SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE THE CREDIT RIVER WATERSHED

Full text

(1)

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

THE CREDIT RIVER WATERSHED

2008 - 2018

Virp al Kataur e Pee l Reg ion

10 Pe el Centre Drive Brampton ON L6T 4 B9 905-79 1-78 00 x 43 5 8

(2)

ii No vemb er , 2014

NOTE TO RE ADER

In support of Credit Valley Conservation’s (CVC) Ecological Goods and Services Project and broader initiatives, the Region of Peel was hired to process the raw census data and produce a report outlining key demographic data across the CVC. As such, the information presented in this report covers only small portion of the available census data and possible analysis. There are over 2500 demographic variables, provided by Environics Analytics for 2008, 2013 and 2018 within various cross tabulations of the Adjusted Census 2011 data, available in raw form for the watershed. The 2018 data are projections based on the 2006 and 2011 census, 2011 National Household Survey data and other complementary data provided by third party sources. If anyone within CVC is interested in demographic data that has not been described within this report please feel free to contact Tatiana Koveshnikova or Mike Puddister in the Restoration and Stewardship Department.

The report was coordinated by:

Virpal Kataure Tatiana Koveshnikova

Planner, Peel Region Ecological Goods and Services vkatuare@peelregion.ca Project Coordinator, CVC

tkoveshnikova@creditvalleyca.ca

Kamal Paudel Mike Puddister

(3)

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

The Cr edit Ri ver W atershe d an d Ontario:

 The population in the Credit River watershed in 2008 was 836,422 and increased by 8% to 901,148 in 2013. By 2018, the population is expected to reach slightly under 1 million people (988,506; 18% change). In Ontario, the expected population increase between 2008 and 2018 is 13%.

 The median age of the watershed’s

population is 37.5 years. This is 2 years younger than in Ontario (39.9). However, the number of individuals under 14 is slightly decreasing, while those over 65 is increasing, indicating an aging population trend.

 The average household size and number of

couples with children has been on a steady decline since 2008 for both geographies.

 Households in the watershed had slightly higher incomes than in Ontario.

 The watershed is more ethnically diverse than Ontario as a whole with 44% of the watershed’s population’s mother tongue as non-official languages, coupled by a higher percent of immigrants. The watershed also has a higher proportion of South Asians, reflected in the significant Punjabi and Urdu speaking population.

The Upper, Middle & Low er Watershe d Are as :

 Majority (90%) of the watershed population resides in the lower watershed area and is expected to grow by over 70,000 people by 2018. This population is also younger than in the other watershed areas.

 The lower watershed area has the highest

average household size (3.5), while the middle watershed area has the smallest (2.6).

 The middle watershed area had 10% of its

households earning $200,000+, the most of any other watershed area, while the lower watershed area had the most households earning less than $99,999.

 The upper watershed has significant trades,

transport, and sales/service occupations, while the lower watershed has the highest percent in the natural and applied science, and business/financing occupations.

1

Please note that all statistics represent 2013 data, unless otherwise stated.

 The lower watershed area has the highest

percent of public transit use as the primary mode of transportation for work, as a result of its proximity to urban areas. This area also has the greatest percent of university or higher educated individuals (37%).

 The middle watershed has the greatest

proportion of single detached dwellings (74%), while the lower watershed has the highest proportion of semi-detached, row and high rise dwellings.

 By 2018, 57% of the lower watershed

population will be immigrants, compared to only 12% and 11% for the middle and upper watershed areas.

The S ubw atershed Ar ea s

 Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries (22) subwatershed area has the highest

population (171,488) and number of households. Melville to the Forks of the Credit (18) has the smallest population of only 812 people. The greatest percent of population growth from 2008 to 2013 occurred in Springbrook Tributary (8a) (205%), while Norval to Port Credit (9) had the largest increase in total population (18,662 people).

 The youngest population resides in

Huttonville Creek (7) and the oldest resides in Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham (20). The fastest aging population is in Melville to Forks of the Credit (18).

 The highest average household size (4.1) is

in Springbrook Tributary (8a), while Glen Williams to Norval (14) has the smallest (2.3).

 Melville to Forks of the Credit (18) has the highest income, while Glen Williams to Norval (14) has the lowest. Levi Creek (6) has the greatest percent participation in the labour force. Sawmill Creek (17) has the highest percent of university and above educated individuals.

 Shaw’s Creek (17) has the most owned

dwellings (94%), while Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributary (22) has the most rented dwellings (38%). This subwatershed area also saw a significant number of new dwelling construction.

 Carolyn Creek (2) has the highest

(4)

iv

T ABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ... 1

2.0 METHODOLOGY AND DATA LIMITATIONS ... 3

3.0 POPULATION ... 5 3.1 Population Change ... 5 3.2 Age ... 9 3.3 Gender ... 12 4.0 HOUSEHOLDS ... 13 4.1 Households ... 13 4.2 Family Composition ... 15

5.0 HOUSEHOLD INCOME, LABOUR FORCE & TRANSPORTATION TO WORK ... 17

5.1 Income... 17

5.2 Labour Force ... 20

5.3 Mode of Transportation to Work ... 22

(5)

v

LIST OF T ABLES

Table 1: Percent Change in Average Current Income, 2008-2018 ... 17

Table 2: Highest Level of Education Completed by Subwatershed Area, 2013 ... 26

Table 3: Percent of Structure Type by Subwatershed Area, 2013 ... 30

Table 4: Actual and Percent of Total, Top Languages by Subwatershed Area, 2013 ... 34

Table 5: Highest Number of Visible Minority by Year ... 38

Table 6: Total Population, 2008-2018 ... 41

Table 7: Median Age, 2008-2018 ... 41

Table 8: Age Cohort Population Change in Watershed and ON, 2008-2018 ... 42

Table 9: Population by Age Cohort, 2013 ... 43

Table 10: Total Male and Female Population in Watershed and ON, 2008-2018 ... 43

Table 11: Percent Change in Male and Female Population, 2013-2018 ... 44

Table 12: Households, 2008-2018 ... 44

Table 13: Total Family Composition in Watershed, 2013 ... 45

Table 14: Family Composition, 2013 ... 46

Table 15: Household Income, 2013 ... 47

Table 16: Detailed Household Income, 2013 ... 48

Table 17: Household Average Expenditure, 2012 ... 49

Table 18: Labour Force & Occupation, 2013 ... 50

Table 19: Mode of Transportation to Work in Watershed, 2008-2018 ... 51

Table 20: Mode of Transportation to Work by Subwatershed Area, 2013 ... 51

Table 21: Highest Level of Education Completed, 2013 ... 52

Table 22: Highest Level of Education Completed, 2018 ... 53

Table 23: Dwellings by Occupancy: Status & Tenure, 2008-2018 ... 54

Table 24: Dwellings by Period of Construction, 2013 ... 55

Table 25: Structure by Watershed Area, 2008-2018 ... 56

Table 26: Total Numbers of Dwellings by Structure Types, 2008-2018 ... 57

Table 27: Population by Mother Tongue, 2013 ... 58

Table 28: Population by Mother Tongue, Non-Official Languages in Watershed, 2008-2018 ... 59

Table 29: Population by Immigration Status, 2008-2018 ... 60

Table 30: Percent Change of Immigrants by Subwatershed Area... 61

Table 31: Percent of Visible Minority Status of Total Visible Minority Population in Watershed and ON, 2013 ... 62

Table 32: Total Languages Spoken by Subwatershed Area, 2013 ... 63

(6)

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Credit River Watershed and its Subwatersheds ... 2

Figure 2: Subwatershed Population (Actual and Percent of Total), 2013 ... 6

Figure 3: Subwatershed Percent Population Change, 2008-2018 ... 7

Figure 4: Percent Population Change in Top 6 Subwatershed Areas ... 8

Figure 5: Total Projected 2018 Population by Subwatershed Area ... 8

Figure 6: Median Age 2008-2018 ... 9

Figure 7: Percent of Age Cohort Watershed vs. ON, 2008-2018 ... 9

Figure 8: Percent Change in Detailed Age Cohort, 2013-2018 ... 10

Figure 9: Growth of Senior Population in Watershed, 2008-2018 ... 10

Figure 10: Percent of Female vs. Male Population by Median Age Cohort in Watershed 2008-2018 ... 12

Figure 11: Percent of Female vs. Male Population by Median Age Cohort in Ontario 2008-2018 ... 12

Figure 12: Average Household Size, 2008-2018 ... 13

Figure 13: Average Household Size by Subwatershed Area 2008-2018 ... 14

Figure 14: Percent of Household Growth in Top 4 Subwatershed Areas ... 14

Figure 15: Family Composition in Watershed, 2013 ... 15

Figure 16: Family Structure by Watershed Area, 2013 ... 16

Figure 17: Current Income Distribution, 2013 ... 17

Figure 18: Percent of Households by Average Current Household Income, 2013 ... 18

Figure 19: Percent of Total Households Income Earnings, 2013 ... 19

Figure 20: Occupation Types in Watershed, 2013 ... 20

Figure 21: Top 5 Occupation Types by Watershed Area, 2013... 21

Figure 22: Primary Mode of Transportation to Work in Watershed, 2008-2018 ... 22

Figure 23: Primary Mode of Transportation to Work by Watershed Area, 2013 ... 23

Figure 24: Highest Level of Education Completed in Watershed, 2013-2018 ... 24

Figure 25: Highest Level of Education Completed in Watershed Areas, 2013 ... 25

Figure 26: Percent Change in Private Dwellings between in Top 4 Subwatershed Areas, 2008-2018 ... 27

Figure 27: Dwelling Type by Watershed Area, 2008-2018 ... 29

Figure 28: Watershed Area Dwellings by Period of Construction, 2013 ... 31

Figure 29: Population by Mother Tongue, 2013... 32

Figure 30: Population by Mother Tongue Non-Official Languages in Watershed, 2013 ... 33

Figure 31: Percent of Population by Mother Tongue ... 33

Figure 32: Population by Immigration Status, 2008-2018 ... 35

Figure 33: Percent of Immigrant Population by Watershed Area, 2008-2018 ... 35

Figure 34: Immigrant Population Distribution by Subwatershed Area, 2013 ... 36

Figure 35: Visible Minority Composition, 2013... 37

(7)

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Credit River watershed (CRW or watershed) is an area of land that encompasses 1,500 kilometres of stream and river networks that drain into Lake Ontario. The Credit River watershed is comprised of many diverse landscapes from rapidly urbanizing areas to rural and forested spaces. The watershed covers portions of Peel and Halton Regions, as well as portions of the Wellington and Dufferin Counties. Tributaries of the watershed are present in the municipalities of Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon, Orangeville, Mono, Amaranth, East Garafraxa, Erin, Halton Hills, Milton and Oakville, as shown in Figure 1. The Watershed is comprised of twenty-two subwatersheds (Figure 1).

This report is an update to an earlier CVC report (Asfaha & Stiefelmeyer, 2009) that examined the socio-demographic profile of the watershed based on 2006 Census data. This report re-examines the socio-demographic trends in the watershed based on 2008, 2013 and 2018 data extracted from ESRI’s Business Analyst (BA) software. Most of the BA data used in this report originate from the 2006 and 2011 Census data, as well as other complementary data provided by third party vendors.2 The report helps to identify demographic composition and trends in the watershed communities and provide a basis for related program responses. Data were collected and reported based on the subwatershed boundaries3, and some analysis is conducted using the upper, middle and lower watershed areas as described in Figure 1.4

2 For more information on data used in the report see section 2 “Methodology and Data Limitations”. 3

Note that Lake Ontario Shoreline subwatersheds (numbers 21 and 22 shown in Figure 2) are not actual

subwatersheds; they are a collection of distinct watersheds that drain directly into Lake Ontario. For management purposes, CVC has grouped these independent watersheds into two distinct areas.

4

(8)
(9)

3

2.0 METHODOLOGY AND DATA LIMITATIONS

Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) used administrative boundaries to extract the

socio-demographic data from ESRI’s Business Analyst (BA) software. BA Canada is an ArcGIS based tool designed to work with the latest data from the most recent Census,5 as well as other

complementary data provided by third party vendors. BA Canadian products are based, in whole or in part, on selected Statistics Canada files and a variety of data sources including current economic indicators, post-censal estimates from governments, immigration statistics and economic data, such as building permits. Most of the BA data used in this report is data compiled by Environics Analytics, which includes Census data primarily from 2011, and the data from 2006 if the primary information from 2011 is not available (i.e. National Household Survey). The team at Environics Analytics are responsible for removing the outliers and creating a final improved demographic product for their clients (Environics Analytics, 2014).6

Using ESRI’s BA tool, CVC requested relevant information be extracted at the watershed, subwatershed and Ontario levels. This method differs from the previous methodology used in Asfaha & Stiefelmeyer (2009) report due to a variation in the boundary calculations. Previously, if a Dissemination Area (DA)7 overlapped two or more subwatersheds, Statistics Canada allocated all of the data from one DA to the subwatershed that had more than 50% of DA boundary within the subwatershed area. The current method uses a modified approach to calculate values for an irregular boundary, such as watershed and subwatersheds. There are three major ways to assign values to an irregular boundary:

1. Block apportionment method: Block points are the smallest demographic data available in Business Analyst. In this method, the weighted population values for a particular boundary are applied. If a boundary contained 75% of the block points, then those are taken into account in order to weigh the values of the demographic variables. It is the most accurate method, but takes longer to conduct based on the dataset size. 2. Cascading centroid method: In this method, a centroid from a geographic unit (i.e.

census tract8) is created. If the centroid of the unit falls within the boundary of the watershed/subwatershed, then the value of the census tract is applied to calculate the demographic variables (i.e. population). If the centroid falls outside the boundary then the values are not included. On the other hand, if the centroid of a geographic unit falls within the boundary, but the boundary of the geographic unit extends beyond the study area, the total value of the geographic unit is applied. It is one of the fastest methods primarily used for larger datasets, but is less accurate than the block appointment method.

3. Hybrid method: This method merges block apportionment and cascading centroid methods to create a hybrid approach which is more accurate at lower level (block apportionment), and faster for processing at larger geographic levels. The use of this

5

As part of the Census, Statistics Canada collects national, provincial and sub-provincial level data. 6

Note: Environics Analytics acquires and distributes Statistics Canada files in accordance with the Government of Canada's Open Data Policy. No information on any individual or household was made available to Environics Analytics by Statistics Canada.

Copyright: 2014 CVC, 2013 Esri, Environics Analytics & 2012 TomTom 7

Dissemination areas are small areas composed of one or more neighbouring dissemination blocks, with a population of 400 to 700 persons. All of Canada is divided into dissemination areas.

8

(10)

4 method at a combination of large and small geographic levels returns minimal statistical differences; therefore the overall accuracy is not compromised (ESRI, 2013).

For this report, we used the hybrid method to calculate demographic variables and they were weighted according to the algorithms used by the BA software. Due to the changes in how we approached the data extraction for the current report, the data between this report and the previous report might not be directly comparable.

2008 to 2013 Data Trend:

In order to better reflect the changes in the watershed, the data were modelled and extracted from 2008 to 2013. The data from 2008 builds on to the Census data from 2006 with corrections and future predictions. Once the Census data from 2011 was released, the predicted values for 2008 were adjusted accordingly (if needed), and the demographic variables for 2013 were predicted based on the available historical data using the most current (Census 2011) as a base (ESRI, 2013). The BA predicts and adjusts the historical data based on the most current data available in 5 year intervals, up to 5 years in the past, and 10 years into the future as a base demographic package. In order to reflect the current status of the Credit River watershed and to utilize the resources available, the data from 2008 to 2013 were used instead of reporting based on the Census years such as 2006 and 2011. Because of these differences, the direct

comparison between the previous and the latest report might not be practical.

Finally, in 2011 Statistics Canada replaced the mandatory long form Census with a voluntary National Household Survey, reflecting only about 21% of the Canadian population. This change in methodology may not accurately reflect a representative sample of the population, and may be problematic when making comparisons between various years of the survey. When

interpreting the data trends in this report, one should keep this limitation in mind.

(11)

5

3.0 POPULATION

3.1 Population Change

Total :

From 2008 to 2013, the population of the Credit River watershed (watershed) increased by 8% from 836,422 to 901,148 respectively, while the population of Ontario during the same time increased by 6% (Table 6 in Appendix). The expected population change for the watershed from 2008 to 2018 is 18% for a total projected population of 988,506 by 2018. The population change between this 10 year period is slower than what the watershed experienced between 1996 and 2006, when the population grew by 32% (see Asfaha & Stiefelmeyer, 2009).

Subw atershed Are a :

Majority of the population (89%) in the watershed resides in the lower watershed area (798,441 people) as a result of the urbanized areas of Brampton and Mississauga, and is expected to grow by 70,278 people by 2018 (Figure 2 and

Table 6 in Appendix).9 The upper watershed area comprises 5% of the total population, while the middle watershed area comprises 5% (

Table 6 in Appendix).

The subwatershed area with the greatest total population in 2008, 2013 and 2018 is the Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries (22) with a total of 163,312, 171,488 and 186,262 people respectively (

Table 6 in Appendix). The subwatershed area with the smallest total population in 2008, 2013 and 2018 is Melville to Forks of the Credit (18) with 863, 812 and 785 people respectively.

Table 6 in the Appendix shows this negative growth representing a reduction in population, partly attributed to the increase in median age (Table 7 in Appendix) reflected in the

reduction in total households, and average household size (

Table 6 in Appendix). Other subwatersheds showing a negative trend over time are Mullet Creek (4) and West Credit River (15).

The area with the greatest percent of population growth occurred in the subwatershed area of Springbrook Tributary (8a) (

9

(12)

6 Figure 3 and Figure 4). Between 2008 and 2013, the population grew by 205% from 3,116 to 9,488 and is expected to grow by 77% from 2013 to 2018 to a total of 16,786 people.

10

(13)
(14)
(15)

9 Figure 4: Percent Population Change in Top 6 Subwatershed Areas

The greatest total population increase between 2013 and 2018 is expected to occur in the Norval to Port Credit (9) subwatershed area, with an increase of 18,662 people, for a 2018 total of 185,861 (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Total Projected 2018 Population by Subwatershed Area

Lower Middle Upper

(16)

10

3.2 Age

Total:

The median age in the Credit River watershed increased from 36.1 in 2008 to 37.5, and is expected to increase to 38.4 in 2018 (Table 7 in Appendix). The median age in

Ontario was higher than that of the watershed by 2 years (Figure 6). In 2008, the median age in Ontario was 38.9 and in 2013 it was 39.9. It is expected to increase to 40.4 years by 2018 (Table 7 in Appendix). Although the actual median age of those living in the watershed is lower than that of Ontario, the median age in the watershed is increasing by a greater rate than in Ontario between 2013 and 2018 (an expected 0.9 years increase in the watershed compared to 0.5 years increase in Ontario).

Figure 6: Median Age 2008-2018

36.1 37.5 38.4 38.9 39.9 40.4 2008 2013 2018

Credit River Watershed Ontario

Majority of the population both in Ontario (outer ring) and the watershed (inner ring) is between the ages of 15 and 64 (Figure 7). The total portion of those 14 years of age and under is decreasing in the watershed, while those over 65 years of age are increasing in both Ontario and the watershed (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Percent of Age Cohort Watershed vs. ON, 2008-2018

(17)

11 years of age for both the watershed (39%) and Ontario (28%) (Figure 8). The greatest decrease in age cohort is expected to occur in those aged 45 to 49 in both the

watershed (5%) and Ontario (7%) (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Percent Change in Detailed Age Cohort, 2013-2018

Focusing in on those over 65 years of age, an aging population trend is prevalent (Figure 9). Between 2008 and 2013, and 2013 and 2018, the population over 65 is expected to increase by approximately 28% for a total of 130,020 individuals over the age of 65, representing 13% of the projected 2018 total population (Figure 9).

(18)

12 Subw atershed Are a :

An interesting trend shows that the lower watershed area has a younger population than the other watershed areas (Table 7 and Table 9 in Appendix). This is likely due to the proximity to major urban centres and improved access to services such as schools for families, access to larger job market for young professionals, etc.

The youngest subwatershed area is Huttonville Creek (7) with a median age of 31.4, 32.2 and 33.4 for the three sample years (Table 7 in Appendix). The oldest

subwatershed area in 2008 and 2013 was the Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham (20) with a median age of 44.2 and 46.2 respectively (Table 7 in Appendix).

(19)

13

3.3 Gender

Total:

There are slightly more females in both the watershed (50.5%) and Ontario (50.7%) than males (49.5% and 49.3% respectively) (Table 10 in Appendix). The population change in watershed is slightly higher than the population change being experienced in Ontario for both time periods (Table 10 in Appendix). Both the male and female median age is expected to continue in an increasing trend for Ontario and the watershed as a whole (Figure 10 and Figure 11). The female population is consistently older than the male population in the subwatershed areas, the watershed as a whole and in Ontario (Table 10 in Appendix). Table 11 in the Appendix details the percent change by subwatershed area from 2013 to 2018.

Figure 10: Percent of Female vs. Male Population by Median Age Cohort in Watershed 2008-2018 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 4 5 9 1 0 1 4 1 5 1 9 2 0 2 4 2 5 2 9 3 0 3 4 3 5 3 9 4 0 4 4 4 5 4 9 5 0 5 4 5 5 5 9 6 0 6 4 6 5 6 9 7 0 7 4 7 5 7 9 8 0 8 4 85+ % o f to ta l p o p u la ti o n Female 2008 Female 2013 Female 2018 Male 2008 Male 2013 Male 2018

(20)

14

4.0 HOUSEHOLDS

4.1 Households

Total:

The number of households in the Credit River watershed increased by 10% or 22,277 households (from 266,273) between 2008 and 2013, and is expected to increase by 12% between 2013 and 2018 for an expected total of 329,718 households (Table 12 in Appendix).The average household size has been on a steady decline since 2008 in both the watershed and the Province as a whole (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Average Household Size, 2008-2018

3.14 3.07 3.00 2.65 2.61 2.56 2008 2013 2018

Credit River Watershed Ontario

Subw atershed Are a :

The lower watershed area had the highest average household size (3.4), while the middle subwatershed area had the smallest (2.6).11

The Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries (22) subwatershed area continues to have the greatest number of households from 2008 to 2018, for an expected total of 71,919 total households by 2018 (Table 12 in Appendix).

The smallest average household size was maintained in Glen Williams to Norval (14) decreasing from 2.3 average people per household in 2008 to 2.1 in 2018. In 2008, Carolyn Creek (2) had the highest average household size with 3.8 people (Figure 13). However, by 2013 the Springbrook Tributary (8a) subwatershed area had the highest household size of 4.4 people expected in 2018.

11

(21)

15 Figure 13: Average Household Size by Subwatershed Area 2008-2018

In the Melville to Forks of the Credit (18) subwatershed area, which contains the least amount of households, the households have been slightly decreasing from 312 to 292 from 2008 to 2018 (Table 12 in Appendix). Between 2008 and 2013, the Springbrook Tributary (8a) subwatershed area is expected to grow by 155% in total households from 914 to 2331 respectively, and between 2013 and 2018 by 65% to 3,848 households (Figure 14).12

Figure 14: Percent of Household Growth in Top 4 Subwatershed Areas

12

(22)

16

4.2 Family Composition

Total:

The total percent of couples and lone-parent families remains consistent between 2008 and 2018 comprising approximately 84% and 16% of the total census families, respectively (Table 13 in Appendix). The percent of married couples with children (1, 2 or 3+) shows a decreasing trend from 2008 to 2018 (Table 13 in Appendix). Married couples with 2 children are expected to decrease from 46% in 2008 to 30% in 2013 and 28% in 2018 (Table 13 in Appendix). Figure 15 details the family composition of couples and lone parents living in the watershed in 2013:

(23)

17 Subw atershed Are a :

When comparing proportions of various familial structures, the lower watershed area has the greatest percent of married couples (78%) followed by the middle subwatershed area (76%) (Figure 16, Table 14 in Appendix). The upper watershed area has the highest percent of common law (13%) couples, while the lower watershed area has the greatest number of lone parent families (16%) (Table 14 in Appendix).

(24)

18

5.0 HOUSEHOLD INCOME, LABOUR FORCE & TRANSPORTATION TO WORK

5.1 Income

Total:

The median household income for the watershed is $82,567 and the average household income is $105,189 (Table 15 in Appendix).13 The 2013 median and average household income for Ontario is $94,265 (Table 15). Between 2008 and 2018, the average income in the watershed and Ontario changed between 8% to 10% (Table 1). Between 2013 and 2018, the average income is expected to change by almost double than in the last 5 year period, approximately by 21% (Table 1). Over the 10 year period (2008 to 2018), income in the watershed and Ontario changed between 31% and 33% (Table 1). Table 1: Percent Change in Average Current Income, 2008-2018

2008 2013 2018 2008-2013 2013-2018 2008-2018 CREDIT RIVER WATERSHED $ 97,147 $ 105,190 $ 127,268 8% 21% 31% ONTARIO $ 85,903 $ 94,265 $ 113,901 10% 21% 33%

In 2013, Ontario had a larger portion (35%) of households with an income of less than $50,000 than in the watershed (27%) (Figure 17). The watershed had the greatest percent of households with an income between $50,000 and $99,999 (34%), when compared to other income levels (Figure 17). Those households with an income between $100,000 and $200,000 comprised 31% of the total households in the watershed, versus 26% in Ontario. Households with an income greater than $200,000 were also greater in the watershed (8%) than in Ontario (6%).

Figure 17: Current Income Distribution, 2013

13

(25)

19 At a more detailed scale, the percent of households in Ontario with an average income below $60,000 is typically greater than that which is found in the watershed (Figure 18). On the other hand, the percent of households in the watershed with an average income above $60,000 is typically greater than that which is found in Ontario (Figure 18). In both the watershed and Ontario, an income between $100,000 and $124,999 represented the greatest percent of households (12% and 10% respectively) (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Percent of Households by Average Current Household Income, 2013

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% <$10,000 $10,000 - $19,999 $20,000 - $29,999 $30,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $59,999 $60,000 - $69,999 $70,000 - $79,999 $80,000 - $89,999 $90,000 - $99,999 $100,000-$124,999 $125,000-$149,999 $150,000-$174,999 $175,000-$199,999 $200,000-$249,999 $250,000+ % of Households ONTARIO CREDIT RIVER WATERSHED

Subw atershed Are a :

The following watershed areas had the greatest percent of households with the following incomes (Table 15 and Table 16 in Appendix):

 <$50,000 – lower watershed area (28%)

 $50,000-$99,999 – lower watershed area (34%)  $100,000-$199,999 – middle watershed area (36%)  $200,000+ – middle watershed area (10%)

(26)

20 of its households with an income greater than $200,000, where Glen Williams to Norval (14) had the smallest percent of such households (22%).14

Figure 19: Percent of Total Households Income Earnings, 2013

14

(27)

21

5.2 Labour Force

Total:

In 2008, 72% of the watershed population participated in the labour force (Table 18 in Appendix). This decreased to 71% in 2013, but is expected to increase to 72% by 2018 (Table 18 in Appendix). The largest percentage in the labour force working in the watershed were employed in the business, financing and administration fields (22%), followed by sales and service (21%) and trades, transport/ equipment operators and other related occupations (14%) (

Figure 20).

(28)

22 Subw atershed Are a :

Based on the top 5 occupation types (as determined by the highest number of people within each occupation), the upper watershed area has the greatest percent of

occupations in the trades, transport/equipment operations (17%), and sales and service (24%) (Figure 21). The lower watershed area has the greatest percent of occupations in the natural and applied science (9%) and in business, financing and administration (23%). Lastly, the middle watershed area has the greatest percent of occupations in the management field (14%).

Figure 21: Top 5 Occupation Types by Watershed Area, 2013

(29)

23

5.3 Mode of Transportation to Work

Total:

Between 2008 and 2018, the car (including motorcycles) has been the primary mode of transportation in the watershed with almost no fluctuation (84%) (

Figure 22, Table 19). The second most used mode of transportation to work is public transit at approximately 12% (

Figure 22).

(30)

24 Subw atershed Are a :

The lower watershed area has the lowest percent of cars and the highest percent of public transit as the primary mode of transportation to work than any other watershed area (Figure 23). The middle watershed area has the highest percent of individuals walking to work, when compared to the other areas (Figure 23).

Figure 23: Primary Mode of Transportation to Work by Watershed Area, 2013

(31)

25

6.0 EDUCATION

Total:

In 2013, approximately 32% of the population in the watershed had a university or higher level of education (Figure 24).15 This is expected to increase by 4% by 2018. The other educational levels are expected to decrease by approximately 1% during the same time period (Figure 24).

Figure 24: Highest Level of Education Completed in Watershed, 2013-2018

Subw atershed Are a :

In comparison to the other watershed areas, the upper watershed has the greatest percent of no degree/certificate (20%), high school certificate (32%) and college certificate/diploma (21%) (Figure 25 and Table 21 in the Appendix). The lower watershed area has the greatest percent of university or higher (37%) educated individuals (Figure 25 and Table 21 in the Appendix). This may be attributed in part to the proximity of universities to the lower watershed area.

15

(32)

26

Uni

v

e

rs

ity

+

Coll

e

ge

Certifi

c

a

te

/

High S

c

hool

App

re

nt

ic

e

/Tra

d

e

s

No

C

e

rtif

ic

a

te

Diploma

(33)

27 Examining the same information at a subwatershed level for 2013, Table 2 reports on the highest level of educational attainment reported as a percent of total population in each subwatershed. Sawmill Creek (3) has the highest percent of population with a university and higher education of 41%. The Springbrook Tributary (8a) has the highest percent of population with no certificate (26%). Finally, Orangeville (19) has the highest percent of population with a high school certificate (33%). More detailed information on other educational attainment levels by subwatershed area can be found in Table 21 and Table 22 in the Appendix.

Table 2: Highest Level of Education Completed by Subwatershed Area, 201316

Watershed

Area Subwatershed Area

No Certificate, etc. High School Certificate University and Higher (Diploma, Degree, etc.)

Lower 1 Loyalist Creek 3,953 19% 5,487 26% 7,373 35%

Lower 2 Carolyn Creek 4,527 20% 5,347 24% 8,053 36%

Lower 3 Sawmill Creek 8,589 15% 13,094 24% 22,610 41%

Lower 4 Mullett Creek 11,179 16% 17,311 25% 25,293 37%

Lower 5 Fletcher's Creek 25,027 22% 31,072 27% 30,201 27%

Lower 6 Levi Creek 919 13% 1,960 27% 2,373 33%

Lower 7 Huttonville Creek 599 24%

690 28% 607 24%

Lower 8a Springbrook Tributary 1,872 26% 1,960 28% 1,536 22%

Lower 8b Churchville Tributary 6,340 25% 7,375 29% 6,190 24%

Lower 9 Norval to Port Credit 26,289 19% 34,080 25% 49,590 36%

Lower 21

Lake Ontario Shoreline West

Tributaries 7,152 16% 11,264 26% 15,937 36%

Lower 22

Lake Ontario Shoreline East

Tributaries 28,297 20% 35,578 25% 49,107 34%

Middle 10 Black Creek 2,548 19% 4,096 30% 2,803 21%

Middle 11 Silver Creek 2,912 15% 5,626 30% 5,046 27%

Middle 12 Cheltenham to Glen Williams 775 22%

975 28% 848 24%

Middle 13 East Credit River 191 18%

283 27% 312 30%

Middle 14 Glen Williams to Norval 599 25%

819 34% 367 15%

Middle 20

Forks of the Credit to

Cheltenham 279 15%

540 29% 550 30%

Upper 15 West Credit River 1,081 19% 1,600 29% 1,267 23%

Upper 16 Caledon Creek 366 18%

571 27% 484 23%

Upper 17 Shaw's Creek 642 17% 1,184 31% 563 15%

Upper 18 Melville to Forks of the Credit 138 21% 194 29% 174 26%

Upper 19 Orangeville 5,414 22% 8,084 33% 4,027 17%

TOTAL CREDIT RIVER WATERSHED 150,147 18% 205,186 25% 237,054 32%

16

(34)

28

7.0 PRIVATE DWELLINGS

7.1 Tenure

Total:

In 2008, there were 266,273 occupied dwellings in the watershed, and 77% were owned, while 23% were rented (Table 23 in Appendix). The number of occupied dwellings

increased by 10% for a total of 293,550 in 2013. The total percent of dwellings owned vs. rented in 2013 slightly decreased to 76%. By 2018, the total number of occupied dwellings is expected to increase by 12% for a total of 329,718. The total increase in dwellings for the watershed as a whole between 2008 and 2018 is 24%. The proportion of owned vs. rented dwellings is also expected to change to 75% and 25% respectively (Table 23 in Appendix).

Subw atershed Are a :

In 2008 and 2013, Levi Creek (6) had the greatest percent of owned dwellings with 96% (Table 23 in Appendix). In 2018, Shaw’s Creek (17) had the greatest percent of owned dwellings with 95%. Between 2008 and 2018, Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries (22) is projected to have the highest percent of rented dwellings showing an increasing trend (36% in 2008, 38% in 2013 and 41% in 2018). This is likely due to the large number of apartment buildings in this area. The Springbrook Tributary (8a)

subwatershed area saw the greatest percent change in total occupied dwellings (321%) between 2008 and 2018, although the actual number of dwellings was not significant when compared to other subwatershed areas (Figure 26).

Figure 26: Percent Change in Private Dwellings between in Top 4 Subwatershed Areas, 2008-201817

17

(35)

29

7.2 Structure Type

Total:

The watershed has a total of 293,550 dwellings as of 2013 and is expected to total 329,718 by 2018 (Table 25 in Appendix). In 2013, 46% were single detached, 14% were semi-detached, 13% were row houses and 28% were apartment buildings. The most significant change in total types of dwelling will be apartment buildings, which are expected to increase by 21% between 2013 and 2018 (Table 25 in Appendix).

Subw atershed Are a :

(36)

30 Figure 27: Dwelling Type by Watershed Area, 2008-2018

(37)

31 Table 3 describes the percent of structure type by subwatershed areas. In Caledon Creek (16), 96% of the dwellings are single-detached. Huttonville Creek (7) contains the largest percent of semi-detached dwellings (26%), while Glen Williams to Norval (14) has the greatest row houses (45%). Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries (22) contains the largest type of apartment buildings when compared to other subwatershed areas (55%). Fletcher’s Creek (5) contains the highest percent of detached duplexes (7%), while the East Credit River (13) contains the highest percent of other single attached structures, albeit only 1%. Finally, the West Credit River (15) contains the highest percent of movable dwellings (2%). Detailed figures on the total number of dwellings by structure type between 2008 and 2018 for subwatershed areas can be found in Table 26 in the Appendix.

Table 3: Percent of Structure Type by Subwatershed Area, 201318 Watershed

Area Subwatershed Area

Total Dwellings Single-Detached Semi-Detached Row Houses Apartment Buildings (low and high rise) Detached Duplex Other Single Attached Movable Dwelling

Lower 1 - Loyalist Creek 8,339 55% 2% 12% 28% 4% 0% 0%

Lower 2 - Carolyn Creek 7,238 54% 21% 15% 5% 4% 0% 0%

Lower 3 - Sawmill Creek 21,640 33% 15% 22% 30% 1% 0% 0%

Lower 4 - Mullett Creek 27,704 47% 10% 20% 21% 2% 0% 0%

Lower 5 - Fletcher's Creek 41,013 53% 16% 11% 12% 7% 0% 0%

Lower 6 - Levi Creek 2,866 66% 11% 22% 0% 1% 0% 0%

Lower 7 - Huttonville Creek 886 66% 26% 7% 0% 1% 0% 0%

Lower 8b - Churchville Tributary 2,331 61% 24% 13% 0% 1% 0% 0% Lower 8a - Springbrook Tributary 8,638 65% 14% 13% 1% 7% 0% 0% Lower 9 - Norval to Port Credit 53,532 42% 10% 10% 33% 5% 0% 0% Lower 21 - Lake Ontario Shoreline West Tributaries 18,518 53% 12% 12% 20% 2% 0% 0% Lower 22 - Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries 63,961 25% 6% 11% 55% 3% 0% 0%

Middle 10 - Black Creek 6,055 77% 4% 7% 10% 2% 0% 0%

Middle 11 - Silver Creek 8,468 74% 4% 6% 12% 5% 0% 0%

Middle

12 - Cheltenham to

Glen Williams 1,537 85% 2% 3% 8% 2% 0% 0%

Middle 13 - East Credit River 438 94% 0% 0% 1% 4% 1% 1%

Middle 14 - Glen Williams to Norval 1,324 26% 4% 45% 24% 2% 0% 0% Middle 20 - Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 804 95% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0%

Upper 15 - West Credit River 2,368 92% 1% 0% 4% 0% 0% 2%

Upper 16 - Caledon Creek 799 96% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0%

Upper 17 - Shaw's Creek 1,554 91% 3% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Upper 18 - Melville to Forks of the Credit 296 95% 2% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% Upper 19 - Orangeville 11,122 63% 11% 9% 15% 1% 0% 0% 18

(38)

32

7.3 Period of Construction

Total:

The watershed as a whole saw the greatest number of private dwellings built between 2001 and 2011 (73,074 dwellings) followed by 1981 and 1990 with 60,825 dwellings (Table 24 in Appendix).19

Subw atershed Are a :

In the upper watershed area, the highest period of dwelling construction (19%) was between 1971 and 1980 and 1991 and 2000, followed by subsequent construction that stayed below this level (Figure 28). On the other hand, 21% of the dwellings in the middle watershed area were built between 2001 and 2011 (Figure 28). The lower watershed area experienced peak periods of construction between 1981 and 1990 (22%) and 2001 and 2011 (25%) (Figure 28). This is likely due to population growth and proximity to urban areas of the lower watershed area.

Figure 28: Watershed Area Dwellings by Period of Construction, 2013

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Before 1946 1946 and 1960 1961 and 1970 1971 and 1980 1981 and 1990 1991 and 2000 2001 and 2011 Built After 2011 Lower Middle Upper

From before 1946 to 1990, Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries (22) saw the greatest number of dwelling unit construction (Table 24 in Appendix). In 1991 to 2000, Norval to Port Credit (9) saw the greatest dwelling construction of 11,621 units, while in 2001 to 2011, Fletcher’s Creek (5) experienced growth of 21,641 dwelling units. Finally, Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries (22) had 3,375 dwelling units constructed after 2011 - the most of any other subwatershed area.

19

(39)

33

8.0 ETHNICITY

8.1 Mother Tongue

Total:

Figure 29 compares the watershed and Ontario population by single response to mother tongue.20 Both English (70%) and French (4%) are more represented as mother tongues in Ontario than in the watershed (55% and 1%) (Table 27 in Appendix). The number of those with non-official languages as their mother tongue in the watershed (44%) is much greater than for all of Ontario (26%). This is likely due to the diversity found in the

Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area as compared to more rural communities of Ontario.

Figure 29: Population by Mother Tongue, 2013

Examining in more detail the non-official mother tongue languages, Punjabi is the most prominent language with 40,550 reporting this as their mother tongue in 2008, followed by Urdu with 29,966 (Figure 30). By 2013, both numbers increased by 18% and 22% respectively (Table 28 in Appendix). By 2018, an expected 56,204 individuals would report Punjabi as their mother tongue while 42,320 would report Urdu as their mother tongue. The greatest increase reported for non-official mother tongue languages

between 2008 and 2018 is Russian (72% increase between 2008 and 2018) (Table 28 in Appendix). The greatest decrease (44%) in non-official mother tongue languages

between the same time period is Aboriginal languages.

20

(40)

34 Figure 30: Population by Mother Tongue Non-Official Languages in Watershed, 2013

Subw atershed Are a :

Carolyn Creek (2) has the highest percent of total non-official languages with 60%, while Orangeville (19) has the highest percent of English (92%) as the mother tongue (Figure 31and Table 27 in Appendix). Glen Williams to Norval (14) has the highest percent of French (3%) as the mother tongue in 2013 (Table 27 in Appendix).

(41)

35 Table 4 identifies the highest percent of non-official language in each subwatershed area.21 Churchville Tributary (8b) contains the largest percent of a non-official language, with 38% of the population speaking Punjabi (see Appendix Table 32Table 32 for detailed breakdown of total languages by subwatershed area).

Table 4: Actual and Percent of Total, Top Languages by Subwatershed Area, 2013

Italian German Panjabi Spanish Arabic Tagalog Portuguese Polish Urdu Others

1 Loyalist Creek 438 129 548 395 676 551 439 888 1,735 1,145 4% 1% 5% 4% 6% 5% 4% 8% 16% 11% 2 Carolyn Creek 438 49 1,085 409 1,202 1,391 753 840 2,028 1,326 3% 0% 7% 3% 8% 9% 5% 5% 13% 9% 3 Sawmill Creek 710 316 1,165 1,420 3,703 2,067 1,097 2,210 5,643 2,539 2% 1% 4% 4% 12% 7% 3% 7% 18% 8% 4 Mullett Creek 1,173 487 999 2,160 2,586 1,580 1,496 2,341 3,611 2,541 4% 2% 3% 7% 8% 5% 5% 7% 11% 8% 5 Fletcher's Creek 1,438 247 22,527 2,392 1,091 3,129 4,296 1,466 5,673 5,424 2% 0% 35% 4% 2% 5% 7% 2% 9% 8% 6 Levi Creek 144 51 181 269 122 119 211 198 134 191 6% 2% 7% 11% 5% 5% 9% 8% 6% 8% 7 Huttonville Creek 23 4 543 35 20 109 83 44 150 135 2% 0% 37% 2% 1% 7% 6% 3% 10% 9% 8a Springbrook Tributary 68 17 1,411 114 101 346 227 221 552 442 1% 0% 31% 2% 2% 8% 5% 5% 12% 10% 8b Churchville Tributary 341 60 5,579 503 190 812 1,058 503 1,118 1,195 2% 0% 38% 3% 1% 6% 7% 3% 8% 8%

9 Norval to Port Credit 2,665 651 9,804 3,353 6,025 5,522 4,709 6,083 8,103 6,987

3% 1% 12% 4% 7% 7% 6% 7% 10% 8%

10 Black Creek 137 167 22 52 8 53 157 212 1 141

9% 11% 1% 3% 1% 3% 10% 14% 0% 9%

11 Silver Creek 200 233 29 115 12 90 286 269 8 265

8% 10% 1% 5% 0% 4% 12% 11% 0% 11%

12 Cheltenham to Glen Williams 55 66 9 51 2 16 42 51 3 41

11% 13% 2% 10% 0% 3% 8% 10% 1% 8%

13 East Credit River 30 17 54 5 3 1 21 19 0 6

15% 9% 27% 3% 1% 0% 10% 10% 0% 3%

14 Glen Williams to Norval 18 32 0 28 0 5 36 32 0 19

7% 13% 0% 11% 0% 2% 14% 13% 0% 8%

15 West Credit River 30 68 3 22 0 14 63 51 0 50

7% 15% 1% 5% 0% 3% 14% 11% 0% 11%

16 Caledon Creek 51 68 6 14 2 2 40 8 1 26

18% 24% 2% 5% 1% 1% 14% 3% 0% 9%

17 Shaw's Creek 48 46 24 21 4 14 53 50 1 18

14% 13% 7% 6% 1% 4% 15% 14% 0% 5%

18 Melville to Forks of the Credit

13 24 11 1 0 1 16 8 1 7

13% 25% 11% 1% 0% 1% 16% 8% 1% 7%

19 Orangeville 195 249 60 142 51 101 212 156 29 178

10% 13% 3% 7% 3% 5% 11% 8% 1% 9%

20 Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham

52 52 38 9 7 2 26 33 2 13

16% 16% 12% 3% 2% 1% 8% 10% 1% 4%

21 Lake Ontario Shoreline

West Tributaries 861 6% 472 3% 236 2% 868 6% 730 5% 823 5% 821 5% 2,462 16% 646 4% 1,492 10% 22 Lake Ontario Shoreline East

Tributaries

3,721 787 2,931 5,288 7,260 6,267 4,938 8,530 7,004 8,540

4% 1% 3% 6% 8% 7% 6% 10% 8% 10%

CREDIT RIVER WATERSHED

12,927 4,272 47,769 17,746 23,764 23,114 21,267 26,872 36,571 32,999

3% 1% 13% 5% 6% 6% 6% 7% 10% 9%

21

(42)

36

8.2 Immigration

Total:

The watershed consistently has a much smaller non-immigrant population (52%-46%) than in the Province (70%-98%) between 2008 and 2018 (Figure 32 and Table 29 in Appendix). On the other hand, the immigrant population in the watershed (47%-53%) is greater than that in Ontario (29%-31%), and is also increasing at a greater rate from 2008 to 2018 (Figure 32 and Table 29 in Appendix).

Figure 32: Population by Immigration Status, 2008-2018

52% 49% 46% 70% 69% 68% 47% 50% 53% 29% 30% 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2008 2013 2018 CRW Non-Immigrant Population ONT Non-Immigrant Population CRW Immigrant Population ONT Immigrant Population

Subw atershed Are a :

The following figure indicates that the immigrant population in the lower watershed area is increasing, and by 2018 57% of the immigrant population is projected to reside in the lower watershed (Figure 33). This is contrary to the trend seen in the middle and upper watershed area, where the immigrant population is expected to slightly decline.

Figure 33: Percent of Immigrant Population by Watershed Area, 2008-2018

(43)

37 The difference between the percent of immigrants to non-immigrants is much greater in the upper and middle watershed areas than in the lower watershed area (Figure 34). The subwatershed area with the greatest immigrant population is Carolyn Creek (2) with 65% in 2013 (Table 29 in Appendix). The area with the greatest non-immigrant

population is Shaw’s Creek (17) with 89% in 2013. Table 30 outlines the percent change of total immigrant population by subwatershed area, with Springbrook Tributary (8a) with the greatest percent change of 462% from 2008 to 2018.

(44)

38

8.3 Ethnicity

Total:

The visible minority composition in the Watershed shows higher representation of the South Asian community (45%) in comparison to Ontario (31%) (Figure 35 and Table 31 in Appendix). On the other hand, Ontario has a higher percentage of Black (16%) and Chinese (20%) visible minorities compared to the watershed (13% and 11%).

Figure 35: Visible Minority Composition, 2013

Subw atershed Are a :

(45)

39 Table 5: Highest Number of Visible Minority by Year

Subwatershed Area Visible Minority Population 2008 2013 Projected 2018 Fletcher’s Creek South Asian 44,033 55,418 65,275 Black 20,743 23,921 25,773

All Other Visible Minorities

2,653 2,868 2,768

Multiple Visible Minorities 2,192

Norval to Port Credit

Chinese 13,890 15,476 17,134

Filipino 10,911

Japanese 775

Multiple Visible Minorities 2,287

Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries Filipino 8,911 9,760 Latin American 4,294 4,860 5,697 Southeast Asian 5,169 6,285 7,617 Arab 5,481 7,005 8,503 West Asian 1,729 1,930 2,351 Korean 1,935 2,105 2,233 Japanese 580 647 675

(46)

40

9.0 CONCLUSION

The Credit River watershed’s diverse physical landscape of stream and river networks and rural vs. urban environments is as diverse as its socio-demographic profile. The watershed continues to grow at a faster rate than in Ontario as a whole, with majority of the growth occurring in the lower watershed area. Although the population and the number of households are expected to continue growing, the average household size has been on decline since 2008. Furthermore, the watershed is also experiencing aging of its population. Nonetheless, the average age of residents in the watershed is still younger than that of Ontario as a whole, and the total percent of families remains consistent.

The average household income in the watershed is slightly higher than in Ontario, but both have been increasing between 2008 and 2018. The labour force in the watershed has experienced some impacts demonstrated by a decline in participation in the labour force as a result of the recession, but this is expected to increase by 2018. The car remains the primary mode of transportation to work for the residents in the watershed, with almost no change between 2008 and 2018. Public transit only comprises 12% of the total modes of transportation used for travel to work, although public transit use is greater in some subwatershed areas than others as a result of the established transit network. The population in the watershed is showing trends of increasing educational attainment levels, with university and higher educational levels projected to increase by 2018.

The total number of dwellings is growing, with rented dwellings showing an increase. The dwelling structures in the watershed continue to be comprised of single detached dwellings, but higher density housing such as apartment buildings are expected to increase by 2018.

However, the proportion of various structure types, expected growth and construction period varies significantly from upper to lower watershed areas.

Finally, the watershed represents a more ethnically diverse community when compared to Ontario. The numbers of individuals with non-official languages as their mother tongue is almost double that of Ontario, with Punjabi and Urdu being the most dominant of the non-official

(47)
(48)
(49)

43

10.0 APPENDIX

22,23

Table 6: Total Population, 2008-2018

22

The orange highlights in the table represent the highest value in each category and the corresponding subwatershed area. The green highlights in the table represent the lowest value in each category and the corresponding subwatershed area.

23

The sum of the subwatershed totals and the Credit River Watershed total in some tables do not match because of the independent demographic data calculations with the best possible boundary calculation method applied to the individual boundary. For more details please read section 2.0 Methodology and Data Limitations.

Watershed Area Subwatershed 2008 2013 2018 % change '08-'13 % change '13-'18 % change '08-'18

Lower 1- Loyalist Creek 26,777 26,317 27,189 -1.7% 3.3% 1.5%

Lower 2- Carolyn Creek 26,395 27,247 26,849 3.2% -1.5% 1.7%

Lower 3- Sawmill Creek 59,710 68,710 76,480 15.1% 11.3% 28.1%

Lower 4- Mullett Creek 83,709 82,598 81,820 -1.3% -0.9% -2.3%

Lower 5 - Fletcher's Creek 131,930 147,382 152,632 11.7% 3.6% 15.7%

Lower 6 - Levi Creek 8,078 9,476 12,298 17.3% 29.8% 52.2%

Lower 7 - Huttonville Creek 1,923 3,341 5,197 73.7% 55.6% 170.2%

Lower 8a - Springbrook Tributary 3,116 9,488 16,786 204.5% 76.9% 438.7% Lower 8b - Churchville Tributary 25,839 33,162 41,384 28.3% 24.8% 60.2% Lower 9 - Norval to Port Credit 155,883 167,199 185,861 7.3% 11.2% 19.2% Lower 21 - Lake Ontario Shoreline West Tributaries 52,342 52,033 55,962 -0.6% 7.6% 6.9% Lower 22 - Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries 163,312 171,488 186,262 5.0% 8.6% 14.1%

Sub-total 739,016 798,441 868,719 8.0% 8.8% 17.6%

Middle 10 - Black Creek 17,006 17,578 19,032 3.4% 8.3% 11.9%

Middle 11 - Silver Creek 22913 23477 24818 2.5% 5.7% 8.3%

Middle 12 - Cheltenham to Glen Williams 4,064 4,400 5,040 8.3% 14.5% 24.0% Middle 13 - East Credit River 1,255 1,226 1,502 -2.3% 22.5% 19.7% Middle 14 - Glen Williams to Norval 2,876 2,979 3,255 3.6% 9.3% 13.2% Middle 20 - Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 2,127 2,173 2,562 2.2% 17.9% 20.5%

Sub-total 50,241 51,834 56,210 3.2% 8.4% 11.9%

Upper 15 - West Credit River 7,121 6,741 6,973 -5.3% 3.5% -2.1%

Upper 16 - Caledon Creek 2,565 2,527 3,090 -1.5% 22.3% 20.5%

Upper 17 - Shaw's Creek 4,333 4,887 5,898 12.8% 20.7% 36.1%

Upper 18 - Melville to Forks of the Credit 863 812 785 -5.9% -3.4% -9.1%

Upper 19 - Orangeville 29,270 30,220 31,643 3.2% 4.7% 8.1%

Sub-total 44,152 45,186 48,389 2.3% 7.1% 9.6%

Credit River Watershed 836,422 901,148 988,506 7.7% 9.7% 18.2%

(50)

44 Table 7: Median Age, 2008-2018

Watershed

Area Subw atershed 2008 2013 2018

Median Male

Median Fem ale

Low er 1 - Loyalist Creek 36.42 38.01 38.67 36.09 39.57

Low er 2 - Carolyn Creek 34.46 36.42 37.95 34.69 37.75

Low er 3 - Saw mill Creek 35.85 36.77 37.73 35.27 38.03

Low er 4 - Mullett Creek 37.13 39.23 40.69 37.64 40.48

Low er 5 - Fletcher's Creek 32.46 32.92 33.38 32.92 34.75

Low er 6 - Levi Creek 34.70 35.33 35.84 34.55 35.91

Low er 7 - Huttonville Creek 31.37 32.18 33.36 31.42 32.82

Low er 8a - Springbrook Tributary 31.94 32.33 33.62 32.07 32.54 Low er 8b - Churchville Tributary 32.35 33.44 34.45 32.85 33.99 Low er 9 - Norval to Port Credit 36.49 38.01 38.92 36.97 38.93 Low er 21 - Lake Ontario Shoreline West Tributaries 40.51 42.22 42.31 39.63 40.85 Low er 22 - Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries 37.26 38.82 40.03 40.89 41.95

35.08 36.31 37.25 35.42 37.30

Middle 10 - Black Creek 38.26 40.31 41.01 43.84 44.73

Middle 11 - Silver Creek 39.66 41.44 41.84 45.13 47.05

Middle 12 - Cheltenham to Glen Williams 42.69 44.30 44.27 38.72 42.85

Middle 13 - East Credit River 43.80 46.09 46.17 43.30 43.57

Middle 14 - Glen Williams to Norval 39.06 40.91 41.78 44.35 46.56 Middle 20 - Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 44.20 46.23 47.02 38.21 37.01

41.28 43.21 43.68 42.26 43.63

Upper 15 - West Credit River 41.16 43.44 44.59 44.26 44.14

Upper 16 - Caledon Creek 42.02 45.59 46.45 36.28 39.17

Upper 17 - Shaw 's Creek 36.11 37.56 37.58 46.65 45.79

Upper 18 - Melville to Forks of the Credit 41.86 44.20 47.61 40.71 43.58

Upper 19 - Orangeville 35.98 37.75 37.76 37.95 39.61 39.43 41.71 42.80 41.17 42.46 36.09 37.50 38.38 36.44 38.44 38.91 39.93 40.44 38.84 40.93 Median Age Ontario Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Credit River Watershed

Table 8: Age Cohort Population Change in Watershed and ON, 2008-2018

Age 2008 2013 2018 '08-'13 13-'18 '08-'18 2008 2013 2018 08-'13 13-'18 08-'18 0-4 51,561 49,413 51,853 -4.2% 4.9% 0.6% 703,949 732,395 771,466 4.0% 5.3% 9.6% 5-9 52,887 54,846 54,815 3.7% -0.1% 3.6% 718,165 744,301 780,596 3.6% 4.9% 8.7% 10-14 59,177 57,609 60,513 -2.6% 5.0% 2.3% 801,978 757,746 782,869 -5.5% 3.3% -2.4% 15-19 62,307 65,143 63,593 4.6% -2.4% 2.1% 887,208 864,364 805,201 -2.6% -6.8% -9.2% 20-24 59,747 68,349 72,214 14.4% 5.7% 20.9% 895,742 979,489 951,487 9.3% -2.9% 6.2% 25-29 58,607 62,903 76,405 7.3% 21.5% 30.4% 867,926 962,207 1,075,112 10.9% 11.7% 23.9% 30-34 59,850 60,784 69,915 1.6% 15.0% 16.8% 862,849 921,777 1,058,761 6.8% 14.9% 22.7% 35-39 64,297 63,065 66,516 -1.9% 5.5% 3.5% 929,663 896,450 975,613 -3.6% 8.8% 4.9% 40-44 73,300 67,254 67,375 -8.2% 0.2% -8.1% 1,032,148 952,493 928,734 -7.7% -2.5% -10.0% 45-49 71,611 75,569 71,916 5.5% -4.8% 0.4% 1,073,287 1,045,150 972,429 -2.6% -7.0% -9.4% 50-54 59,037 70,833 76,326 20.0% 7.8% 29.3% 944,777 1,072,927 1,053,650 13.6% -1.8% 11.5% 55-59 47,428 57,990 70,480 22.3% 21.5% 48.6% 800,048 931,696 1,070,519 16.5% 14.9% 33.8% 60-64 37,455 45,573 56,565 21.7% 24.1% 51.0% 673,271 784,820 918,299 16.6% 17.0% 36.4% 65-69 25,788 35,760 44,148 38.7% 23.5% 71.2% 504,423 650,238 759,397 28.9% 16.8% 50.5% 70-74 19,404 24,393 33,918 25.7% 39.0% 74.8% 406,969 474,854 609,721 16.7% 28.4% 49.8% 75-79 14,853 18,171 23,023 22.3% 26.7% 55.0% 348,029 365,558 422,439 5.0% 15.6% 21.4% 80-84 10,668 12,414 15,217 16.4% 22.6% 42.6% 260,842 282,900 297,207 8.5% 5.1% 13.9% 85+ 8,445 11,079 13,714 31.2% 23.8% 62.4% 219,634 274,152 330,894 24.8% 20.7% 50.7%

CRW Total Population ONT Total Population

% Change % Change

(51)

45 Table 9: Population by Age Cohort, 2013

Watershed

Area Subw atershed 0-14 15-34 25-44 25-54 35-54 75+ Total

Low er 1 - Loyalist Creek 4,514 7,739 6,498 10,710 7,298 1,379 38,137

Low er 2 - Carolyn Creek 4,881 8,278 7,197 12,229 8,818 927 42,330

Low er 3 - Saw mill Creek 12,719 19,964 19,066 30,266 21,102 2,998 106,115

Low er 4 - Mullett Creek 13,247 23,913 21,295 36,290 25,855 3,349 123,950

Low er 5 - Fletcher's Creek 32,688 43,515 45,947 67,007 45,185 5,068 239,409

Low er 6 - Levi Creek 2,169 2,521 2,705 4,462 3,380 202 15,439

Low er 7 - Huttonville Creek 838 1,004 1,143 1,568 1,034 72 5,659

Low er 8a - Springbrook Tributary 2,355 2,894 3,395 4,574 2,880 217 16,316

Low er 8b - Churchville Tributary 7,165 10,275 10,559 15,333 9,982 866 54,180

Low er 9 - Norval to Port Credit 27,663 49,138 46,811 74,215 50,789 7,860 256,476 Low er 21 - Lake Ontario Shoreline West Tributaries 7,851 13,846 12,167 21,354 15,402 3,423 74,044 Low er 22 - Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries 27,428 48,743 51,075 78,451 52,486 9,435 267,619

Middle 10 - Black Creek 3,369 4,112 4,565 7,603 5,773 940 26,362

Middle 11 - Silver Creek 4,295 5,406 5,683 9,956 7,745 1,437 34,522

Middle 12 - Cheltenham to Glen Williams 739 936 953 1,776 1,395 262 6,061

Middle 13 - East Credit River 179 274 246 478 369 70 1,616

Middle 14 - Glen Williams to Norval 497 726 842 1,324 945 245 4,580

Middle 20 - Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 310 473 422 856 687 103 2,851

Upper 15 - West Credit River 1,152 1,455 1,415 2,789 2,307 271 9,389

Upper 16 - Caledon Creek 375 598 462 974 774 123 3,305

Upper 17 - Shaw 's Creek 1,027 1,233 1,269 2,155 1,636 168 7,487

Upper 18 - Melville to Forks of the Credit 133 176 175 321 252 41 1,098

Upper 19 - Orangeville 5,500 8,427 8,163 13,145 9,200 1,679 46,115

161,868 257,179 254,006 400,408 276,721 41,664 1,391,846 2,234,442 3,727,837 3,732,927 5,851,004 3,967,020 922,610 20,435,840 Population by Age Cohort, 2013

Subtotal Credit River Watershed

Ontario

Table 10: Total Male and Female Population in Watershed and ON, 2008-2018

(52)

46 Table 11: Percent Change in Male and Female Population, 2013-2018

Watershed

Area 2013 2018 % Change 2013 2018 % Change

Low er 1 Loyalist Creek 12,879 13,296 3% 13,439 13,893 3%

Low er 2 Carolyn Creek 13,511 13,259 -2% 13,735 13,589 -1%

Low er 3 Saw mill Creek 33,849 37,858 12% 34,861 38,622 11%

Low er 4 Mullett Creek 40,829 40,394 -1% 41,769 41,426 -1%

Low er 5 Fletcher's Creek 73,347 75,663 3% 74,034 76,969 4%

Low er 6 Levi Creek 4,754 6,243 31% 4,722 6,055 28%

Low er 7 Huttonville Creek 1,672 2,630 57% 1,669 2,566 54%

Low er 8a Springbrook Tributary 4,685 8,426 80% 4,803 8,360 74%

Low er 8b Churchville Tributary 16,536 20,667 25% 16,626 20,717 25% Low er 9 Norval to Port Credit 83,236 92,787 11% 83,963 93,074 11% Low er 21 Lake Ontario Shoreline West Tributaries 25,791 27,729 8% 26,243 28,234 8% Low er 22 Lake Ontario Shoreline East Tributaries 84,187 91,285 8% 87,301 94,977 9%

Middle 10 Black Creek 8,927 9,600 8% 8,651 9,432 9%

Middle 11 Silver Creek 11,599 12,274 6% 11,878 12,544 6%

Middle 12 Cheltenham to Glen Williams 2,223 2,533 14% 2,177 2,507 15%

Middle 13 East Credit River 643 791 23% 583 711 22%

Middle 14 Glen Williams to Norval 1,432 1,544 8% 1,547 1,711 11%

Middle 20 Forks of the Credit to Cheltenham 1,088 1,290 19% 1,085 1,273 17%

Upper 15 West Credit River 3,381 3,485 3% 3,360 3,489 4%

Upper 16 Caledon Creek 1,299 1,577 21% 1,228 1,513 23%

Upper 17 Shaw 's Creek 2,406 2,880 20% 2,482 3,018 22%

Upper 18 Melville to Forks of the Credit 409 392 -4% 403 393 -3%

Upper 19 Orangeville 14,675 15,099 3% 15,545 16,545 6%

446,023 489,048 10% 455,125 499,458 10% 6,750,542 7,182,170 6% 6,942,975 7,382,224 6%

Male Fem ale

Subw atershed Area

Figure

Updating...

Related subjects :