Maltese lifestyles: Northern households complain about noise, harbour areas about pollution, and south about crime

An NSO lifestyle survey conducted by the NSO has found that while households in Gozo and Comino complained mostly about noise in their neighbourhood, those in the Northern harbour district complained about pollution and grime, while those in the South Eastern district complained mostly about having crime, violence and vandalism in their area.

The survey also found that 57,444 persons fall below the poverty line, or 13.8 percent of the population, which was below the EU's 16% average.

The survey shows that in 2007, there were 403,560 persons living in 141,390 private households in Malta and Gozo, an estimated increase of 1.0 percent in persons and 0.6 percent in households over 2006.

One-person households accounted for 19 percent of the total household population during 2007. A little more than one-fourth of the households comprised two members, while three-person and four-person households followed, with 22 percent each.

Households with five or more persons made up 11 percent of the total.

The Northern Harbour district had the most households in 2007, with 31 percent. This was followed by the Southern Harbour district with 20 percent, the Northern district with 15 percent and the South Eastern district with 14 percent.

51,730 households had at least one child under 18, while 40,230 had at least one member aged 65 or over.

The number of households with dependant children was estimated at 55,950. 29 percent of this household category consisted of households with two adults and two dependant children, while 27 percent was made up of households with two adults and one dependant child.

3,650 households were composed of an adult and at least one dependant child. Of the remaining 85,440 households without dependant children, 38 percent had at least one adult aged 65 or over.

An estimated 116,730 households had at least one member of working age. Of these, 44 percent of households had a work intensity ranging between 0.5 and 1.

This proportion was equal to one in 30 per cent of households, and zero in 19 per cent of households.

Over three-fourths of households in 2007 were home owners. Another 21 percent were in rented main dwellings, while 3 percent were availing themselves of free accommodation.

With regard to persons living in households, in 2007, 34 percent were aged 25-49, 21 percent 50-64, 21 percent 0-17, 13 percent 65 and over, and 11 percent 18-24.

On a gender basis, these persons were equally distributed. A largest proportion of persons, 30 percent, were living in the Northern Harbour district. This was followed by the Southern Harbour district (19 percent) and the Northern district (15 pe cent). 7 per cent of persons were living in Gozo and Comino.

Of the persons aged 16 and over, 60 per cent were married and 30 per cent were single (never married). More than half in this age bracket were living with a partner. Of these, 2,340 (1 per cent) said that they were living in a consensual union.

DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME

The total gross household income was estimated at €3.1 billion with an average of €21,955 per household. The largest share of total gross household income (63 percent) was attributed to employee cash and non-cash income and totalled €1.9 billion.

Income from self-employment added up to €0.4 billion or 13 per cent of this totalwhilst income from social benefits amounted to €0.5 billion – which is over 17 percent of the total gross income. These income patterns have remained very similar during the three years covered by this publication.

The total disposable household income, which was obtained after deducting household transfers together with tax and national insurance contributions, amounted to almost €2.6 billion. This worked out to an average of €18,325 per household. Most of this income was earned through work.

The survey results indicated that 78 per cent of the persons living in households had employment or self employment as the main source of income of the household. Another 14 per cent were living in households in which the main source of income was old-age benefits, while other social benefits were indicated as the main income source for another 6 per cent.

The average household disposable income rises with increasing household size. In fact, the lowest average household disposable income was calculated for singlemember households at €8,072 and kept on increasing to €28,367 for households with 5 or more members. However, the estimated totals did not follow the same relationship with household size, mainly due to uneven counts of households within the different categories. As an example, the highest total - €0.8 billion - was attributed to 4 member households, followed by €0.6 billion that was earned by households with 3 members.

Two-member households earned a total of €0.5 billion. Households without dependant children earned more than half the total disposable income during 2007. Despite this, their average disposable income stood at €16,085 per household. The highest averages were obtained within households with dependant children. As an example, households with 2 adults and 2 dependant children earned €20,045, while those with 3 or more dependant children earned €20,561.

Distributions of households by income group reveal that 28 per cent of households were earning less than €10,000. Most of these were single-member households, of which 81 per cent earned an income that did not exceed €10,000. The disposable income of 35 per cent of all households fell within the €10,001-€20,000 income bracket, while nearly 14 per cent reported that they had a disposable income of €30,000 or more.

HOUSING

In 2007, 83 percent of the total households that owned their main dwelling did not have a house loan relating to it. Among those who had a loan, 72 per cent had at least one dependant child.

The largest share of main dwellings contained five rooms - 29 per cent. Another 25 per cent of households were living in a dwelling with 7 or more rooms, while 22 per cent were living in a dwelling with 6 rooms. Less than 7 per cent of the households were living in a dwelling with less than 4 rooms. Results indicate that rented main dwellings tend to be smaller than owned ones. As an example, it resulted that while 55 per cent of owned dwellings had at least 6 rooms, this percentage in respect of rented dwellings was estimated at 21 per cent.

When looking at household distributions by type, households without dependant children were most likely to have 4, 5, or 6 rooms (22 per cent, 27 per cent and 21 per cent respectively), while households with dependant children were most likely to be slightly larger, with the majority having 7 rooms or more (32 per cent), followed by 5 and 6 rooms, 31 and 25 per cent respectively.

Just below 21 per cent of households were renting their main dwelling during 2007. These households were paying an average monthly rent of €41, indicating that the majority of these households were renting their main dwelling at a reduced price.

The average monthly rent on the dwellings for households without dependant children was estimated at €32, while those with dependant children paid an average of €70 per month.

Households made up of 2 adults with 2 dependant children were paying a highest average monthly rent of €134. It also emerges that average rentprices are not consistent with the size of the dwellings. As an example, the average rents for dwellings with 5, 6 or 7 rooms all vary between €50 and €60. With regard to housing costs, the survey results indicate that an average of €131 was spent every month in 2007. Housing costs include interest payments on mortgage, electricity, gas, house insurance, maintenance and rent.

This average increased in line with increases in household disposable income; households with a disposable income of €10,000 and under spent an average of €84 per month, while households with a disposable income of more than €35,000 spent an average of €216.

Just over half the households admitted that the total housing costs related to their main dwelling were somewhat burdensome, while 26 per cent felt that they were a heavy burden. In 2007, the most common problem with dwellings, according to the households surveyed, had to do with pollution, grime or other environmental problems in the area. 50,130 households, 36 per cent, attested to having this problem.

This was followed by noise from neighbours or from the street (25 per cent), and crime, violence or vandalism in the area (11 per cent). It is also interesting to note that households in Gozo and Comino complained mostly about noise in their neighbourhood (38 per cent of total), those in the Northern harbour district about pollution and grime (47 per cent), while those in the South Eastern district complained mostly about having crime, violence and vandalism in their area (15 per cent). 6 per cent of households said that their main dwelling had leaking roofs, damp walls or floors, or rot in window frames or floor, while another 5 per cent complained of not having enough light in their dwelling.

MAIN AT-RISK-OF-POVERTY INDICATORS

The median national equivalised income (NEI) from SILC 2007 stood at €9,129, with a resulting at-risk-of-poverty-line (60 per cent of median NEI) of €5,477. 57,444 persons fell below this line, with a resulting at-risk-of-poverty rate of 14.2 per cent.

The at-risk-of-poverty rates calculated from SILC 2005 and SILC 2006 both stood at 13.8 per cent. Other main indicators of monetary poverty include the S80/S20 ratio, which stood at 3.8 in 2007, implying that the average equivalised income of the top one-fifth income earners is nearly four times that of the lowest one-fifth income earners. The Gini coefficient was also estimated and stood at 26 percent.

At-risk-of-poverty in the EU27 stood at 16 per cent for all three years under review. In 2007, the countries with the highest percentage of at-risk-of-poverty were Latvia, Greece, Spain and Italy. On the other hand, the countries with the lowest percentage were the Czech Republic and the Netherlands.

Malta’s at-risk-of-poverty rate fell below the EU average and ranked twelfth when compared to those estimated for the other EU Member States. The highest at-risk-of-poverty rates were obtained within the 0-17 and 65+ categories, with 18 per cent and 20 per cent respectively. Moreover, females were more likely to be at-risk-of-poverty, with 15 per cent, compared to 14 per cent of males.

Persons who were renting their dwelling were more likely to be subject to monetary poverty than home owners, with an at-risk-of-poverty rate of 19 per cent (the at-riskof- poverty rate of home owners was estimated at 13 per cent). Moreover, it can be seen that persons living in single-parent households were most likely to fall under the

at-risk-of-poverty line (54 per cent). Other high at-risk-of-poverty rates fell within households composed of one person aged under 65 (28 per cent), within households comprising 2 adults at least one of whom was 65 or more and no dependant children (26 per cent), and within households with 2 adults and three or more dependant children (25 per cent).

The at-risk-of-poverty rate was highest in Gozo and Comino with 18 per cent and was followed by the one calculated for the Southern Harbour district, at 17 per cent. The lowest rate was calculated for the Western district, at 12 per cent. Work turned out to be the main factor preventing people from being poor. In fact the at-risk-of-poverty rate amongst persons living in households with a work intensity of one stood at 2 per cent. On the other hand, the at-risk-of-poverty rate among persons living in households with a work intensity of zero stood at 51 per cent. Moreover, persons living in households in which the main source of income was earned from employment (either in employment or self-employment) stood at 7 per cent, compared to 27 per cent in which the main income was earned from old-age benefits, and 90 per cent in which the main source was an unemployment benefit.

Furthermore, the at-risk-of-poverty rates calculated among persons aged over fifteen who spent most months at work during the income reference year stood at 5 per cent, whilst that calculated for persons who were retired stood at 22 per cent. On the other hand, the at-risk-of-poverty rate among persons who were mostly unemployed during the income reference period stood at 38 per cent.

It also emerged that monetary poverty had a strong dependency on educational attainment; the higher the educational attainment the lower the risk-of-poverty. As an example, the at-risk-of-poverty rate among persons aged 16 or over who had a lower secondary level of education or below, stood at 16 per cent, while that calculated for persons with an upper secondary educational level stood at 7 per cent.

DEPRIVATION

Deprivation is another means of measuring poverty. A minimal number of households did not own a telephone, a colour television or a washing machine because they could not afford to buy one; however 4 per cent of households could not afford a computer and 4 per cent could not afford a car. Households were also asked whether they could afford a number of different items.

65 percent of households (67 per cent of persons) could not afford a one-week annual holiday away from home, and 35 per cent of households (33 per cent of persons) could not afford to face unexpected financial expenses amounting to a minimum of €500.

Eight percent of households could not afford having a meal with meat, chicken or fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day and another 10 percent said that they could not afford keeping their home adequately warm. With regard to being in arrears, 4 percent of persons were living in households that had been in arrears on mortgage or rent payments at least once during 2007, while 6 percent had been in arrears with utility bills (e.g. electricity bills).

Nearly 60 per cent of all of all households (57 per cent of persons) said that they managed to make ends meet. Less than 10 per cent of both households and persons replied that they were able to make ends meet easily or very easily.

This pattern differed quite considerably when looking at persons who fell below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. In fact, nearly 25 per cent of these persons were experiencing great difficulties to make ends meet. Only 2 per cent of these persons said that their households were not facing these problems.

CHILDREN

Types of childcare considered in this publication include education at pre-school, education at compulsory school, childcare at centre-based services, childcare at daycare centres, childcare by a professional child-minder at the child’s home or at the child-minder’s home and childcare by grandparents, other household members (other than parents), other relatives, friends or neighbours.

These questions were addressed to parents of children aged less than 13. In 2007, the average number of hours per week spent by children in education at compulsory school was estimated at 30 hours, and in education at pre-school at 25 hours per child per week. An average of 16 hours per child was spent by children looked after by their grandparents, other household members, relatives, friends or neighbours.

The at-risk-of-poverty rate among children aged 0-17 stood at 18 per cent for all three years under review. These patterns were observed to be highly related with work intensities, household disposable income groups and household sizes.

The at-risk-of-poverty rate among children decreases significantly with increasing work intensity and household disposable income, and increases with increasing household size. Children that were mostly at-risk-of-poverty were those living in single-parent households with one or more dependant children (55 per cent), followed by those living in households made up of 2 adults and 3 or more dependant children (27 per cent).

When considering various amenities available to households in 2007, a telephone, colour television and washing machine were owned by the majority of households irrespective of whether they had children or not. However, significant differences were noted when it came to availability of computers at home and cars. In fact, whilst 43 per cent of households without children owned a computer, 82 per cent of households with children did so. Just over 70 per cent of households without children owned a car, whilst nearly 94 per cent of households with children did so. For households without children, 52 per cent did not own a computer because they did not want to; this percentage stood at 25 per cent for cars. In contrast, these figures stood at 14 per cent for a computer and 3 per cent for a car for households with children. The capability to afford certain items decreased with increasing number of children aged 0-17.

While 40 per cent of households without children could afford to pay for a one week annual holiday away from home, this figure decreased to 28 per cent, 26 per cent and 18 per cent for households with 1, 2 and 3 or more children respectively.

ELDERLY

Twenty per cent of elderly persons (aged 65 and over) were at-risk-of-poverty, amounting to 10,630 in 2007. Similar rates were obtained amongst persons aged over 59 and over 69. The at-risk-of-poverty rate of males aged 65 and over was higher than that of females in the same age bracket. In 2007, just over half the household population aged 65 or over were living in households with 2 members; 7,730 of these persons (29 per cent) were at-risk-of poverty. 28 per cent (14,840 persons) of all persons living in households aged 65 and over were living alone.

From these, 2,130 persons (14 per cent) fell under the at-risk-of-poverty line. This rate is significantly lower than the at-risk-of-poverty rate calculated for other persons living alone aged under 65, which stood at 28 per cent. The at-risk-of poverty-rates amongst the elderly persons who were living with at least another person within the same age group stood at 26 per cent, whilst that calculated for the elderly living with one of their sons or daughters stood at 5 per cent.

With respect to capacity to afford various items, 65 per cent of the persons aged 65 and over were living in households that could not afford to pay for a one week annual holiday away from home. Moreover, 36 per cent of these persons said that they were living in a household that could not afford facing unexpected financial expenses (of €500 or more). It also resulted that 7 per cent of these persons aged 65 and over could not afford to eat meat, chicken or fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day, whilst another 10 per cent had problems with keeping their home adequately warm.