.8
2.9
3.0
5.1
7.8
3.9
4.5
4.3
3.5
3-Room
24.7
23.8
25.0
24.2
23.5
22.5
24.0
22.6
21.7
19.9
4-Room
38.3
39.0
37.9
39.1
41.1
38.8
38.2
38.3
36.5
38.7
5-Room
23.9
23.6
24.5
24.2
21.0
19.4
22.5
23.2
26.1
28.0
Executive
7.7
7.1
7.7
7.2
6.7
6.4
8.7
7.9
9.3
7.4
Flat Type
(%)
Number of Income Earners
(%)
None
7.7
8.5
8.0
9.4
6.1
5.7
7.2
5.1
7.2
6.2
1 Person
35.4
32.2
34.1
31.3
37.8
29.3
42.8
43.9
39.1
27.0
2 Persons
40.9
41.2
42.1
41.8
35.7
38.4
38.1
37.5
41.7
54.9
3 Persons
11.3
12.1
11.0
11.9
14.4
16.4
8.5
9.2
9.8
9.0
4 or More Persons
4.8
6.0
4.7
5.6
6.0
10.2
3.4
4.3
2.2
2.9
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
Average No. of Income Earners (Persons)
xiv
Key Indicators of HDB Households by Flat Type (2008 & 2013)
Total
2008
1-Room
2013
2-Room
2008 2013 2008 2013
3-Room
2008
2013
4-Room
2008
2013
5-Room
2008
2013
Executive
2008 2013
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
Total Number of Households
(%)
Nuclear Family
79.4
76.3
44.8
51.5
69.2
69.4
72.7
69.9
83.1
79.5
83.6
80.8
83.6
7.4
8.3
2.4
3.8
2.4
3.2
5.0
6.0
7.4
9.5
9.5
9.9
11.5
7.8
4.1
6.2
0.7
1.9
1.0
1.7
2.1
4.0
5.4
6.7
4.7
7.0
4.1
11.6
Non-Nuclear Family
9.2
9.2
52.1
42.8
27.5
25.7
20.3
20.1
4.1
4.3
2.2
2.3
0.9
1.1
Household Size
79.5
(%)
1 Person
8.0
8.4
33.0
29.2
22.6
23.7
19.3
19.1
3.4
3.9
1.7
2.3
0.6
1.1
2 Persons
22.0
20.4
53.0
51.1
47.2
32.5
29.5
27.8
18.3
18.3
17.6
13.8
10.8
10.6
3 Persons
22.1
23.6
8.8
13.4
16.6
23.6
24.3
23.6
24.3
25.4
20.0
23.7
17.4
17.9
4 Persons
27.2
26.7
3.6
3.7
6.6
11.3
17.8
18.8
31.4
29.2
33.2
32.9
33.1
36.0
5 Persons
13.7
13.5
1.1
2.1
5.0
4.5
6.8
6.9
14.1
14.9
18.2
18.0
27.1
21.8
6 or more Persons
7.0
7.4
0.5
0.5
2.0
4.4
2.3
3.8
8.5
8.3
9.4
9.3
11.0
12.6
(Persons)
3.4
3.4
1.9
2.0
2.3
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.1
Median Household Size
(Persons)
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
(%)
None
7.7
8.5
26.5
30.8
26.5
23.1
13.3
13.9
5.2
5.8
3.6
4.1
1.4
3.1
1 Person
35.4
32.2
54.5
54.9
48.5
48.5
45.1
41.0
33.8
28.5
27.8
26.2
24.6
26.5
2 Persons
40.9
41.2
18.8
13.1
21.3
23.8
30.9
32.4
40.9
44.5
51.9
49.2
53.9
47.0
3 Persons
11.3
12.1
0.3
1.2
3.0
3.8
8.0
8.5
14.3
13.9
10.6
13.9
15.6
15.6
4 or more Persons
4.8
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.8
2.7
4.2
5.9
7.3
6.1
6.6
4.6
7.8
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
Average No. of Income Earners (Persons)
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 65 Years and Above
Resident Population Aged 15 to 64 Years
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
Child Dependency Ratio  Resident Population Aged Below 15 Years
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 65 Years and Above  Aged Below 15 Years

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
Old ‐ Age Dependency Ratio  Resident Population Aged 65 Years and Above
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
Child Dependency Ratio  Resident Population Aged Below 20 Years
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 65 Years and Above  Aged Below 20 Years

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.
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
1. Queenstown
2. Bukit Merah
3. Toa Payoh
4. Ang Mo Kio
1. Bukit Batok
2. Bukit Panjang
3. Choa Chu Kang
4. Jurong East
5. Bedok
5. Jurong West
6. Clementi
6. Bishan
7. Kallang / Whampoa
7. Hougang
8. Geylang
Young Towns
1. Punggol
2. Sengkang
3. Sembawang
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
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
3,000
8
5.8
2,230
2,703
2,845
2,923
3,058
6
2,412
2,000
4
2.3
1.3
1,000
1.0
0.5
0.9
0
2
0
1987
1993
1998
2003
13
2008
2013
Annualised Growth Rate (%)
Number ('000)
4,000
Resident
Population
(Persons)
Annualised
Growth Rate
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
Head of Household
Female
45.3
Lessee
Registered Tenant
Co-lessee
14.5
13.1
43.5
29.5
27.9
1.4
1.8
All
1.6
38.1
6.5
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
Occupier
0.6
47.4
48.2
47.8
Spouse
1.1
3.1
2.1
41.1
35.9
38.5
2.0
4.6
3.4
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
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons*
1,491,529
1,565,527
3,057,664
Total
* 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
84.5
93.3
95.2
97.1
97.0
96.3
Rental
15.5
6.7
4.8
2.9
3.0
3.7
%
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
Total
Table 2.3
HDB Resident Population by Flat Type and Year
Flat Type
1987
1993
1998
2003
2008
2013
1.6
1-Room*
6.3
2.4
1.8
1.1
1.2
2-Room*
7.0
4.2
3.3
2.2
2.2
2.8
3-Room
45.4
39.0
27.8
21.5
19.6
19.3
4-Room
29.0
36.1
39.0
41.3
41.0
41.1
5-Room
9.9
13.3
20.4
25.2
26.7
26.6
Executive
1.6
4.2
7.7
8.7
9.3
8.6
HUDC
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
%
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
Total
* 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
2003
2008
2013
HDB Town/Estate
Persons
%
Persons
%
Persons
%
Young
Towns
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
Middle-Aged
Towns/Estate
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
2,844,686
100.0
2,923,224
100.0
3,057,664
100.0
Mature
Towns/Estates
Total
* 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
Below 5
7.3
5 -
9
8.3
10 - 14
9.2
1993
8.3
24.8
1998
6.6
24.2
7.9
8.0
2003
8.4
6.1
22.8 7.5
7.8
8.0
2008
4.6
21.6
2013
5.1
17.7
6.2
5.3
16.7
6.3
6.9
15 - 19
9.2
7.5
7.1
7.3
7.7
7.2
20 - 24
10.5
8.0
6.5
6.1
6.6
6.9
25 - 29
9.9
8.9
7.4
6.7
6.6
6.5
30 - 34
10.1
10.0
8.7
8.4
7.0
7.0
35 - 39
9.0
10.0
10.0
8.7
7.7
7.3
40 - 44
5.2
8.4
9.8
9.3
8.3
7.9
45 - 49
5.4
5.8
7.6
8.7
8.5
8.4
50 - 54
4.3
4.8
5.5
6.8
8.6
7.8
55 - 59
3.7
60 - 64
2.6
6.3
3.5
6.7
3.2
4.0
3.4
7.4
4.9
8.7
3.8
6.8
65 - 69
2.9
3.6
70 - 74
2.1
2.6
75 - 79
5.4
5.7
7.2
7.6
1.3
11.6
4.8
7.2
6.1
13.3
4.2
3.1
9.8
1.8
1.8
80 - 84
0.7
1.0
1.1
85 & Above
0.6
0.8
0.8
11.0
%
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
30.0
30.9
32.9
34.4
36.9
37.9
27
30
33
34
37
39
Total
Average Age (Years)
Median Age
(Years)
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
17.4
16.1
16.7
15 - 24
15.1
13.2
14.1
25 - 34
13.2
13.7
13.5
35 - 44
14.8
15.6
15.2
45 - 54
16.3
16.1
16.2
55 - 64
13.1
13.5
13.3
65 & Above
10.1
11.8
11.0
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons*
1,490,364
1,564,456
3,054,854
37.2
38.5
37.9
38
39
39
Total
Average Age (Years)
Median Age
(Years)
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
15.1
19.9
23.2
23.0
16.7
15 - 24
12.8
20.8
14.7
12.0
14.1
25 - 34
13.3
13.6
13.8
15.0
13.5
35 - 44
15.5
11.2
17.4
24.7
15.2
45 - 54
16.2
16.3
15.7
15.3
16.2
55 - 64
14.5
11.1
9.3
5.8
13.3
65 & Above
12.6
7.0
5.9
4.2
11.0
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons*
2,246,619
474,602
271,405
62,228
3,054,854
39.5
33.7
33.2
32.5
37.9
40
31
34
34
39
Total
Average Age (Years)
Median Age
(Years)
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)
Below 15
1-Room
2-Room
3-Room
4-Room
5-Room
Executive
All
9.6
18.5
12.5
16.4
19.9
19.0
16.7
15 - 24
10.5
14.7
10.7
14.5
14.9
18.6
14.1
25 - 34
5.4
9.2
12.8
15.4
12.8
10.8
13.5
35 - 44
9.6
8.2
14.0
15.2
17.6
13.8
15.2
45 - 54
14.4
15.1
17.1
15.9
15.6
17.2
16.2
55 - 64
18.7
15.0
15.7
13.1
11.5
13.2
13.3
65 & Above
31.8
19.3
17.2
9.5
7.8
7.4
11.0
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons*
47,925
85,067
811,859
263,557
3,054,854
Total
591,524 1,254,922
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
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
Young Towns
Age Group (Years)
Punggol
Sengkang
Sembawang
Bishan
Bukit
Batok
Bukit
Panjang
Choa
Chu Kang
Hougang
Jurong
East
Jurong
West
Pasir
Ris
Serangoon
Tampines
Woodlands
Below 15
25.0
24.0
21.7
11.5
14.5
16.6
18.9
13.8
15.8
20.2
16.7
13.9
16.4
20.1
15 - 24
8.6
11.6
14.0
14.2
16.9
16.4
19.7
15.8
12.3
14.3
21.3
15.3
15.3
18.3
25 - 34
19.3
13.4
15.7
12.2
13.7
13.2
11.7
14.2
15.3
15.1
8.9
13.3
14.4
10.2
35 - 44
22.1
19.6
19.7
13.2
13.3
14.9
16.2
12.9
14.1
17.4
13.5
14.5
14.9
16.6
45 - 54
12.2
16.4
15.8
15.0
18.1
16.2
19.2
17.4
15.4
16.0
21.0
16.6
16.0
17.0
55 - 64
8.0
9.9
9.0
17.6
14.1
13.1
9.1
15.6
15.1
11.4
11.7
16.3
12.8
9.8
65 & Above
4.8
5.1
4.1
14.3
9.4
9.6
5.2
10.3
12.0
5.6
6.9
10.1
10.2
8.0
%
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*
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
31.9
33
33.5
35
32.6
33
41.7
44
37.9
39
37.0
37
34.0
34
38.7
39
39.1
40
34.3
35
35.9
37
39.0
40
37.2
37
34.6
36
Total
Average Age (Years)
Median Age (Years)
Middle-Aged
Towns/Estate
Age Group (Years)
All
Yishun
Bukit
Timah
Ang Mo
Kio
Bedok
Bukit
Merah
Clementi
Geylang
Kallang/
Whampoa
Queenstown
Toa
Payoh
Central
Area
Marine
Parade
Below 15
17.3
15.7
13.4
14.0
13.0
13.9
14.5
12.1
15.2
14.1
12.5
14.5
16.7
15 - 24
14.6
12.2
13.2
12.0
12.6
7.2
10.6
10.5
11.0
10.8
9.6
11.6
14.1
25 - 34
15.1
11.1
11.7
17.6
13.1
12.9
11.9
12.0
11.7
13.8
10.9
9.9
13.5
35 - 44
13.8
14.1
12.9
14.3
11.6
15.7
14.4
13.4
13.7
14.5
14.4
13.1
15.2
45 - 54
17.3
14.5
16.0
13.8
14.9
14.2
15.4
14.1
15.6
13.8
15.3
17.1
16.2
55 - 64
13.9
15.8
16.0
16.8
17.4
16.5
16.1
14.4
13.8
14.8
16.9
13.5
13.3
65 & Above
8.0
16.6
16.8
11.5
17.4
19.6
17.1
23.5
19.0
18.2
20.4
20.3
11.0
%
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*
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
36.7
36
41.1
42
41.7
44
39.3
39
42.3
44
43.9
45
42.0
43
44.5
46
41.9
43
41.9
41
44.2
46
42.9
45
37.9
39
Total
Average Age (Years)
Median Age (Years)
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
Total Dependency Ratio
64.9
59.7
58.9
57.6
54.2
53.7
56.0
50.6
47.5
45.6
39.1
36.8
8.9
9.1
11.4
12.0
15.1
16.9
Total Dependency Ratio
43.2
42.5
42.9
41.3
37.9
38.4
35.5
34.4
32.6
30.5
24.4
23.1
7.7
8.1
10.3
10.8
13.5
15.2
Aged 20-64
Aged 15-64
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
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.
3
Refers to persons aged 20-64 years per elderly aged 65 years and above.
21
Table 2.11
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
%
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
Total
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
77.2
76.2
76.5
74.4
73.8
73.5
Malay
15.0
16.0
15.7
16.5
16.3
15.6
Indian
6.4
6.6
7.0
8.0
8.2
8.9
Others
1.4
1.2
0.8
1.1
1.6
2.0
%
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
Total
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
Chinese
Malay
Indian
Others
All
Tenure
Sold
Rental
%
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
97.6
97.4
97.6
96.4
95.2
91.6
94.6
96.2
94.4
97.7
97.0
95.7
97.1
97.0
96.3
2.4
2.6
2.4
3.6
4.8
8.4
5.4
3.8
5.6
2.3
3.0
4.3
2.9
3.0
3.7
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
477,527
475,427
228,107
240,193
271,582
31,999
47,250
62,228
Total
Persons*
2,116,215 2,158,254 2,248,298 468,365
2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,535
Table 2.14
HDB Resident Population by Flat Type, Ethnic Group and Year
Chinese
Malay
Indian
Others
All
Flat Type
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
1-Room
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
2.9
2.4
1.6
2.2
0.4
1.4
2.6
1.1
1.2
1.6
2-Room
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.8
3.5
6.3
3.5
3.0
3.7
2.1
1.7
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.8
3-Room
21.5
19.7
19.3
22.2
17.8
19.8
20.4
21.0
19.1
21.1
21.7
17.4
21.5
19.6
19.3
4-Room
40.5
40.6
41.2
46.2
44.0
41.6
39.3
39.8
39.6
40.4
39.2
39.9
41.3
41.0
41.1
5-Room
26.0
27.4
27.6
21.6
24.8
22.0
24.3
24.4
25.9
27.4
27.0
28.0
25.2
26.7
26.6
Executive
9.2
9.4
8.8
6.1
8.6
7.4
10.1
10.3
9.5
8.7
9.0
10.0
8.7
9.3
8.6
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
477,527
475,427
228,107
240,193
271,582
31,999
47,250
62,228
%
Total
Persons*
2,116,215 2,158,254 2,248,298 468,365
23
2,844,686 2,923,224 3,057,535
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
47.5
47.8
48.7
Widowed
3.8
4.4
4.4
Divorced/Separated
2.3
2.7
2.9
Single
46.4
45.1
44.0
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons*
2,843,807
2,922,929
3,056,999
Total
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
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 &
Above
All
1.8
48.5
76.5
80.0
79.9
60.7
58.4
-
-
0.4
1.8
5.4
30.1
5.3
Divorced/Separated
0.1
2.1
5.0
4.6
5.1
4.1
3.5
Single
98.1
49.4
18.1
13.6
9.6
5.1
32.8
%
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
Marital Status
Married
Widowed
Total
Table 2.17
by Marital Status and Sex
Marital Status
Male
Female
All
Married
60.6
56.3
58.4
Widowed
1.8
8.6
5.3
Divorced/Separated
2.1
4.8
3.5
Single
35.5
30.3
32.8
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons*
1,231,919
1,311,239
2,543,159
Total
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
(excluding subtenants)
3,057,664 persons (2013)
2,923,224 persons (2008)
Economically Active
54.1%
(2013)
52.6%
(2008)
Employed
51.9% (2013)
50.6% (2008)
Employees
49.5% (2013)
47.4% (2008)
Unemployed
2.2% (2013)
2.0% (2008)
Economically Inactive
45.9%
(2013)
47.4%
(2008)
Students
21.0% (2013)
23.3% (2008)
Own Account Workers
2.4% (2013)
3.0% (2008)
Homemakers
10.6% (2013)
12.0% (2008)
Others*
0.02% (2013)
0.20% (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
* Including employers and
unpaid family workers
Full-time
43.9% (2013)
42.3% (2008)
Part-time
5.6% (2013)
5.1% (2008)
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
Labour Force Participation
Rate (%)
100
80.1
78.8
78.0
62.8
63.8
80
62.4
75.8
75.4
74.6 Male
62.7
64.0
64.9
60
40
44.7
47.1
50.1
50.0
53.1
1987
1993
1998
2003
2008
55.8
All
Female
20
0
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
Labour Force Participation Rate (%)
Chart 2.4
Age-Sex Specific Labour Force Participation Rate of HDB Resident Population by Year
100
80
Male
LFPR
60
40
Female
LFPR
20
0
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
80 &
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
Median Age in 1998
= 38 years
Median Age in 2013
= 42 years
Population (%)
15
10
5
0
(b)
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
1998
1.4
8.4
13.3
14.2
16.3
16.1
12.5
8.3
4.4
2.8
65 &
Above
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
Male Population
Population (%)
15
Median Age in 1998
= 39 years
Median Age in 2013
= 44 years
10
5
0
55-59
60-64
12.7
9.2
4.9
3.7
65 &
Above
2.9
15.0
10.8
6.2
3.2
2.5
13.8
13.1
13.6
9.8
5.5
4.0
12.2
12.9
12.5
10.1
7.3
5.3
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
1998
1.6
7.2
11.0
13.6
16.5
16.7
2003
1.2
7.1
9.9
13.1
14.9
16.1
2008
1.0
7.0
9.5
10.5
12.3
2013
1.5
6.3
9.3
11.1
11.4
Female Population
Median Age in 1998
= 37 years
15
Population (%)
(c)
50-54
15-19
Median Age in 2013
= 41 years
10
5
0
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
1998
1.2
10.2
16.6
15.2
16.0
15.2
12.2
7.1
3.5
1.3
65 &
Above
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
11.8
10.2
8.2
1.5
Some/Completed Primary
25.9
23.0
22.3
13.8
Some/Completed Secondary
35.4
33.6
32.9
33.2
Completed Post-Secondary
6.9
5.1
4.5
8.7
Completed Polytechnic/Other Diploma
10.7
12.8
15.3
19.0
Completed University/Postgraduate
9.2
14.2
16.1
23.7
Others (e.g. MINDS, special education schools)
0.1
1.1
0.7
0.1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons*
1,265,739
1,289,369
1,468,972
1,573,872
Total
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
Male
Female
All
0.8
2.3
1.5
14.5
13.0
13.8
33.9
32.5
33.2
9.6
7.5
8.7
19.3
18.5
19.0
21.8
26.2
23.7
0.1
-
0.1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons*
878,055
695,817
1,573,872
Total
Table 2.20
Employed HDB Resident Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Education Level and Age Group
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 &
Above
All
0.1
0.1
0.4
1.3
3.2
12.7
1.5
Never Attended School/
No Formal Education
0.6
1.3
6.2
20.7
30.6
46.2
13.8
26.0
17.9
28.7
44.0
49.4
31.7
33.2
19.6
9.1
8.1
7.7
6.3
4.2
8.7
37.7
27.5
21.7
12.9
6.7
3.4
19.0
15.9
44.0
34.9
13.4
3.8
1.8
23.7
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
0.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
%
Total
Persons*
126,225 354,504 386,404 389,264 249,352 67,507 1,573,872
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*
Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers
1998
2003
2008
2013
10.9
11.4
10.7
13.3
PMETs 8.5
11.2
11.9
14.5
Associate Professionals & Technicians
21.0
20.8
22.6
22.8
Clerical Workers
13.6
13.5
12.8
12.9
Service, Shop & Market Sales Workers
12.7
12.8
12.6
11.8
Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/
Plant & Machine Operators & Assemblers
21.2
17.8
15.0
11.9
Cleaners, Labourers & Related Workers
8.1
8.6
10.7
9.2
Others
(e.g. NS, SAF personnel, agricultural & fishery workers)
4.0
3.9
3.7
3.6
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons**
1,265,739
1,289,369
1,448,206
1,542,428
Professionals
PMEs
Total
* 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
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 &
Above
All
Legislators, Senior Officials & Managers
4.5
13.0
19.6
14.4
9.7
3.6
13.3
Professionals
10.6
24.9
20.1
9.2
4.3
4.0
14.5
Associate Professionals & Technicians
20.7
31.8
24.1
21.5
15.8
7.3
22.8
Clerical Workers
13.3
13.9
13.2
14.0
10.8
6.7
12.9
Service, Shop & Market Sales Workers
12.7
8.5
9.3
11.8
16.9
21.6
11.8
Production Craftsmen & Related Workers/
Plant & Machine Operators & Assemblers
2.4
4.6
8.2
17.2
22.9
17.7
11.9
Cleaners, Labourers & Related Workers
2.5
1.5
4.7
11.2
19.0
38.7
9.2
Others (e.g. NS, SAF personnel, agricultural
& fishery workers)
33.3
1.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
3.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Occupation*
%
Total
Persons** 124,338 341,517 378,909 383,798 246,201 67,005 1,542,428
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
Male
Female
All
Occupation*
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
%
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
Total
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
13.4
12.1
13.7
13.8
In adjoining town
15.1
15.9
9.0
11.4
Beyond adjoining town
41.8
45.8
46.1
45.0
Central Region*
19.8
21.0
19.9
18.9
Offshore island
1.0
0.9
1.3
1.8
No fixed place of work
8.9
4.3
10.1
9.1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons**
1,252,162
1,212,184
1,393,813
1,491,225
Total
* 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
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
3,500
Number ('000 persons)
3,000
2,500
137
(5.7%)
2,000
162
(6.7%)
195
(7.2%)
200
(7.4%)
335
(11.0%)
218
(7.6%)
285
(9.8%)
247
(8.7%)
339
(11.6%)
407
(13.3%)
2,380
(83.7%)
2,299
(78.6%)
2,312
(75.7%)
1,500
1,000
2,113
(87.6%)
2,308
(85.4%)
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
500
0
1993
1998
2003
2008
36
2013
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
Head of Household
Future Elderly
Population
47.6
54.0
Lessee
42.8
50.7
Registered Tenant
4.8
3.3
Co-lessee
36.0
22.5
Spouse
16.9
32.9
0.0
0.9
4.9
1.4
0.6
0.7
0.1
0.1
Occupier
10.0
29.9
Spouse
3.5
2.3
0.1
0.5
24.3
4.7
0.8
2.1
0.6
0.2
Unrelated (including friend)
0.6
0.2
%
100.0
100.0
Persons
335,091
407,259
Total
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
Elderly Population
Future Elderly Population
Age
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
Average Age (Years)
72.9
73.2
73.0
59.0
58.9
59.3
Median Age (Years)
71
72
72
59
59
59
Table 2.27
HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Age Group and Sex
Elderly Population
Age Group (Years)
Male
All
Elderly
Female
Male
Female
All
Future Elderly
55 - 59
-
-
-
53.3
55.1
54.2
60 - 64
-
-
-
46.7
44.9
45.8
65 - 69
40.2
36.3
38.1
-
-
-
70 - 74
29.9
26.8
28.1
-
-
-
75 - 79
18.9
14.8
16.6
-
-
-
80 - 84
6.9
12.1
9.8
-
-
-
85 & Above
4.1
10.0
7.4
-
-
-
%
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
Total
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
Elderly Population
HDB Town/Estate
Young
Towns
Middle-Aged
Towns/Estate
2003
2013
2003
2008
2013
6,398
( 5.2%)
9,114
( 5.9%)
8,802
( 5.1%)
8,599
( 7.0%)
12,822
( 8.3%)
17,156
( 9.9%)
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%)
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%)
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%)
7,660
( 4.8%)
9,840
( 6.1%)
13,756
( 8.0%)
12,755
( 8.1%)
18,067
(11.2%)
23,372
(13.9%)
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%)
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%)
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%)
Jurong West
Marine Parade
Total
2008
Sengkang
Yishun
Mature
Towns/Estates
3,542
(16.3%)
4,869
(23.4%)
4,570
(20.3%)
3,249
(15.0%)
3,142
(15.1%)
3,037
(13.5%)
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.
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 3room 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
Elderly Population
All
Tenure
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
Sold
90.4
91.1
92.7
95.1
95.1
95.5
97.1
97.0
96.3
Rental
9.6
8.9
7.3
4.9
4.9
4.5
2.9
3.0
3.7
%
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
Total
Table 2.30
HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Flat Type and Year
Elderly Population
All
Flat Type
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
1-Room
4.6
4.7
4.6
2.0
2.2
2.2
1.1
1.2
1.6
2-Room
6.3
5.2
4.9
3.7
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.2
2.8
3-Room
29.6
31.2
30.4
31.5
24.0
22.8
21.5
19.6
19.3
4-Room
36.4
33.9
35.6
36.5
40.9
40.5
41.3
41.0
41.1
5-Room
17.7
20.2
18.8
20.2
21.7
22.8
25.2
26.7
26.6
Executive
5.4
4.8
5.7
6.0
7.9
8.6
8.7
9.3
8.6
%
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
Total
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
45.0
48.1
48.8
Female
55.0
51.9
51.2
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons*
335,091
407,259
3,057,056
Total
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
Elderly Population
All
Ethnic Group
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
Chinese
80.4
83.2
84.3
81.8
79.0
79.9
74.4
73.8
73.5
Malay
12.2
10.2
10.0
11.4
12.6
13.0
16.5
16.3
15.6
Indian
6.1
5.5
4.9
6.1
7.0
6.2
8.0
8.2
8.9
Others
1.3
1.1
0.8
0.6
1.4
0.9
1.1
1.6
2.0
%
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
Total
Table 2.33
HDB Elderly & Future Elderly Resident Population by Marital Status, Sex and Year
Male
All Elderly/
Female
Marital Status
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
Married
79.3
79.8
80.9
40.9
42.6
44.2
58.9
59.2
60.7
Widowed
12.4
12.3
11.3
49.8
49.0
45.4
32.3
32.7
30.1
Divorced/Separated
3.3
2.8
3.2
4.1
5.1
4.9
3.7
4.1
4.1
Elderly Population
Single
5.0
5.0
4.6
5.3
3.3
5.5
5.1
4.1
5.1
%
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
Married
87.5
85.6
87.1
71.3
72.0
73.2
78.9
78.8
79.9
Widowed
3.3
1.9
1.6
15.2
11.8
8.9
9.6
6.9
5.4
Divorced/Separated
3.7
3.6
2.3
6.5
7.0
7.7
5.2
5.3
5.1
Single
5.5
8.9
9.0
7.0
9.1
10.2
6.3
9.0
9.6
%
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
Total
Total
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
Elderly Population
Ambulant Status*
2008
2013
2008
2013
Ambulant & physically independent
87.4
90.2
98.1
98.4
Ambulant & physically independent
but require walking aids
7.2
4.3
1.3
1.0
Require some physical assistance to move around
3.8
3.5
0.3
0.4
Not bedridden but require total physical assistance
1.3
1.2
0.1
0.1
Bedridden & require regular turning in bed
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons**
285,374
333,645
339,041
406,991
Total
* Classification adapted from the National Survey of Senior Citizens (NSSC) 2005
2.3.2
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
Elderly Population
All
Economic Status
2003
Economically Active
2008
12.6
2013
16.4
20.6
2003
47.8
2008
2013
2003
63.2
62.7
2008
49.2
2013
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
87.4
83.6
79.4
52.2
36.8
37.3
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
-
-
-
0.3
0.2
-
30.8
28.5
27.1
Others**
%
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
Total
* 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
Male
All Elderly/
Female
Economic Status
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
Economically Active
19.5
27.5
31.3
6.5
7.4
11.8
12.6
16.4
20.6
80.5
72.5
68.7
93.5
92.6
88.2
87.4
83.6
79.4
%
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
Economically Active
67.8
81.2
81.1
30.0
44.4
46.7
47.8
62.7
63.2
32.2
18.8
18.9
70.0
55.6
53.3
52.2
37.3
36.8
%
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
Elderly Population
Total
Total
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
Elderly
Population
Future Elderly
Population
All
12.7
3.2
1.5
Some/Completed Primary Education
46.2
30.6
13.8
Some/Completed Secondary Education
31.7
49.4
33.2
Completed Post-Secondary Education
4.2
6.3
8.7
3.4
6.7
19.0
1.8
3.8
23.7
-
-
0.1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
Persons*
67,507
249,353
1,573,872
Total
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
Elderly Population
All
Occupation*
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
Legislators, senior officials & managers
10.8
5.9
3.6
9.8
8.1
9.7
11.4
10.7
13.3
Professionals
4.0
3.1
4.0
2.5
4.2
4.3
11.2
11.9
14.5
Associate professionals & technicians
3.4
6.2
7.3
10.7
12.7
15.9
20.8
22.6
22.8
Clerical workers
5.8
5.0
6.7
8.3
11.2
10.8
13.5
12.8
12.9
Service, shop & market sales workers
22.7
17.6
21.7
17.8
14.8
16.9
12.8
12.6
11.8
Production craftsmen & related workers/
Plant & machine operators & assemblers
19.4
20.1
17.7
25.8
26.1
22.9
17.8
15.0
11.9
Cleaners, labourers & related workers
33.9
42.1
38.7
24.9
22.6
19.0
8.6
10.7
9.2
-
-
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
3.9
3.7
3.6
%
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
Others (e.g. NS, SAF personnel, agricultural & fishery workers)
Total
Table 2.39
Employed HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Resident Population by Place of Work and Year
Elderly Population
All
Place of Work in relation
to Place of Residence
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
2003
2008
2013
In same town
23.6
23.1
23.1
20.1
16.7
17.7
12.1
13.7
13.8
In adjoining town
10.5
6.9
12.8
18.0
9.0
10.9
15.9
9.0
11.4
Beyond adjoining town
33.7
36.7
32.0
37.7
40.1
38.8
45.8
46.1
45.0
Central Region*
24.5
13.7
14.4
15.9
15.0
14.6
21.0
19.9
18.9
Offshore island
0.9
0.2
0.7
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.8
No fixed place of work
6.9
19.3
17.0
7.5
18.2
17.1
4.3
10.1
9.1
%
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
Total
*
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
Annualised Growth Rate (%)
HDB Resident
Population & Households
2003
2,844,686
2,923,224
HDB Resident Households
821,126
3.5
2008
2013
(2003-2008)
(2008-2013)
3,057,664
0.5
0.9
866,026
908,499
1.1
1.0
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
8.8
6.6
4.5
4.7
5.4
91.2
93.4
95.5
95.3
94.6
Households (%)
100
80
60
40
Rental
Sold
20
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
Flat Type
Rental
2008
%
2013
N
%
2008
N
%
All
2013
N
%
2008
2013
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
7.6
-
-
-
-
7.7
7.1
64,959
Total
66,455
100.0 824,918
64,959
100.0 859,337
66,455
100.0 41,108 100.0 49,162 100.0 866,026 100.0
54
908,499
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
Chinese
Malay
Indian
Others
All
Tenure
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
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
702,366
115,260
113,489 71,727 78,759
9,120
13,885 866,026 908,499
%
Total
N 669,919
Table 3.4
HDB Households by Flat Type, Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year
Chinese
Malay
Indian
Others
All
Flat Type
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
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
702,366
115,260
113,489 71,727 78,759
9,120
13,885 866,026 908,499
%
Total
N 669,919
55
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).
58.4
58.8
47.8
49.4
47.5
48.4
10.4
12.4
7.8
7.8
2.4
2.4
20
2013
35.2
36.1
33.7
35.4
28.1
29.3
29.2
28.7
23.3
23.9
16.7
40
2008
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
27.8
17.6
18.4
41.6
49.1
60
58.7
67.7
61.0
63.3
57.5
59.4
80
Young Towns
56
Marine Parade
Central Area
Clementi
Geylang
Queenstown
Kallang/Whampoa
Toa Payoh
Ang Mo Kio
Bukit Merah
Bedok
Bukit Timah
Bishan
Serangoon
Jurong East
Pasir Ris
Bukit Panjang
Bukit Batok
Choa Chu Kang
Hougang
Yishun
Woodlands
Tampines
Jurong West
Sembawang
Punggol
0
Sengkang
Number of Households ('000)
Chart 3.2
HDB Households by Town/Estate and Year
Table 3.5
HDB Households by Town/Estate and Flat Type
Total
Young
Towns
HDB Town/Estate
2-Room
3-Room
4-Room
5-Room
Executive
%
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
-
-
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
Bukit Timah
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
-
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
2.7
3.8
23.8
39.0
23.6
7.1
100.0 908,499
Marine Parade
All
3.2
1-Room
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
1993
Family-Based Household
1998
96.9
2003
94.5
2008
91.3
2013
90.9
90.8
Nuclear Family
82.2
82.6
80.4
79.4
76.3
8.7
7.5
7.7
7.4
8.3
6.0
4.4
3.2
4.1
6.2
3.1
Non-Family Based Household
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
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
N
594,179
728,815
821,126
866,026
908,499
Total
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
Rental
Sold
All
2008
2013
64.2
2008
68.4
2013
92.1
2008
92.1
2013
90.9
90.8
Nuclear Family
60.5
63.1
80.3
77.2
79.4
76.3
3.1
3.7
7.6
8.5
7.4
8.3
0.6
1.6
4.2
6.4
4.1
6.2
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
12.0
7.9
0.6
0.4
1.2
0.8
%
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
Total
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
1-Room
2-Room
3-Room
4-Room
5-Room
Executive
All
2008
2013
47.9
57.2
2008
2013
72.6
74.3
2008
2013
79.8
79.9
2008
2013
95.9
95.7
2008
2013
97.8
97.8
2008
2013
99.2
98.9
2008
90.9
2013
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
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
0.7
1.9
1.0
1.7
2.1
4.0
5.4
4.1
11.6
52.1
42.8
27.5
25.7
20.3
20.1
6.7
4.1
4.7
4.3
7.0
2.2
2.3
0.9
4.1
1.1
6.2
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
19.1
13.6
4.9
1.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.5
-
0.3
-
1.2
0.8
%
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
Total
Table 3.9
HDB Households by Type of Family Nucleus, Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year
Chinese
Malay
Indian
Others
All
2008
90.3
2013
89.9
2008
93.4
2013
94.3
2008
2013
92.0
94.1
2008
90.1
2013
94.7
2008
90.9
2013
90.8
Nuclear Family
79.9
76.6
75.9
72.5
79.9
79.7
78.1
80.8
79.4
76.3
7.0
7.9
9.4
10.6
8.3
8.3
8.7
7.5
7.4
8.3
3.4
5.4
8.1
11.2
3.8
6.1
3.3
6.4
4.1
6.2
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
1.3
0.8
0.7
0.4
1.1
0.9
2.0
0.5
1.2
0.8
%
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
Total
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
96.9
2003
94.5
2008
91.3
90.9
2013
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
3.1
5.5
8.7
9.2
9.2
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
N
594,179
728,815
821,126
866,026
908,499
Total
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
1-Room
2-Room
3-Room
4-Room
5-Room
Executive
All
Generations in the Family
2008
2013
47.9
One Generation
Two Generations
16.4
29.6
1.9
57.2
22.5
30.9
3.8
52.1
42.8
2008
2013
72.6
21.9
47.7
3.0
74.4
17.0
54.5
2.9
27.5
25.6
2008
2013
79.8
2008
79.9
20.5
54.4
4.9
18.2
55.3
6.4
20.3
2013
95.9
95.7
13.0
73.5
9.4
20.1
2008
13.0
71.3
11.4
4.1
2013
97.8
13.6
72.7
11.5
4.3
97.7
11.0
74.8
11.9
2.2
2008
99.1
9.4
78.2
11.5
2.3
0.9
2013
98.9
9.2
74.2
15.5
1.1
2008
90.9
15.1
67.2
8.6
9.2
2013
90.8
13.9
66.8
10.1
9.2
%
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
Total
Table 3.12
HDB Households by Number of Generations, Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year
Chinese
Malay
Indian
Others
All
Generations in the Family
2008
90.3
One Generation
Two Generations
16.6
66.1
7.5
9.8
2013
89.9
15.2
65.5
9.2
10.1
2008
93.4
7.6
71.4
14.4
6.6
2013
94.3
7.2
71.5
15.6
5.7
2008
92.0
12.7
70.1
9.3
7.9
2013
94.1
12.4
71.4
10.3
5.9
2008
90.1
16.8
65.6
7.7
9.9
2013
94.7
14.3
71.4
9.0
5.3
2008
90.9
15.1
67.2
8.6
9.2
2013
90.8
13.9
66.8
10.1
9.2
%
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
Total
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
8
Household Size
(Persons)
Annual Rate
of Decline (%)
6.2
6
0
5.7
5.2
4.8
4.4
4.1
4
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.4
2
-2
-4
(Persons)
-0.5
-1.7
-2.3
-1.8
-1.5
-1.4
0.0
-1.2
Annual Rate of Decline
(%)
-1.8
1968 1973 1977 1981 1987 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
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
1-Room
2-Room
3-Room
4-Room
5-Room
Executive
All
Household Size
(Persons)
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
%
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
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
Total
Household Size (Persons)
Average
Median
2008
2013
2008
2013
Table 3.14
HDB Households by Household Size, Ethnic Group of Head of Household and Year
Chinese
Household Size
(Persons)
2008
2013
Malay
2008
Indian
2013
2008
Others
2013
2008
All
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
%
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
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
Total
Average
Median
65
2008
2013
2008
2013
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
Family-Based Households
Household Size
(Persons)
Extended
Nuclear Family
Nuclear
Family
2008
2013
2008
Multi-Nuclear
Family
Non-Family
Based
Households
2013
2008
2013
2008
2013
All
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
%
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
3.4
3.4
4.8
4.7
5.8
5.8
1.1
1.1
3.4
3.4
3
3
5
5
5
6
1
1
3
3
Total
Household Size
(Persons)
Average
Median
64,101 75,114 35,151 56,072 79,550 83,364
866,026 908,499
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
Average
Household Size
(Persons)
Median
Household Size
(Persons)
2008
2013
2008
2013
Punggol
3.5
3.5
3
3
6.0
HDB Town/Estate
Young
Towns
Middle-Aged
Towns/
Estate
Mature
Towns/
Estates
All
Average Age
of Town in 2013
(Years)*
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
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
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
100
3.1
9.1
5.2
9.7
8.2
12.1
4.8
11.3
6.0
12.1
Households (%)
80
55.9
57.7
60
37.4
41.0
50.9
38.7
57.0
40.9
59.3
41.2
Four or more income earners
Three income earners
40
20
39.7
38.7
40.5
Two income earners
35.2
32.2
7.8
8.5
One income earner
No income earner
0
2.6
5.4
8.5
1993
1998
2003
2008
2013
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
Average Number of Income Earners (Persons)
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)
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
-
-
0.8
0.8
2.7
4.2
5.9
7.3
6.1
6.6
4.6
7.8
4.8
6.0
%
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
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
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
1-Room
4 or More Persons
2-Room
3-Room
4-Room
2008
2013
5-Room
2008
2013
Executive
2008
2013
All
2008
2013
Total
Average Number
of Income Earners
(Persons)
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 20095. 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
27.7
31.8
32.8
2008
2013
24.5
23.5
20
10
0
1993
1998
2003
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
40
20
2013
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
60
Young Towns
5
Source: Land Transport Authority, Land Transport Masterplan 2013
71
All
Central Area
Queenstown
Geylang
Clementi
Kallang/Whampoa
Toa Payoh
Ang Mo Kio
Bukit Merah
Bedok
Marine Parade
Yishun
Jurong West
Hougang
Bukit Batok
Serangoon
Jurong East
Woodlands
Choa Chu Kang
Bukit Panjang
Tampines
Bishan
Bukit Timah
Pasir Ris
Sembawang
Sengkang
0
Punggol
Households (%)
80
2008
3.4
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
908.5
866.0
800
600
400
200
553.6
186.8
(21.6%)
125.6
(14.5%)
512.2
226.5
(24.9%)
169.8
(18.7%)
Elderly Households
Future Elderly Households
Non-Elderly Households
All Households
0
2008
2013
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
Elderly
Households
Tenure
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
%
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
Total
Table 3.19
HDB Elderly and Future Elderly Households by Flat Type and Year
Elderly
Households
Flat Type
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
%
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
Total
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 (%)
Young
Towns
HDB Town/Estate
All
Elderly
Households
2008
2013
Punggol
3.3
3.0
Sembawang
4.4
3.7
Future Elderly
Households
2008
Total
Non-Elderly
Households
2013
2008
2013
9.0
13.0
87.7
84.0
13.7
19.0
81.9
77.3
N
%
2008
2013
100.0
16,693
27,814
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
14.5
18.7
21.6
24.9
63.9
56.4
100.0 866,026 908,499
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
Elderly
Households
2008
2013
80.3
Future Elderly
Households
2008
81.7
2013
90.2
Non-Elderly
Households
2008
89.5
2013
93.4
94.4
All
Households
2008
90.9
2013
90.8
Nuclear Family
69.7
68.9
79.3
76.0
81.6
79.0
79.4
76.3
6.4
5.8
6.3
6.3
8.0
10.0
7.4
8.3
4.2
7.0
4.6
7.2
3.8
5.4
4.1
6.2
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
2.3
1.7
2.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.2
0.8
%
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
Average
2.6
2.7
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.4
Median
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
Total
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
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 family-
based 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
Pride &
Attachment to Home
Estate Facilities
• Value for Money of Flat
• Sense of Pride towards Flat
• Aspects that Define a Flat
as a Home
• Satisfaction & Usage of
Estate Facilities
• Suggestions for
Additional Facilities
• Places Residents Spent
Their Time
• Perception of Lift
Reliability
HDB Living Experience
• Physical Living
Environment
• Housing Aspirations
• Ageing-In-Place
Housing Aspirations
Residential Mobility
• Length of Residence
• Housing Type Content With
• Types of Move
• Perception of Ageing-In-Place
• Movement across Housing Types & Towns
• Intention to Move Within Next 5 Years
- Types of move
- Preferred housing type
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
Households (%)
100
93.4
93.3
94.3
94.2
96.4
91.6
1987
1993
1998
2003
2008
2013
80
60
40
20
0
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
Households (%)
Flat Type
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
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%)
neighbourhood in 2013 (Chart 4.2).
expressed
satisfaction
with
their
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
Households (%)
100
95.7
95.3
95.5
93.3
95.1
92.0
1987
1993
1998
2003
2008
2013
80
60
40
20
0
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
neighbourhood generally increased with length of residence.
with
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
%
100.0
N*
890,260
Total
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
%
100.0
N*
707,799
Total
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
85.6
85.6
2003
2013
Households (%)
80
60
40
20
0
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 mid2013. 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
Households (%)
100
86.7 87.1
85.7 90.4
85.8 90.3
80
60
2008
40
2013
20
0
Rental
Sold
All
Chart 4.5
Value for Money of HDB Flat by Flat Type and Year
Households (%)
100
85.7 85.8
88.0 86.4
90.0 93.2
87.4 91.5
82.7
87.5
86.5
85.8 90.3
72.6
80
60
2008
40
2013
20
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
86.0
93.6
86.9
89.5
88.2
90.5
93.4
90.3
11 - 15
16 - 20
21 - 25
26 - 30
31 &
Above
All
80
60
40
20
0
Below 6
6 - 10
Age of Block (Years)
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
Households (%)
Chart 4.7
Sense of Pride towards HDB Flat by Tenure and Year
100
8.1
80
21.8
10.2
3.8
4.0
14.8
25.2
4.1
4.1
15.2
25.5
30.6
Not Proud
60
40
81.2
70.1
71.0
59.2
Neutral
80.7
70.4
Proud
20
0
2008
2013
2008
Rental
2013
2008
Sold
2013
All
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
5.3
4.1
16.5
25.0
3.9
15.4
3.8
27.8
3.8
13.1
4.7
23.7
1.7
15.2
4.7
4.1
21.3
15.2
4.1
25.5
Not Proud
60
40
78.2
70.9
80.7
68.4
83.1
71.6
83.1
74.0
80.7
2013
2008
Neutral
70.4
Proud
20
0
2008
2013
3-Room
& Smaller
2008
2013
4-Room
2008
2013
5-Room
2008
Executive
2013
All
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
Households (%)
100
80
5.7
3.8
4.0
3.1
2.9
3.3
4.1
25.8
27.6
26.0
26.3
22.8
21.8
25.5
60
40
Not Proud
68.5
68.6
70.0
Below 6
6 - 10
11 - 15
70.6
74.3
74.9
70.4
Neutral
Proud
20
0
16 - 20
21 - 30
31 &
Above
All
Length of Residence (Years)
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
%
100.0
N*
858,121
Total
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
Family
with
without
Young
Children
Children
Family
with
Teenaged
Children
Family
with
Unmarried
Grown-up
Children
Family
with
Married
Children
Elderly
Couple Non-Family
Living Households
Alone
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
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
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
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
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
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
Households (%)
100
89.6
87.2
1993
1998
93.4
94.4
96.1
2003
2008
2013
80
60
40
20
0
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
Households (%)
Types of Estate Facilities
2003
2008
2013
-
89.1
89.9
-
89.9
90.8
85.6
93.3
93.4
-
-
85.4
-
-
94.1
83.6
87.5
94.7
Commercial Facilities
(i) General Retail Shops
- HDB shop/neighbourhood centre
- Shopping centre/shopping mall
- Overall
(ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls
- Dry/wet market
- Supermarket
- Overall
(iii) Eating Facilities
- Hawker centre
-
-
86.3
- Eating house (e.g. coffee shop)
-
-
88.3
- Food court
-
-
89.1
- Fast food outlet
-
-
94.2
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
88.7
86.7
94.3
94.6
- Overall
Precinct Facilities
88.5
Community Facilities
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.
106
Among those who were
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 2room 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
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).
7
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
Households (%)
1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive
All
95.7
95.4
95.5
89.3
85.5
84.3
89.9
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
- 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
- Hawker centre
91.9
88.1
93.5
83.4
82.9
80.4
86.3
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
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
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
99.3
95.5
95.7
95.4
93.4
88.7
94.6
98.7
98.6
96.4
94.7
93.8
93.6
95.0
93.3
96.1
90.2
84.7
81.4
82.7
85.7
92.2
88.8
87.8
86.2
85.3
87.0
86.7
97.6
98.1
98.6
95.8
94.3
93.4
96.1
(ii) Markets or Market-Produce
Shops/Stalls
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 (%)
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
- Overall
87.7
86.0
90.6
86.3
86.7
90.2
89.7
91.5
93.8
91.4
92.3
94.5
87.3
89.4
91.7
93.6
95.4
96.6
94.9
94.8
97.6
89.9
90.8
93.4
(ii) Markets or Market-Produce Shops/Stalls
- Dry/wet market
- Supermarket
- Overall
83.3
93.2
93.3
80.9
93.5
93.7
84.9
94.3
95.0
85.9
94.8
94.7
85.7
92.9
94.4
87.0
93.8
95.4
92.1
95.2
97.0
85.4
94.1
94.7
- Hawker centre
- Food court
- Fast food outlet
- Overall
83.5
85.6
86.6
93.2
89.8
83.0
85.7
89.0
94.0
90.7
85.8
87.8
88.1
93.9
92.4
87.0
89.2
89.8
94.7
92.7
83.7
85.2
87.7
93.5
91.3
92.6
93.2
89.3
93.2
94.1
91.2
94.1
92.6
95.4
96.3
86.3
88.3
89.1
94.2
92.4
Sports Facilities
Precinct Facilities
73.6
88.9
89.7
86.3
94.1
96.1
86.2
84.1
76.6
85.3
88.3
85.3
92.9
86.2
85.3
85.6
77.9
88.0
92.0
84.9
95.2
96.7
83.9
85.1
82.0
90.2
93.0
87.6
95.4
97.9
85.2
86.7
79.7
86.4
89.9
85.8
93.1
93.5
84.5
85.3
91.8
94.5
96.2
89.6
94.9
96.6
86.1
91.4
86.1
92.6
94.6
89.2
96.5
99.2
91.7
91.9
80.4
88.9
91.7
86.7
94.6
95.0
85.7
86.7
94.9
94.1
96.4
96.6
95.6
97.5
98.0
96.1
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
Convenience/easy accessibility
More space for activities/social gatherings
Like the idea/do not mind
Able to meet neighbours/like-minded people
Sheltered
Others (e.g. nice view, more greenery)
No
Noise
Not necessary/nobody will use/waste of space
Might be overcrowded due to limited space
No privacy/security
Prefer ground floor facilities
Make the place dirty/messy
Others (e.g. need to take lift to facilities, no benefit)
60.1
25.4
15.8
5.5
2.4
1.9
9.1
39.9
16.5
4.3
3.6
3.2
3.0
1.5
7.8
%
100.0
N*
885,854
Total
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
Garden
Playground
Library
Gardening plot
Leisure facilities in general
Others (e.g. karaoke, elderly facilities in general)
Sports Facilities
Fitness corner/station
Gym
Jogging track
Swimming pool/complex
Others (e.g. indoor courts, multi-purpose courts)
Precinct Facilities
Seat/bench
Resident/senior resident corner
BBQ Pit
Study corner/reading room
Function room
Others (e.g. chit-chat corner, more lightings)
Commercial
Provision shop/convenience store/minimart/kiosk
Others (e.g. eating facilities, supermarket)
Kindergarten/playgroup facilities
Others (e.g. education/enrichment centre)
Others (e.g. community/public facilities, medical facilities)
36.1
20.6
7.5
1.4
1.3
0.9
4.4
26.6
14.5
5.9
2.3
1.8
2.1
24.7
8.3
4.6
3.1
2.8
1.5
4.4
5.2
2.0
3.2
4.3
3.5
0.8
3.1
%
100.0
No. of Responses*
913,473
Total
* 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
Whether Liked the
Idea of Facilities
at Mid-Level Deck
Attributes
Flat Type
Age Group
(Years)
Household
Life-Cycle Stage
Total
Yes
No
%
N*
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
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
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
Households (%)
Total
At Least
Less Than
Never Use
Once a Week Once a Week
%
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
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
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
Sports & Recreational Facilities
Precinct & Community Facilities
** 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
Households (%)
1-Room 2-Room 3-Room 4-Room 5-Room Executive
All
Wet/dry market
Supermarket
Shop
Hawker centre
Food court
Fast food outlet
57.7
51.6
51.4
55.6
52.7
17.6
8.0
65.4
64.3
56.5
54.0
52.3
24.5
10.1
75.2
74.0
61.4
68.0
59.9
34.7
15.1
74.2
82.8
66.0
64.1
63.3
46.7
23.8
69.1
84.7
63.9
64.4
62.7
55.0
28.9
66.8
87.5
63.9
61.4
63.1
58.0
33.9
72.0
80.0
63.5
64.4
61.6
45.3
22.7
16.3
4.9
6.1
9.0
0.7
0.5
15.5
13.2
10.1
11.4
0.9
3.0
24.5
12.0
13.5
15.4
4.8
3.5
29.1
19.1
18.3
22.0
10.4
5.4
30.4
18.1
19.2
22.5
11.2
5.2
28.4
18.5
20.8
21.8
8.4
5.6
27.4
16.5
16.9
19.8
8.4
4.7
69.9
15.7
13.7
15.3
10.3
22.9
4.6
5.7
81.8
26.9
21.4
20.6
17.6
16.8
8.1
5.0
82.5
29.9
19.0
19.3
15.9
26.9
9.4
7.0
83.6
36.2
16.2
15.6
13.6
28.0
16.2
9.9
82.5
44.6
15.6
15.7
12.7
23.5
20.9
10.1
79.4
42.8
12.5
12.4
7.2
19.8
20.8
9.6
82.3
36.2
16.6
16.4
13.6
25.6
15.4
9.0
Playground
Regional/town park
Covered linkway
Drop-off porch
Precinct pavilion
Pavilion shelter
Trellis
Void deck
Community club
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 (%)
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
Wet/dry market
Supermarket
Shop
Hawker centre
Food court
Fast food outlet
63.2
80.2
64.5
70.1
69.6
52.8
23.8
69.6
87.7
73.4
64.8
65.5
57.0
37.3
73.9
84.2
63.2
61.0
59.8
49.7
31.4
75.0
78.9
61.7
64.7
60.6
41.6
17.5
76.6
80.4
64.5
61.9
60.0
43.7
23.9
82.1
78.1
54.1
65.5
53.7
29.1
4.8
59.9
66.0
56.7
65.3
60.9
34.9
9.8
72.0
80.0
63.5
64.4
61.6
45.3
22.8
Playground
Regional/town park
27.4
4.9
18.9
18.9
6.7
2.8
31.7
49.2
22.6
26.1
14.5
7.8
30.4
14.6
20.1
20.7
9.6
6.7
26.1
6.1
13.9
17.9
6.9
3.7
27.3
24.2
17.9
20.7
9.4
5.2
27.9
7.0
12.7
21.7
3.9
2.7
20.5
2.5
11.6
13.8
3.6
1.7
27.4
16.5
16.9
19.8
8.4
4.7
Covered linkway
Drop-off porch
Precinct pavilion
Pavilion shelter
Trellis
Void deck
Community club
84.1
37.6
16.1
17.2
13.7
22.2
10.1
7.0
85.2
49.5
20.8
21.3
19.4
30.3
30.4
13.6
82.5
39.0
17.1
16.5
12.9
21.1
22.8
10.1
81.8
32.6
13.8
13.7
12.0
24.9
9.8
7.0
82.4
39.9
17.4
17.5
12.7
26.6
15.3
9.1
82.5
21.2
12.9
14.1
10.4
32.9
4.3
8.3
77.9
23.5
18.0
16.0
12.7
24.3
7.5
7.7
82.3
36.2
16.6
16.4
13.6
25.5
15.4
9.0
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
Households (%)
1993
1998
2003
2008
2013
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*
-
-
-
59.5
61.6
Food court
-
-
-
44.4
45.3
Fast food outlet
-
-
-
-
22.8
-
10.2
18.8
24.6
27.4
Playground
-
23.2
17.9
16.3
16.5
16.8
23.3
16.1
20.7*
22.4*
Regional/town park
-
-
-
11.3
16.9
-
-
-
18.3
19.8
-
-
-
-
8.4
-
8.3
5.3
5.9
4.7
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
-
-
20.1
17.7
15.4
Community club
-
-
7.1
8.9
9.0
Park
* 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
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
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
%
100.0
N*
846,712
Total
*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
Age of Head of Household (Years)
First Housing Type
All
Below 35
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 & Above
Stayed Rent-Free
20.9
18.2
19.4
22.3
22.0
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
-
-
-
0.1
1.1
0.2
Attap/Shop Houses/
Staff Quarters
20.4
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
-
0.8
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
%
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
Private Housing**
Total
* 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 4room 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
8.7
9.4
10.2
10.2
2008
2013
8
4
0
1998
2003
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
Households (%)
100
80
65.5
70.1 67.5
2003
2008
2013
60
40
20.0
20
14.4
16.9
14.5 15.5 15.6
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
Type of Move
Reasons for Moving to Present Flat
All
Upgrade
Lateral
Move
Downgrade
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
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
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
No. of Responses*
333,167
66,478
74,585
474,229
Previous housing affected by housing programmes
(e.g. SERS, resettlement)
Smaller flat/downgrade (due to e.g. personal preference/
decrease in household size)
Total
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
Upgrade
Lateral Move
Below 35
78.5
35 - 44
71.5
45 - 54
Total
Downgrade
%
N*
15.3
6.2
100.0
175,409
16.2
12.3
100.0
208,915
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
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
Same town/estate
Other town/estate
60.4
69.3
66.7
59.3
58.7
59.0
57.7
55.2
48.3
Clementi
52.0
51.1
Bedok
51.7
83.7
48.9
Bukit Timah 16.3
75.2
74.9
74.8
72.9
63.6
62.2
59.6
58.1
55.4
51.7
50.6
94.7
Punggol
41.2
87.7
Sembawang 12.3
Young Towns
(15.6%)*
130
39.6
All
30.7
Kallang/Whampoa
40.7
Central Area
* Overall proportion of households who moved within same town in the specific town category
33.3
41.3
Geylang
(43.2%)*
Marine Parade
42.3
41.0
Toa Payoh
44.8
Queenstown
Ang Mo Kio
48.0
24.8
Bukit Panjang
(41.6%)*
Bukit Merah
25.2
25.1
Hougang
Bishan
Jurong East
Serangoon
37.8
36.4
Choa Chu Kang
27.1
40.4
Yishun
Pasir Ris
44.6
41.9
Bukit Batok
49.4
48.3
Tampines
Sengkang
0
Jurong West
20
5.3
40
Woodlands
58.8
60
21.9
Households (%)
80
78.1
100
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
35.7
18.6
20
11.5
12.4
2008
2013
0
1998
2003
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
Households (%)
24.4
19.4
20
12.4
11.1
7.8
10
4.2
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
20
17.3
Households (%)
15.0
12.4
11.8
11.1
8.0
0
1- & 2Room
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
48.5
40
20
32.6
34.0
29.5
19.2
2003 (N*=152,805)
37.9
2008 (N*=96,492)
2013 (N*=109,870)
18.0 19.4 17.7
15.4 13.2 14.6
0
Downgrade
Lateral Move
Upgrade
(HDB)
132
Upgrade
(Private Properties)
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
15.8
16.0
22.1
14.5
13.3
16.1
8.7
8.7
1- & 2Room
1.8
Studio
Apartment
2003 (N*=152,805)
2008 (N*=96,492)
2013 (N*=110,530)
5.0
6.5
5.9
4.8
3.5
3.4
20
38.6
30.8
26.9
19.0
20.5
14.4
40
0.5
0.7
2.5
Households (%)
60
0
3-Room
4-Room
5-Room
Executive
Flat
Private
Housing
Others**
** 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 5room 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
Present Flat Type
Preferred Housing Type
to Move to
1-, 2- & 3Room***
5-Room &
Executive***
All
4-Room
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
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
15.3
4.0
5.5
8.7
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
N**
41,976
38,963
29,589
110,528
HDB
Private
Others*
Total
*
Including renting a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, living
in family members’/ friends’ place
*** 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
Age Group (Years)
Preferred Housing Type
to Move to
All
Below 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 & Above
HDB
-
-
1.1
9.4
15.2
1- & 2-Room
Studio Apartment
0.2
1.5
4.2
9.2
9.3
2.5
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
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
3.9
1.9
6.4
26.3
35.0
8.7
%
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
Others*
Total
* Including renting a room/whole housing unit in public/private property market, living in family
members’/ friends’ place
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
Households (%)
80
60
58.7
55.0
51.6
57.5
42.8
40
35.0
29.9
15.1
20
Content with Better Housing
28.6
Content with Present Flat Type
12.7
Content with Smaller Flat Type
7.5
5.6
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
57.5
35.0
58.7
55.0
29.9
28.6
57.6
42.5
27.1
28.0
31.7
30.9
57.1
32.2
48.0
54.1
27.8
33.3
24.8
26.5
25.4
59.3
63.4
56.7
39.3
60.0
60.8
38.9
47.1
37.3
40
20
Content with Smaller Flat Type
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
33.7
4.2 5.5
56.9
58.4
72.4
60
27.6
Households (%)
80
2.3
50.6
4.3
100
Content with Present Flat Type
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
Note: 1- & 2-room flats are grouped together to ensure sufficient sample size
136
Executive
All
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
40
2003
2008
2013
Households (%)
33.9 34.0
30.9
22.8 21.4
18.3
20
19.8 20.4
18.4
15.9
13.2 12.7
5.2 6.1
6.0 5.4 4.8
8.8
0.6 0.7 0.9
0
HDB Studio 1- & 2-Room
Apartment
3-Room
4-Room
5-Room
Executive
Private
Properties
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
Age Group (Years)
Housing Type Content With
All
Below 35
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 & Above
HDB
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
4-Room
27.3
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
8.4
3.9
2.4
1.0
0.1
2.7
Condominium
15.7
33.5
56.6
27.7
51.7
54.1
34.4
63.7
18.3
55.8
Private
5.8
Landed Properties
Others*
12.9
29.9
-
8.2
5.9
25.2
0.2
5.6
4.3
14.3
0.4
4.4
1.0
10.1
0.4
3.9
7.4
5.2
0.2
5.8
0.3
%
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
Total
* Including private apartments, shop houses, kampong houses and overseas properties
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
Age Group (Years)
Place to Live in
when Old
All
Below 35
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 & Above
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
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
2.1
1.7
1.3
0.9
0.6
1.2
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.7
-
0.4
%
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
Do not mind living in
different flat and town
Do not mind living in
different flat but same town
(e.g. old folk’s/nursing home)
Others (e.g. old folk’s home,
retirement village, children’s home)
Total
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
SEMBAWANG
WOODLANDS
YISHUN
CHOA
CHU
KANG
PUNGGOL
SENGKANG
CHANGI
VILLAGE
BUKIT
PANJANG
JURONG
WEST
BUKIT
BATOK
PASIR RIS
HOUGANG
ANG MO KIO
SERANGOON
TAMPINES
BISHAN
BUKIT
TIMAH
ESTATE
JURONG
EAST
CHANGI
AIRPORT
TOA PAYOH
BEDOK
CLEMENTI
FARRER
ROAD
KALLANG
WHAMPOA
QUEENSTOWN
BUKIT
MERAH
GEYLANG
MARINE
PARADE
ESTATE
CENTRAL
AREA
HDB
DEVELOPMENT
AREAS
EXPRESSWAY
0
2000
1000
4000
3000
5000 Metres
HDB TOWNS AND ESTATES
HDBHub480L
or
ong6T
oaPa
y
ohS
i
nga
por
e310480
HDBI
nf
oWE
B:
www.
hdb.
gov
.
s
g
I
S
BN9789810938277

Profile of HDB Population and Households

Transcription

Similar documents

Circular Flow Chart

IWRM – NEIAFU, VAVA`U

Brochures - Bull Realty

Sea View Celebrates NALW

Ken Goodgames Chief Executive Officer Transformance

File - Evergreen Construction

July 2012 City Connection Newsletter

Transition Black Isle

november-2015