MARCO Regional Waikato Perception Survey 2013 Waipa Report2010 Survey Feedback and evaluation of the 2007 survey was highly supportive for undertaking a similar survey every three

Prepared by International Research Consultants Ltd Phone: (09) 424 0516 PO Box 354 Fax: (09)-424 0581 Silverdale Email: [email protected] Auckland

MARCO Regional Waikato Perception Survey

2013 Waipa Report

August 2013

Prepared for

INTERNATIONAL

RESEARCH CONSULTANTS LTD

STRATEGIC PLANNING & BRAND SOLUTIONS

International Research Consultants Ltd August 2013

Key Contact: John Dennis 09 424 0516 Page 2

Table of Contents

Background Error! Bookmark not defined.4

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Telephone Area compared to respondents area .............................................................. 12

Scales and their Interpretation ....................................................................................................... 14

Sample Profile 15

Summary of Indexes – Waipa 19

Indexes – Waipa District ................................................................................................... 20

Waipa District - Comparison to 2010 ................................................................................ 21

Waipa - Summary Tables – Percentages across the Various Scale ................................ 23

Main Findings – Waipa 27

How happy are you with your Quality of Life.................................................................................. 27

How happy are you with your Quality of Life: Reasons for feeling this way ..................... 29

Quality of Life Factors .................................................................................................................... 32

Proximity Factors ........................................................................................................................... 39

Cultural Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 45

Barriers to Accessing Health Care ................................................................................................. 47

Why did you or your family not go to the doctor when you wanted to .............................. 50

Social Factors ................................................................................................................................ 52

Support within the community from family, friends and neighbours ................................. 55

Support within the community from networks and agencies............................................. 59

Safety Factors ................................................................................................................................ 62

Work Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 67

The role of Maori economic activity ............................................................................................... 69

Participation in Sport and Active Leisure ....................................................................................... 71

Council Decision Making Factors ................................................................................................... 73

Environment Factors ...................................................................................................................... 78

Sense of Pride ................................................................................................................................ 83

Sense of pride in the way district looks and feels: Verbatim Comments .......................... 85

What makes your district unique or special ................................................................................... 91

Participation and Equity Factors .................................................................................................... 97

Respect for the cultures of the people who live here: Verbatim comments .................... 101

Three biggest issues for your district ........................................................................................... 105

The Important Issues in the community included the following comments: .................... 107

Three biggest issues Council should be looking at ...................................................................... 114

The Important Issues for Council included the following comments: .............................. 116

Waikato Regional Overview 125

Data weighting ................................................................................................................ 125

Happiness with Quality of Life ......................................................................................... 125

Quality of Life Factors ..................................................................................................... 126

Proximity Factors ............................................................................................................ 127

Barriers to Accessing Health Care .................................................................................. 127

Safety Factors ................................................................................................................. 128



Work Opportunities ......................................................................................................... 128

Participation in Sport and Active Leisure ........................................................................ 129

Council Decision Making Factors .................................................................................... 130

Sense of Pride ................................................................................................................. 130

What makes your district unique or special .................................................................... 131

Participation and Equity Factors ..................................................................................... 131

Three biggest issues for your district .............................................................................. 132

Three biggest issues Council should be looking at ......................................................... 132

Summary of Indexes – Waikato Region ....................................................................................... 133

Indexes – Waikato Region .............................................................................................. 134

Waikato Region - Comparison to 2010 and 2007 ........................................................... 135

Tables of Core Indexes by Council ................................................................................. 136

Waikato Region - Summary Tables – Percentages across the Various Scale ............... 139

Appendix 141

Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................... 141

MARCO Regional Waikato Perception Survey 2013 Background



Background

The Waikato Region undertook a collaborative approach to the identification and monitoring of community outcomes. Choosing Futures Waikato (CFW)1 was established in 2004 as a collaboration comprising representatives of staff from Waikato Regional Council, Hamilton City, various district councils from the region, Waikato District Health Board, NZ Police, Ministry of Social Development, and the Department of Internal Affairs.

CFW facilitated the identification of the regional community outcomes for the Waikato Region. In addition, a working group of technical staff from local and central government agencies was formed to develop a framework and processes to monitor and report progress of the region’s community outcomes (MARCO), including the selection of suitable indicators (www.choosingfutures.co.nz).

In 2006 MARCO identified a broad range of measures (approx 190) with a smaller core set of 75 indicator measures that could be used to measure progress towards the region’s community outcomes.

A number of those core indicators (about 15 - 20) were measures that require data to be collected through a survey. In some cases there was an existing survey mechanism in place for the collection of this data, mainly at a regional level/scale, ie:

1. Waikato Regional Council – Environmental awareness, attitudes and actions (EAAA) survey

A triennial random survey of the region’s residents with relatively large sample size (n 1,500) with data able to be disaggregated to a district level (some districts elect to 'boost' their sampling on their districts to give more statistically robust results).

2. The Quality of Live Survey (http://www.qualityoflifeproject.govt.nz/survey.htm)

Undertaken biannually by consortium of the 12 larger city Councils (n=500 each) and the Ministry of Social Development (national non-city sample of n=1,500). For the 2006 survey Waikato Regional Council purchased additional Waikato region resident interviews (on top of Hamilton City 500 and nominal non-Hamilton sample of MSD sample). This allowed for Waikato region data to be able to be produced (at statistically robust level) for QoL survey questions.

3. New Zealand General Social Survey (Statistics NZ)

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/nzgss_HOTP2012.aspx

The New Zealand General Social Survey (NZGSS) provides information on the well-being of New Zealanders aged 15 years and over. It covers a wide range of social and economic outcomes and shows how people are faring. In particular the survey provides a view of how well-being outcomes are distributed across different groups within the New Zealand population. The first survey was carried out in 2008, then in 2010 and 2012.

4. Sovereign Wellbeing Survey 2013 (http://www.mywellbeing.co.nz/mw/what-is-wellbeing.html) The survey is the first national representation of how New Zealanders are faring on a personal and social level, and how New Zealand is doing compared to other countries.

While some data is available from these surveys at the regional level, data availability of national surveys does generally not extend to the district/city level. To allow benchmarking or comparisons with other specific projects, where applicable the questions are the same or similar to those already in use.

1 Choosing Futures Waikato has been disestablished following the amendments to the Local Government Act 2011, which revoked the mandatory requirement for councils to identify community outcomes and to track and report on progress towards them. However, the multi-agency MARCO group continued the gathering and reporting of the 75 core indicators to provide ongoing key information of the communities economic, social/cultural and environmental wellbeing.

http://www.choosingfutures.co.nz/

http://www.ew.govt.nz/Environmental-information/REDI/1176617/

http://www.qualityoflifeproject.govt.nz/survey.htm



http://www.mywellbeing.co.nz/mw/what-is-wellbeing.html




2007 Survey

The first ‘Waikato Regional Perception Survey’ was undertaken in May/June 2007. MARCO established the framework for the 2007 survey:

a) allow for the collection of data for the Waikato region (at a statistically robust level) at a district level for approximately 18 of the 75 core indicators that require data to be collected by way of a telephone survey

b) allow flexibility for any district/city Council that wished to increase the sampling of respondents in its district in order to provide more statistically robust results; and/or

c) allow additional flexibility for district/city Councils that wanted to supplement the survey of 'core questions' with questions that relate to the monitoring of local community outcomes.

d) 918 respondents from the Waikato Region were interviewed for the Collaborative Community Outcomes Monitoring Survey. (http://www.choosingfutures.co.nz/PageFiles/147/1217548collaborativeperceptionsurvey.pdf)

2010 Survey

Feedback and evaluation of the 2007 survey was highly supportive for undertaking a similar survey every three years. The 2010 survey was an update of the 2007 project and follows basically the same parameters as 2007:

a) 780 interviews were completed (70 per TA, except for Rotorua with 21 interviews). However, in 2007 Hamilton and Thames Coromandel opted to conduct extra interviews at their cost resulting in a total of 918 interviews.

b) 22 topics were covered with a total of 74 (sub-)questions asked. See questionnaire at http://www.choosingfutures.co.nz/Publications/.

Some councils took up the option (charged separately to each Council) for additional interviews to reduce margins of error and / or to include additional question(s)

2013 Survey

The third ‘Waikato Regional Perception Survey’ was undertaken in June 2013. The 2013 survey was an update of the 2010 project and follows basically the same parameters as 2010 and 2007:

c) 713 interviews were completed (a minimum of 70 per participating TA, with a representative proportion included for the TA.s not financially participating (Taupo 59 interviews, Hauraki 33 interviews, Otorohanga 16 interviews, Waitomo 15 interviews and Rotorua 6 interviews). However, in 2013 extra interviews were conducted for Hamilton (181 interviews) to reduce the impact of weighting TA’s to represent the regional balance..

d) 22 topics were covered with a total of 74 (sub-)questions asked. See questionnaire at http://www.choosingfutures.co.nz/Publications/.

Three councils took up the option (charged separately to each Council) for additional interviews to reduce margins of error and / or to include additional question(s)

Timing of Survey

It was proposed to undertake the survey in June/July 2013. This is consistent with the timing of the previous surveys, e.g. to reduce variability due any potential seasonal variability.

Deliverables

a) Regional and district/City reports, including raw data and analysed results

b) Results and reports published on CFW/MARCO website

Relevance for Councils

Meets Local Government Act (LGA) requirements.

Demonstrates collaboration and cost effectiveness of data gathering, analysis and reporting.

Provides valuable feedback and input into the LTP.

http://www.choosingfutures.co.nz/PageFiles/147/1217548collaborativeperceptionsurvey.pdf

http://www.choosingfutures.co.nz/Publications/

http://www.choosingfutures.co.nz/Publications/




Methodology Interview Type

In 2013, 713 respondents from the Waikato Region (versus 780 in 2010 and 918 respondents in 2007), were interviewed for the collaborative MARCO Regional Perception Survey. All interviews were conducted by telephone. Similar to previous years, a Hamilton based research company DigiPoll Ltd, handled all the interviewing and this was undertaken between the 1st June and 28th June 2013.

Sampling Methodology

The sampling method is the same as that used in previous Waikato Region surveys whereby respondents were selected using DigiPoll’s telephone random digit sampling system. This system was developed specifically for New Zealand conditions and gives a random sample of the entire population that have telephones. Using random digit dialling results in a greater proportion of new listings being included (students etc.) which is reflected in the sample’s demographics.

The Computer Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI) questionnaire ensured that all respondents were asked all the key questions but then only the respondents from each district were asked questions relevant to their specific district.

Interviewers were briefed in the conduct of the survey, and were subject to a quality check on their interviews as a matter of course. Interviewers did not pressure respondents in any way. People who did not wish to take part in the survey, were politely thanked for their time, and not contacted again.

Margin of Error

The following table shows the maximum margin of error for the overall sample and for smaller subgroups, at two different confidence levels, 95% and 90%

MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR

SAMPLE SIZE AT 95% CONFIDENCE AT 90% CONFIDENCE

713 + 3.6% + 3.0%

100 + 9.8% + 8.3%

70 + 11.7% + 9.9%

21 + 21.4% + 18.0%

9 + 32.7% + 27.5%

To interpret the above margins of error, consider the following scenario. If we take a sample of 713 people, correctly selected by random sampling methods and find that 50% agree with a statement. What this means is that, if we took 100 similar samples, all selected in the same way, 95 of those samples would give a result in that between 46.4% and 53.6% agree with that statement.

Therefore the margin of error for the entire sample of 713 is ±3.6% at the 95% confidence limit.

Questionnaire

In 2007, MARCO developed a draft questionnaire based on various similar surveys that had been conducted before, nationally and locally. IRC worked with Waikato Regional Council to fine tune and coordinate that questionnaire with the councils participating in the survey. The questionnaire was revised in 2010 and again prior to commencing the survey in 2013.

The bulk of the survey is unchanged from 2007 but there were a few new non-core questions added with a few questions used in 2010 no longer being required. In 2013, only three District Councils opted to include non-core specific questions.




Once we had agreement on the questionnaire from all Councils, then DigiPoll programmed the questionnaire into their computer systems.

In 2007, the core survey took 14 minutes, on average, to complete. In 2010, with the extra open core questions this resulted in the core survey taking 15.9 minutes. In 2013, the core survey took 17.0 minutes although no new questions were added. It seems that respondents had slightly more to say this year.

2010 Additional

questions 2010 Additional

minutes 2013 Additional

questions Estimated Extra

minutes Interviews

Core Survey 15.9 minutes 0.8

Thames-Coromandel 26 7 6 2.6 70

Hauraki 0 0 32

Waikato 0 0 106

Hamilton 7 1.6 0 179

Matamata-Piako 26 5.8 10 4.1 70

Waipa 17 2.6 15 5.5 78

South Waikato 0 0 70

Otorohanga 13 3.6 0 16

Waitomo 0 0 15

Rotorua 0 0 6

Taupo 0 0 58

Interview Quotas by TA

Similar to 2010, IRC recommended that the sampling methodology needed to be tied to the core objective of the survey. If the principal aim was to support decisions at a Regional level then random sampling across the region would be most appropriate. However, since the primary objective was to assist decision making at an individual TA level, we recommended geographic quota sampling similar to previous rounds.

The problem with the quota sample approach across the region is that when these are combined to give a Waikato perspective, data weighting is needed to give a true reflection of the population. Since Hamilton is such a dominant population within the region with data weighting, in 2010 each of Hamilton’s 100 respondents had a weighting of approximately 2.7 (e.g. 1 Hamilton interview has the same weight as almost 3 interviews in the rest of the region). To reduce this anomaly in 2013, IRC recommended increasing the number of interviews for Hamilton and the Waikato District to more closely reflect the regional population split.

For 2013, Hamilton City and five of the 10 District Councils (Thames-Coromandel, Waikato, Matamata-Piako, South Waikato and Waipa) opted to financially participate in the 2013 survey. However, these six Councils account for 82% of Regions population. The sample of 7002 was split with a minimum of 70 interviews set for each of the participating Councils. To give an accurate reflection of the region, respondents from all 11 Councils were included in the sample. However, for those Councils which were not participating, the number of interviews was set to reflect the number which would have been obtained in a random survey e.g. 6 interviews for Rotorua, 15 for the Waitomo District and 16 for the Otorohanga District. The Hamilton sample was bolstered by an additional 109 interviews to reduce the impact of data weighting on the Regional results.

2 The actual number of samples undertaken was 713. DigiPoll completed an extra 13 interviews(713 in total) in some districts where some respondents appeared to be misunderstanding which district they were actually from (specifically the Waikato District).




2012 Population

estimates

2012 Aged 15+ Population estimates

% 2012 Aged 15+ Population

estimates Random Spread 700 interviews

Minimum 70 + Random Spread 700 interviews

Hamilton 148200 116380 35.63% 249 179

Hauraki 18750 15080 4.62% 32 32

MPDC 32060 25280 7.74% 54 70

Otorohanga 9340 7250 2.22% 16 16

Rotorua 3830 2830 0.87% 6 6

South Waikato 22670 17250 5.28% 37 70

Taupo 33990 27010 8.27% 58 58

Thames Coromandel 26990 22640 6.93% 49 70

Waikato 64730 49360 15.11% 106 106

Waipa 46170 36370 11.13% 78 78

Waitomo 9460 7180 2.20% 15 15

Total 416190 326630 100.00% 700 700

Respondent Selection

All respondents were randomly selected, being the person in the household aged 18 years or older, who had the last birthday. No substitutions were made.

Telephone calls were made after 5.00pm on week nights and between 9.00am and 9.00pm at weekends or by appointment at other times of the day. This ensured that the working population was correctly represented.

Call-backs were conducted to ensure that highly mobile people and/or those working unusual hours still had a good chance of being contacted for interviews. DigiPoll’s call-back system maximised the chance of capturing all respondents from the Waikato Region.

Processing the information

The detailed data processing was completed by IRC.

Open-ended questions - where the interviewer records what the respondent says instead of selecting a pre-coded answer - were read and coded by our team of experienced coders. The coding was then checked and amended where necessary by Waikato Regional Council.

Cross-tabulations (comparing the answers of one question against those from other questions e.g. satisfaction by district, age or gender) formed the basis of the survey analysis.




Response Rate

Based on the ratio of effective interviews to refusals, the response rate for the 2013 survey was 36.0% (interviews / interviews + refusals) versus 37.3% in 2010 and 38.3% in 2007.

Outcomes 2007 # of contacts

2007 %

2010 # of contacts

2010 %

2013 # of contacts

2013 %

Completed calls 918 25.8% 780 25.1% 713 27.8%

Refusals 1,476 41.4% 1,309 42.1% 1,267 49.4%

Language Barrier / illness / hearing problems

50 1.4% 64 2.1% 43 1.7%

Ineligible 133 3.7% 220 7.1% 147 5.7%

Computer/Fax/Modem 483 13.6% 20 0.6% 46 1.8%

Answering Machine 503 14.1% 715 23.0% 348 13.6%

Total 3,563 100.0% 3,108 100.0% 2,564 100.0%

Response rate 38.3% 37.3% 36.0%

Data weighting

With most random samples, there are subgroups of the population that tend to opt out of participating in surveys e.g. in this survey only 39% of the interviews were with men (versus 48% based on the 2006 census results), as a higher proportion of men opted out of the survey (refused). Quotas by age and gender can be used, but these generally add a lot of cost with limited increased accuracy, but it makes the data appear more accurate.

With surveys undertaken to reflect the population of a geographic area, it is most important to correctly reflect the geographic spread of the population. Random sampling using quota controls by location, as used by DigiPoll, achieve this aim. This results in the most cost effective but representative sample being selected, but without demographic quotas by area, there are inevitably some imbalances in the demographic mix within each geographic area.

A simple cost effective method of correcting for this imbalance is by data weighting e.g. a weighting is given to ensure the sample reflects the actual population e.g. if 25% of the interviews were with respondents over 65 but we were only expecting 20% in the population, then a data weighting is applied to show the correct split.

The data weighting is calculated by age and gender within the Waikato Region and then weighted by the Council population to reflect the correct geographic make-up of the region.


International Research Consultants Ltd September, 13


The chart compares the proportion of the sample in each of the demographic subgroups that make up the sample based on the raw data (unweighted) and the weighted sample. This shows that the largest impact of data weighting is based on gender, age and income splits and to a lesser degree TA.

8.7

4.3

16.5

26.3

8.9

11.2

10.1

2.1

2.0

0.9

9.1

69.3

29.3

15.1

44.8

23.7

16.1

48.3

51.7

8.7

67.3

1.9

8.3

2.7

1.5

1.5

6.2

1.9

76.1

22.4

0.5

5.9

10.3

10.1

8.8

14.2

18.1

23.0

1.4

13.8

21.8

14.2

45.3

1.4

10.0

4.6

15.6

25.4

9.8

11.4

9.8

2.2

2.1

0.8

8.3

69.0

29.6

9.8

27.9

34.5

27.2

39.0

61.0

7.9

68.2

2.1

8.4

1.7

1.3

1.3

7.6

1.7

81.1

17.4

0.6

7.7

12.3

10.1

8.7

15.3

14.2

18.7

1.8

17.0

23.3

12.1

41.9

1.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Th

am

es-C

oro

man

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilton

Ma

tam

ata

-Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Wa

ikato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Waito

mo

Ro

toru

a

Ta

up

o

To

wn

Cou

ntry

Und

er 3

5

35

- 49

ye

ars

50

- 64

ye

ars

Ove

r 65

ye

ars

Me

n

Wom

en

NZ

Ma

ori d

esce

nt

NZ

Eu

rop

ea

n d

esce

nt

NZ

Oth

er d

esce

nt

Eu

rop

ea

n / B

ritish

Pa

cific

Isla

nd

er

Asia

n

Ind

ian

New

Ze

ala

nd

er

Oth

er

Ow

n o

r live

in fa

mily

ho

me

Re

nt o

r lea

se

Bo

ard

Le

ss th

an

$2

0,0

00

$2

0,0

00

to $

30

,00

0

$3

0,0

00

to $

40

,00

0

$4

0,0

00

to $

50

,00

0

$5

0,0

00

to $

70

,00

0

$7

0,0

00

to $

10

0,0

00

Mo

re th

an

$1

00

,00

0

Prim

ary

sch

oo

l

Se

co

nd

ary

sch

oo

l

Se

co

nd

ary

sch

oo

l …

Tra

de

Ce

rtifica

te

Te

rtiary

qu

alific

atio

n

Oth

er

% o

f the s

am

ple

Weighted Database (n = 713) Unweighted Database (n = 713)




The data weighting has a modest impact on the Indexes for most of the measured factors. The largest variance in an Index is 2.1 points for the ‘availability of

secondary schools in your area’. Most of the variances are less than 1 point.

80

.6

78

.6

65

.5

65

.3

64

.0

56

.4

80

.3

77

.6

70

.3

64

.2

83

.8

65

.9

80

.8

54

.4 50

.0 46

.2

68

.4

78

.1

70

.5

81

.3

79

.4

67

.6

66

.7

64

.7

57

.2

80

.3

77

.9

70

.8

64

.2

83

.5

66

.5

80

.1

56

.0 51

.5 47

.8

68

.9

78

.0

71

.1

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Overa

ll quality

of life

Availa

bility

of p

rimary

schools

Availa

bility

of s

econdary

schools

Recre

atio

nal fa

cilitie

s / o

pportu

nitie

s

Cultu

ral fa

cilitie

s / o

pportu

nitie

s

Availa

bility

of c

om

munity

/ tertia

ry e

ducatio

n

Pro

xim

ity to

schools

Pro

xim

ity to

where

you w

ork

Pro

xim

ity to

recre

atio

nal fa

cilitie

s

Pro

xim

ity to

oth

er e

ducatio

nal fa

cilitie

s

Safe

ty in

your c

om

munity

durin

g th

e d

aytim

e

Safe

ty in

your c

om

munity

afte

r dark

Job m

akes g

ood u

se o

f your s

kills

Unders

tand h

ow

Council m

akes d

ecis

ions

Confid

ence C

ouncil d

ecis

ions b

est fo

r dis

trict

Have e

nough s

ay in

what y

our C

ouncil d

oes

Fe

el a

sense o

f prid

e in

the w

ay D

istric

t looks

Fa

mily

respect fo

r cultu

res o

f our p

eople

Neig

hbourh

ood re

spect c

ultu

res o

f our p

eople

Ind

ex

Weighted Sample (n = 713)

Un-weighted Sample (n = 713)

2.1

po

ints

dif

f

MARCO Regional Waikato Perception Survey 2013 – Waipa Report Background



Telephone Area compared to respondents area Respondents were asked ‘Can you tell me which district you live in?’

DigiPoll telephone records can accurately place most telephone numbers into specific telephone exchanges. These exchanges have been mapped to each district.

In this survey, the respondents were asked which district they lived in and if this conflicted with where the telephone exchange placed them, then they were asked ‘Our telephone file shows you as living in the «NAME» district/local Council, can you please confirm which area you live in?’

The vast majority (92%) were in the same areas as the telephone suffix implied. However, after checking, 3% said they lived in a different district to what the exchange showed.

There are a number of reasons for this anomaly to occur. The main anomaly appears to be people stating they live in the Waikato District when the phone records suggest they live in other areas. It seems that many people get confused between the Region and District. However, these respondents were told the Council area the telephone records showed and asked to confirm which area they were from and each confirmed their area. It is possible that respondents do not like to be shown up as being wrong and opted to stay with their first response.

Secondly, the telephone exchange areas do not exactly match the district boundaries and it is possible that this is the cause of some of these anomalies. Thirdly, some people move and get their telephone number redirected to a different location. Fourthly, it is possible we interviewed some people who lived in the Waikato region that were visiting other areas when the call was made e.g. to a holiday home or friends or family places.

It is also possible that some people do not know which district they live in and only stated where they thought they lived. Most of these causes for the discrepancies are legitimate. For this reason, we have used the respondents’ definition of their district for all analysis in this report except where the nearest intersection clearly shows them in a neighbouring District. Our logic is that if the respondent thinks they come from a particular district, it would be that district they are thinking about when they answered the questions.

The number of actual interviews in this report does not exactly match the quotas (planned interviews). This is because the quotas were set on the telephone file rather than the respondents answer. However, in most districts this difference is only one or two interviews.

Area same 97.1% Area different

2.9%




Telephone Area versus Respondent Area

The chart compares the district the respondents said they came from against the district the telephone suffix implies.

This reflects the fact that some people said they were from a different district to what the telephone suffix implied.

This is generally caused by the respondent living on the edge of a town or district and the exchange areas not matching exactly to the district boundaries.

For most districts, the vast majority are from the telephone exchanges for the district that for respondents said they were from. This ranges from 95% for Waikato to 100% most districts.

The main discrepancy is for the Waikato District with 95% coming from an exchange that covers the Waikato District. However, 2.5% were from South Waikato exchanges while 1.6% were from Matamata-Piako exchanges and 0.7% on Waipa exchanges. It is probable these respondents live in areas where the exchange boundaries do not match the district boundaries.

Waipa had 2 respondents (2.5%) who were on exchanges for the Hamilton City. However, looking at the street addresses for these respondents, all are in rural areas outside the city boundaries.

There are a few anomalies in the data set e.g. 2 respondents who said they were from the Hauraki District show as being on an exchange from South Waikato. These may be people visiting other locations e.g. a holiday home or it may be a mistake by the respondent or the interviewer.

9

100

4

98

16

95

27

100

3

9

2

100

11

1

98

11

2

3

100

2

100

2

100

1

100

9

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n = 713)

Thames-Coromandel (n = 71)

Hauraki (n = 33)

Waikato (n = 111)

Hamilton (n = 181)

Matamata-Piako (n = 70)

Waipa (n = 81)

South Waikato (n = 70)

Otorohanga (n = 16)

Waitomo (n = 15)

Rotorua (n = 6)

Taupo (n = 59)

% of the sample

Thames-Coromandel Hauraki Waikato

Hamilton Matamata-Piako Waipa

South Waikato Otorohanga Waitomo

Rotorua Taupo

Resp

on

den

ts d

efi

nit

ion

of

wh

ich

Dis

tric

t th

ey l

ive in

Telephone Exchange Area




Scales and their Interpretation

The questionnaire used a number of measurement scales to understand the respondents’ attitudes and satisfaction levels in relation to the various issues discussed. Most scales used an 11 point scale ranging from strong negative to strong positive but with a neutral option. All respondents also had the option of giving a ‘don’t know’ response or not answering any question. The 11 point scale gives respondents an opportunity to define nuances in their level of satisfaction, agreement or value.

Indexes This report uses Indexes to allow meaningful comparisons across the various demographic sub groups of interest of the scales used. An index is a weighted average score across the scale range. These include:

The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) which converts each respondents answer across the satisfaction scale to a score out of 100. The score is 10 times the average of the individual scores based on the 11 point satisfaction scale 0 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied.

The Agreement Index (AI) which converts each respondents answer across the agreement scale to a score out of 100. The score is 10 times the average of the individual scores based on the 11 point satisfaction scale 0 = Strongly Disagree to 10 = Strongly Agree.

The Safeness Index (SfI) which converts each respondents answer across the safety scale to a score out of 100. The score is 10 times the average of the individual scores based on the 11 point satisfaction scale 0 = Very Unsafe to 10 = Very Safe.

The Happiness Index (HI) which converts each respondents answer across the happiness scale to a score out of 100. The score is 10 times the average of the individual scores based on the 11 point satisfaction scale 0 = Very Unhappy to 10 = Very Happy.

For the purposes of calculating an Index, the results of such questions are presented as a weighted average (a score out of 100) with the following weights applied.

Index Satisfaction Scale Agreement Scale Safety Scale Happiness Scale

100 Very Satisfied 10 Strongly Agree 10 Very Safe 10 Very Happy 10

90 9 9 9 9

80 8 8 8 8

70 7 7 7 7

60 6 6 6 6

50 5 Neutral 5 5 5

40 4 4 4 4

30 3 3 3 3

20 2 2 2 2

10 1 1 1 1

0 Very Dissatisfied 0 Strongly Disagree 0 Very Unsafe 0 Very Unhappy 0




Sample Profile Gender

There was an over representation of female respondents in the survey. Of those surveyed, 61% were women versus 39% men.

Past experience has shown that with local government type issues, there is a higher response rate from women. Consequently, they account for a greater portion of the sample. Similar to previous years, with data weighting, women account for 52% of the sample.

There is some variation in the demographic mix within each TA but that may reflect the small sample size within each region. Data weighting has been used to correct the demographic imbalances in the random sample caused by certain sub groups opting out more frequently (e.g. younger respondents / men). Refer methodology section for full explanation.

Age

The unweighted sample has a disproportionate number of over 65 year olds, (27% versus 16% in the census). This is caused by more older people living alone and being more available for interviews. This anomaly has been corrected by data weighting.

Only 15% of the sample were aged under 35 while close to half of the weighted sample, (45%) is aged 35 – 49 years.

A quarter of the weighted sample (24%) were aged 50 – 64 years, and the balance were aged in the 65+ age bracket, (16%). Two respondents (0.3%) did not specify their age.

The results are similar to 2007 although there are fewer aged under 35 and more aged 35 – 49 years this year.

There is some variation by district but that may reflect the small number of interviews.

48.3

48.3

48.4

37.8

43.5

47

47.8

40.2

48

53.0

48.1

26.5

47.1

70.4

48.2

49.7

51.7

51.7

51.6

62.2

56.5

49.0

52.2

59.8

56.6

47.0

51.9

73.5

52.9

29.6

51.8

50.3

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013 (n = 713)

2010 (n = 780)

2007 (n = 917)


Hauraki (n = 33)

Waikato (n = 111)

Hamilton (n = 181)


Waipa (n = 81)


Otorohanga (n = 16)

Waitomo (n = 15)

Rotorua (n = 6)

Taupo (n = 59)

Town (n = 492)

Country (n = 211)

% of the sample

Men Women

15

20

25

10

20

10

15

15

20

17

15

9

24

17

10

45

30

33

41

35

54

49

38

41

43

39

51

73

36

43

49

24

30

24

24

26

22

23

23

23

24

25

28

12

29

23

25

16

19

16

26

20

13

13

25

16

17

20

13

16

11

16

16

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013 (n = 713)

2010 (n = 780)

2007 (n = 917)


Hauraki (n = 33)

Waikato (n = 111)

Hamilton (n = 181)


Waipa (n = 81)


Otorohanga (n = 16)

Waitomo (n = 15)

Rotorua (n = 6)

Taupo (n = 59)

Town (n = 492)

Country (n = 211)

% of the sample

Under 35 35 - 49 years 50 - 64 years Over 65 years No answer




Ethnicity

Two thirds of the respondents (67%) identified themselves with being a New Zealander of European descent while 8% identified themselves with being European / British.

A tenth of the sample (9%) identified themselves with being a New Zealander of Maori descent and 2% as a New Zealander of other descent. A further 6% described themselves as a ‘New Zealander’ or ‘Kiwi’.

There were a small number of respondents who identified themselves as Pacific Islanders (2.7%), Asian (1.5%), Indian (1.5%) or of other races (1.9%).

The results are similar to previous years.


Home Ownership

Three quarters of the respondents, (76%) owned or lived in the family home. A fifth of the sample (22%) said they rented or leased, with the balance stating that they boarded (0.5%) or had some other arrangement (0.8%) or did not answer this question (0.2%).

There are slightly more renters in the 2013 survey.


67

66

63

76

73

56

63

68

83

70

64

65

100

63

66

71

8

9

12

10

16

13

8

15

5

3

4

13

8

10

9

11

11

4

8

13

10

1

5

9

9

19

10

6

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

3

15

9

2

2

2

6

8

8

4

10

6

7

5

5

9

4

7

6

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013 (n = 713)

2010 (n = 780)

2007 (n = 917)


Hauraki (n = 33)

Waikato (n = 111)

Hamilton (n = 181)


Waipa (n = 81)


Otorohanga (n = 16)

Waitomo (n = 15)

Rotorua (n = 6)

Taupo (n = 59)

Town (n = 492)

Country (n = 211)

% of the sample

NZ European descent European / British NZ Maori descent

NZ Other descent New Zealander Pacific Islander

Asian Indian Other

76

77

74

83

81

83

70

76

71

74

81

83

82

77

73

83

22

18

24

15

17

16

29

20

27

25

19

18

22

26

15

1

3

1

2

3

1

1

1

0

1

2

0

4

2

1

19

0

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013 (n = 713)

2010 (n = 780)

2007 (n = 917)


Hauraki (n = 33)

Waikato (n = 111)

Hamilton (n = 181)


Waipa (n = 81)


Otorohanga (n = 16)

Waitomo (n = 15)

Rotorua (n = 6)

Taupo (n = 59)

Town (n = 492)

Country (n = 211)

% of the sample

Own or live in family home Rent or lease Board Other No answer




Household Income

There was a fairly even spread of respondents across the different levels of household income. The split is similar to previous years although a higher proportion have an income over $100,000 in 2013.

A tenth of the respondents either declined to give their household income or said they did not know what it is (10%).

Over a third of the sample (41%) had a household income of over $70,000.

At the other end of the scale, a sixth of the sample (16%) had a household income of less than $30,000.

The remaining 33% had a household income of between $30,000 and $70,000.

The spread is similar across the districts but it appears that a higher proportion of those who live in the country (27%) had a household income of over $100,000 (versus 22% for those from town).

6

9

9

8

10

6

2

11

3

7

20

4

7

7

4

10

10

11

12

8

14

9

12

4

15

12

17

10

11

8

10

9

8

19

12

4

9

5

12

19

4

22

9

12

7

9

8

10

8

15

12

8

8

10

10

12

4

9

9

14

16

18

20

31

9

13

16

13

13

12

20

18

14

14

18

16

16

14

14

18

16

21

18

16

15

17

37

30

16

22

23

20

13

8

3

32

34

11

29

13

35

36

17

22

27

10

13

17

12

7

7

9

16

11

7

24

4

8

7

10

9

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013 (n = 713)

2010 (n = 780)

2007 (n = 917)


Hauraki (n = 33)

Waikato (n = 111)

Hamilton (n = 181)


Waipa (n = 81)


Otorohanga (n = 16)

Waitomo (n = 15)

Rotorua (n = 6)

Taupo (n = 59)

Town (n = 492)

Country (n = 211)

% of the sample

Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $30,000 $30,000 to $40,000

$40,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $70,000 $70,000 to $100,000

More than $100,000 No answer




Highest Education Qualification

The largest group stated they were tertiary qualified (45%) but this ranges from 19% for Hauraki to 73% for the few from Waitomo.

A seventh of the sample (14%) only attended primary or secondary school while a fifth of the sample had a secondary school qualification (22%). A seventh of the sample (14%) had trade certificate or similar qualifications.

The results are similar to those recorded in previous years.

There is some variation across the districts but all have a mix of education qualifications.

Urban Versus Rural

Two thirds of the respondents, (69%) lived in a city or town while 29% said they lived in rural areas. A few respondents (1.4%) said they lived in both.

The results are very similar to those recorded in previous years.

It is interesting that 7% of the respondents from Hamilton felt they lived in rural areas.

There is some variation by district and that tends to reflect the urban / rural split.

1

2

2

1

2

1

4

2

2

1

1

1

14

16

18

20

21

16

10

21

3

22

17

19

8

14

14

22

24

24

20

31

21

21

19

30

22

20

27

8

16

22

22

14

14

12

10

24

12

13

11

7

18

24

20

28

15

13

45

41

40

40

19

50

52

42

54

31

35

73

54

39

45

47

1

2

2

3

5

1

1

2

1

4

2

1

2

1

2

6

1

1

2

3

3

3

5

2

3

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013 (n = 713)

2010 (n = 780)

2007 (n = 917)


Hauraki (n = 33)

Waikato (n = 111)

Hamilton (n = 181)


Waipa (n = 81)


Otorohanga (n = 16)

Waitomo (n = 15)

Rotorua (n = 6)

Taupo (n = 59)

Town (n = 492)

Country (n = 211)

% of the sample

Primary school Secondary school

Secondary school qualification Trade Certificate

Tertiary qualification Other

No response

69

69

66

64

59

40

93

67

69

74

51

39

80

29

27

30

34

36

60

7

31

29

24

49

61

100

16

1

5

4

2

6

3

2

2

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013 (n = 713)

2010 (n = 780)

2007 (n = 917)


Hauraki (n = 33)

Waikato (n = 111)

Hamilton (n = 181)


Waipa (n = 81)


Otorohanga (n = 16)

Waitomo (n = 15)

Rotorua (n = 6)

Taupo (n = 59)

% of the sample

City / Town Rural Both

MARCO Regional Waikato Perception Survey 2013 Waipa Summary



Summary of Indexes – Waipa This project used a mix of scales, some covering the level of satisfaction while others were based on the level of agreement, safety or level of happiness. While the wording on each scale varied, the scales were all 11 points from 0 = very negative to 10 = very positive. The following two charts gives an overview of all the indexes used in the core survey.

-1

0

-1

0

-2

-2

-3

-2

0

-5

-1

-2

0

0

0

-1

0

-1

-2

0

0

0

0

0

0

-2

-10

-10

-1

0

0

0

-2

-1

7

19

7

14

9

18

19

14

23

15

18

12

9

7

17

13

27

12

24

9

7

19

25

8

22

14

18

14

17

17

24

20

20

22

40

16

28

18

24

41

41

29

25

20

15

15

26

19

31

15

28

34

28

19

24

28

14

22

7

17

19

13

36

35

24

19

26

32

22

24

19

13

13

4

10

10

14

15

6

4

18

13

15

14

18

18

3

18

25

10

9

13

3

4

5

2

22

14

17

9

23

6

20

17

17

14

14

9

4

6

5

6

6

4

24

25

15

9

5

13

6

52

39

17

16

34

3

2

5

1

6

19

10

8

14

5

82.0

80.5

76.0

75.0

72.1

70.5

70.3

69.0

67.5

66.1

62.4

55.9

82.2

79.3

76.3

65.2

73.7

76.2

65.3

91.2

88.4

75.0

72.4

83.8

61.7

55.9

55.8

48.5

75.3

79.4

76.7

66.3

77.7

71.2

-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100

Overall quality of life

Availability of primary schools

Recreational facilities / opportunities

Availability of preschool child care

Availability of secondary schools

Amount of residential development

Essential services

Cultural facilities / opportunities

Accessibility of health services

Range of health services

Amount of business development

Availability of community / tertiary education

Proximity to schools

Proximity to where you work

Proximity to recreational facilities

Proximity to other educational facilities

Protecting and valuing the area's history

Support from family, friends and neighbours

Support from networks and agencies

Safety in your town centre during the daytime

Safety in your community during the daytime

Safety in your community after dark

Safety in your town centre after dark

Job makes good use of your skills

Community appreciates Maori economic activity

Confidence Council decisions best for district

Understand how Council makes decisions

Have enough say in what your Council does

Feel a sense of pride in the way District looks

Unique or special character of your town

Protection given to special landscape features

The quality of rivers and waterways

Family respect for cultures of our people

Neighbourhood respect cultures of our people % of the sample

0 = Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree No answer Index




Indexes – Waipa District The indexes range from 91.2 for the ‘Safety in your town centre during the daytime’ down to an Index of 48.5 for the ‘You have enough say in what your Council does’.

82.0

80.5

76.0

75.0

72.1

70.5

70.3

69.0

67.5

66.1

62.4

55.9

82.2

79.3

76.3

65.2

73.7

76.2

65.3

91.2

88.4

75.0

72.4

83.8

61.7

55.9

55.8

48.5

75.3

79.4

76.7

66.3

77.7

71.2

80

73

80

60

72

73

74

72

74

72

71

67

72

67

80

75

73

74

68

75

81

81

72

72

53

81

81

78

81

73

66

73

77

67

0 20 40 60 80 100







Essential services



























Neighbourhood respect cultures of our people

Index

Index # of respondents




Waipa District - Comparison to 2010 The two following charts compare the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007. There were 20 increases and 13 decreases in the Indexes. The largest increase was 8.1 points for satisfaction with ‘the recreational facilities

and opportunities provided in your area’ and 6.0 points for satisfaction with ‘how close you live to where you work'. The largest decreases were 7.8 points for satisfaction with ‘the amount of business or commercial development

in your area e.g. new businesses and shops' and 4.6 points for satisfaction with ‘the availability of community or

tertiary education in your area’.

69.7

78.4

69.3

65.9

73.1

73.3

81.3

60.5

70.1

66.1

66.3

64.5

68.0

67.4

68.6

74.8

67.9

79.5

85.7

65.3

76.2

73.7

65.2

76.3

79.3

82.2

55.9

62.4

66.1

67.5

69.0

70.3

70.5

72.1

75.0

76.0

80.5

82.0

-4.4

-2.2

-0.7

-4.6

-7.8

0.0

-3.7

4.4

3.1

6.0

0.9

1.2

4.5

2.3

3.1

3.5

0.3

8.1

0.9

0 20 40 60 80 100













Essential services







Index

2013 Index 2010 Index 2007 Index

Index Difference 2013 - 2010

Decreases Increases




Waipa District - Comparison to 2010 (continued)

73.0

79.4

64.1

72.1

76.2

73.5

51.2

56.6

58.3

65.3

85.0

67.9

70.4

87.5

89.4

85.7

71.2

77.7

66.3

76.7

79.4

75.3

48.5

55.8

55.9

61.7

83.8

72.4

75.0

88.4

91.2

82.0

-1.8

-1.7

-2.7

-0.8

-2.4

-3.6

-1.2

-3.7

2.2

4.6

3.3

1.9

4.4

4.7

0.9

1.8

0 20 40 60 80 100

















Index



Decreases Increases




Waipa - Summary Tables – Percentages across the Various Scale Percentage of respondents rating each question with scores from 0 to 10

Using the scale where 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with .? % rating with a score of <?>

Area Type Factor 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No

answer Index

Overall Quality of Life

Happiness Index

Overall Quality of Life 0.8 3.7 2.5 3.1 7.3 40.0 21.5 20.4 0.8 82.0

Quality of Life CSI Score Availability of primary schools 1.5 3.1 9.1 19.0 16.2 23.5 17.3 10.3 80.5

Quality of Life CSI Score Recreational facilities / opportunities 1.0 1.0 4.0 11.3 10.6 7.2 28.1 18.9 16.5 1.4 76.0

Quality of Life CSI Score Availability of preschool child care 1.0 2.7 1.6 9.3 6.5 13.8 18.4 13.4 13.8 19.4 75.0

Quality of Life CSI Score Availability of secondary schools 1.5 4.0 1.5 4.5 4.8 12.2 9.4 24.3 12.8 13.6 11.3 72.1

Quality of Life CSI Score Amount of residential development 1.6 1.0 6.8 1.6 8.9 4.5 18.1 41.1 4.2 8.8 3.3 70.5

Quality of Life CSI Score Essential services 2.7 3.9 0.8 2.5 6.0 9.1 18.8 41.3 9.7 4.1 1.0 70.3

Quality of Life CSI Score Cultural facilities / opportunities 1.5 2.5 5.0 17.3 4.6 13.8 28.6 9.7 5.9 11.1 69.0

Quality of Life CSI Score Accessibility of health services 2.7 5.2 0.7 3.7 15.4 5.2 22.8 24.9 13.8 4.8 0.8 67.5

Quality of Life CSI Score Range of health services 5.2 1.0 1.7 5.0 14.7 12.0 14.8 20.4 15.3 5.5 4.3 66.1

Quality of Life CSI Score Amount of business development 0.8 0.7 2.7 5.9 5.8 19.0 14.9 18.3 15.2 6.4 5.5 4.9 62.4

Quality of Life CSI Score Availability of community / tertiary education

2.2 4.5 8.5 6.1 2.3 8.9 16.0 11.5 14.6 3.9 3.7 17.7 55.9

Proximity CSI Score Proximity to schools 1.5 5.5 5.6 8.6 25.7 17.9 24.4 10.7 82.2

Proximity CSI Score Proximity to where you work 1.5 3.8 8.4 6.4 7.1 18.6 12.8 24.6 16.8 79.3

Proximity CSI Score Proximity to recreational facilities 4.6 2.5 4.1 9.5 16.9 31.3 15.2 14.5 1.4 76.3

Proximity CSI Score Proximity to other educational facilities

1.4 1.5 6.8 4.6 1.5 11.6 14.8 12.5 15.3 13.7 9.0 7.3 65.2

Cultural Facilities

Agreement Index


1.6 2.7 10.9 4.4 27.3 28.3 17.7 4.8 2.4 73.7

The cells highlighted in orange reflect the mode (most common score).




Percentage of respondents rating each question with scores from 0 to 10



answer Index

Social CSI Score Support from family, friends and neighbours

0.8 1.6 0.7 3.3 4.0 11.8 12.0 34.0 18.1 12.6 1.0 76.2

Social CSI Score Support from networks and agencies 1.7 3.1 1.6 3.4 4.3 11.4 4.3 24.2 27.6 3.1 5.5 9.7 65.3

Crime and Safety

Safety index Safety in your town centre during the daytime

1.0 9.1 19.3 18.3 52.3 91.2

Crime and Safety

Safety index Safety in your community during the daytime

0.8 0.8 3.1 6.6 24.2 25.2 39.3 88.4

Crime and Safety

Safety index Safety in your community after dark 0.8 3.7 0.8 9.3 10.4 19.1 28.4 10.2 17.4 75.0

Crime and Safety

Safety index Safety in your town centre after dark 0.8 4.0 1.7 8.9 15.4 24.8 14.3 9.3 16.3 4.6 72.4

Work opportunities

Agreement Index Job makes good use of your skills 1.7 4.5 1.5 4.2 7.7 22.4 12.8 34.2 10.9 83.8

Work opportunities

Agreement Index


1.0 2.5 2.4 5.0 11.8 13.8 22.0 7.0 2.6 3.2 28.7 61.7

Council Decision Making

Agreement Index


2.4 2.2 1.5 11.6 12.8 15.3 17.9 13.7 16.7 4.3 1.5 55.9


Agreement Index


10.4 1.5 3.3 6.6 6.1 16.5 8.6 18.4 19.3 4.5 4.7 55.8


Agreement Index


9.8 3.0 6.4 8.7 9.8 16.7 12.2 14.0 13.4 2.1 0.8 3.2 48.5








answer Index

Culture and Identity

Agreement Index


0.7 3.1 2.3 4.5 8.8 16.5 36.3 21.7 6.1 75.3


CSI Score Unique or special character of your town

1.6 1.6 1.6 0.8 6.7 17.3 34.9 14.2 19.0 2.2 79.4


CSI Score Protection given to special landscape features

3.5 0.8 1.7 7.6 24.2 23.8 16.8 9.8 11.8 76.7


CSI Score The quality of rivers and waterways 1.0 8.5 6.9 12.0 13.0 19.9 19.3 8.7 8.2 2.5 66.3

Participation and equity

Agreement Index


1.6 0.7 1.5 1.7 2.5 0.8 3.5 19.7 26.3 22.8 14.4 4.5 77.7


Agreement Index


0.8 4.5 0.7 0.8 2.9 8.9 22.4 31.7 6.0 4.5 16.8 71.2





Waipa District

The chart compares the Indexes (CSI Scores, Agreement Index, Safety Index or Happiness Index) for Waipa against the other Districts in the Waikato. This shows that Waipa tends to be rated higher than the weighted average of the District for most factors. The highest rated factor is ‘Safety in your community during

the daytime’ (Index 88.4) and the lowest rated is ‘Have enough say in what your Council does’ (Index 48.5).

82.0 80.5

72.1

76.0

69.0

55.9

82.2

79.3

76.3

65.2

88.4

75.0

83.8

55.8

55.9

48.5

75.3 77.7

71.2

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Overa

ll quality

of life

Availa

bility

of p

rimary

schools

Availa

bility

of s

econdary

schools

Recre

atio

nal fa

cilitie

s / o

pportu

nitie

s

Cultu

ral fa

cilitie

s / o

pportu

nitie

s

Availa

bility

of c

om

munity

/ tertia

ry e

ducatio

n

Pro

xim

ity to

schools

Pro

xim

ity to

where

you w

ork

Pro

xim

ity to

recre

atio

nal fa

cilitie

s

Pro

xim

ity to

oth

er e

ducatio

nal fa

cilitie

s

Safe

ty in

your c

om

munity

durin

g th

e d

aytim

e

Safe

ty in

your c

om

munity

afte

r dark

Job m

akes g

ood u

se o

f your s

kills

Unders

tand h

ow

Council m

akes d

ecis

ions

Confid

ence C

ouncil d

ecis

ions b

est fo

r dis

trict

Have e

nough s

ay in

what y

our C

ouncil d

oes

Fe

el a

sense o

f prid

e in

the w

ay D

istric

t looks

Fa

mily

respect fo

r cultu

res o

f our p

eople

Neig

hbourh

ood re

spect c

ultu

res o

f our p

eople

Ind

ex (C

SI S

co

re, A

gre

em

en

t Ind

ex, S

afe

ne

ss In

de

x, H

ap

pin

ess in

de

x)

Minimum Average Waipa (n = 81)

Quality of Life Council Work Safety Proximity Equity Culture

MARCO Regional Waikato Perception Survey 2013 – Waipa Report Main Findings



Main Findings – Waipa

How happy are you with your Quality of Life The questionnaire measured a number of specific aspects of life in the district before respondents were asked ‘Thinking in general about your Quality of Life and using the scale where 0 = very unhappy and 10 = very happy, how happy are you with your Quality of Life?’

The vast majority of the respondents (89%) are happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 7 – 10). A fifth of the respondents (20%) rated their overall happiness with a score of 10 while 22% rated this with a score of 9. The mode (most frequent value) is a score of 8 (40%).

A tenth of the sample (9%) rated their Quality of Life with a score that was neutral (scores 4 – 6). Only a few respondents (0.8%) were actually unhappy with their Quality of Life (Scores 0 – 3).

The Happiness Index (HI score)3 , (a weighted score across the happiness scale) for their Quality of Life was 82.0, down 3.7 points from the 2010 result. This result still implies the respondents are very happy with their Quality of Life.

3 The Happiness Index (HI) converts each respondents answer across the satisfaction scale to a score out of 100. The HI score is 10 times the

average individual score based on the 11 point satisfaction scale (0 = very unhappy to 10 = very happy)

1.3

3.8

9.1

34.8

22.1

28.9

0.8

3.7 2.5 3.1

7.3

40.0

21.5 20.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f re

spond

ents

0 = Very Unhappy

10 = Very Happy

How happy are you with your quality of life

Happiness Index

2013 = 82.0 2010 = 85.7 2007 = 86.2

Ave

rag

e =

8.2

0




Happiness with their Quality of Life by demographics

Please note there are small numbers of respondents in many of the subgroups so care is recommended in the interpretation.

There is a very high level of happiness across the subgroups of interest. However, there are a number of variables which have a significant impact on level of happiness with the respondents’ Quality of Life. The chart opposite compares these variables.

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on the respondents’ happiness with their Quality of Life were:

Women (Happiness Index 84.7) appear happier than men (Happiness Index 78.5)

The few aged under 25 are happier (Happiness Index 90.0) versus a Happiness Index from 79.9 to 82.9 for the other age brackets. Note generally the older the respondent, the higher the level of satisfaction.

Those with a household income over $70,000 (Happiness Index 80.6) are less happy with their Quality of Life than those in the lower income brackets (Happiness Index 81.7 and 87.1).

Those who live in town are happier than those who live in the country (Happiness Index 84.0 and 77.5 respectively).

Those with a tertiary qualification appear less happy (Happiness Index 80.2).

82.0

78.5

84.7

90.0

81.1

82.9

79.9

82.4

80.4

81.7

87.1

80.6

84.0

77.5

83.2

81.7

79.6

93.1

83.1

80.2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n = 81)

Men (n = 28)

Women (n = 53)

Under 25 years (n = 3)

26 - 45 years (n = 22)

46 - 64 years (n = 33)

65+ years (n = 21)

Own home (n = 62)

Renting (n = 17)

Less than $30,000 (n = 9)

$30,000 to $70,000 (n = 31)

More than $70,000 (n = 29)

Town (n = 56)

Country (n = 23)

Maori descent (n = 4)

European descent (n = 70)

Kiwi / New Zealander (n = 5)

Secondary School (n = 7)

SC or Trade (n = 34)

Tertiary (n = 37)

Happiness Index




How happy are you with your Quality of Life: Reasons for feeling this way The respondents were asked ‘Thinking in general about your quality of life and using the scale where 0 = very

unhappy and 10 = very happy, how happy are you with your quality of life?’ Those who rated at 7 or less were then asked ‘Why do you feel this way?’ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

Across the Waikato Region (orange bars on chart), 180 respondents (25.2%) were less than happy with their Quality of Life. These respondents offered a number of explanations for being less than happy. The main theme was to do with financial concerns (mentioned by 6.7% of the sample but 27% of those who are less than happy). Slightly fewer mentioned health issues (4.3% of the sample), while 1.7% said that things could be improved and 1.5% felt they spent too much time working. A few (0.7%) appeared to be unhappy in general while a few others (0.6%) had no particular reason to rate their Quality of Life the way they did. There was a range of other issues mentioned.

For Waipa (teal bars on chart), only 14 respondents were less than happy (17%) and their responses are similar to the Regional results although there were fewer positive comments.

6.2

3.7

1.2

1.2

6.2

3.7

6.7

4.3

1.7

1.5

0.7

0.6

5.6

6.2

0.7

0 3 6 9 12

Financial issues

Health issues / Health related matters

Could be improved

Too much time working

Unhappy general

No particular reason

Other issues

Positive

No answer

% of respondents

Waipa (n = 81)

Total (n = 713)




Why less than very satisfied with Quality of Life

Several respondents who were less than very happy with their quality of life had financial issues (6.2% of the subgroup). These respondents comments included:4 (HS = Happiness score):

'Lots of children, trying to work, cost of child care. Cost of activities at school’ (Waipa: HS = 5)

'Part of the general economic turn down and because I am in the building industry and because I am older. Things have changed and haven’t necessarily changed for good reasons in the

building industry and I disagree with the way the government has gone towards changing the building regulations and their reasons for it’ (Waipa: HS = 5)

'We are living on one income with two teenage kids’ (Waipa: HS = 6)

'I think we can do a bit better than what we are doing. People that are on welfare are getting more than us workers' (Waipa: HS = 7)

'Always would like to earn more money!' (Waipa: HS = 7)

This was followed by 3.7% who had health issues or health related matters. This included comments like:

'I'm getting old’ (Waipa: HS = 4)

'Because I have got an illness; that is the only reason and also because I am a widow and I live alone’ (Waipa: HS = 6)

'Health and issues and whether I'm making the best of it is up to me and I understand that but I feel we're being poorly governed and we need a shake up through our government systems to stop borrowing like

crazy and set our economic sensability right. Everything else will follow that, but right now, for me I'm feeling I have less chance of recovery’ (Waipa: HS = 7)

One respondent commented that they spent too much time working (mentioned by 1.2%).

'Just very busy with work. Wife runs a business, I work, and we have three kids. No quality time with family when we want to’ (Waipa: HS = 4)

One respondent (1.2%) felt their quality of life could be better with a comment that included:

'I think we can do a bit better than what we are doing. People that are on welfare

are getting more than us workers' (Waipa: HS = 7)

There was a range of comments from respondents who had other issues which affected their quality of life and these included:

'Because my house has been broke into few times and stuff been stolen’ (Waipa: HS = 0)

'Because I have got an illness; that is the only reason and also because I am a widow and I live alone’ (Waipa: HS = 6)

'I believe NZ is a safe place to live however there are problems with how society functions and it will take a significant level of study of how things function and

don't function to change that’ (Waipa: HS = 6)

'Health and issues and whether I'm making the best of it is up to me and I understand that but I feel we're being poorly governed and we need a shake up through our government systems to stop borrowing like

crazy and set our economic sensibility right. Everything else will follow that, but right now, for me I'm

feeling I have less chance of recovery’ (Waipa: HS = 7)

'Because I have lived in South Africa’ (Waipa: HS = 7)

4 Please note that when verbatim comments cover more than one point these are reported in total to keep comments in perspective. The comments

with multiple themes are repeated under each relevant section.




A number of respondents (3.7%) made positive comments about their quality of life:

'I believe NZ is a safe place to live however there are problems with how society functions and it will take a significant level of study of how things function

and don't function to change that’ (Waipa: HS = 6)

'I had a pretty good childhood and it's a pretty good life' (Waipa: HS = 7)

'I have my kids and family and everyone is happy and healthy and we live in a good neighbourhood’ (Waipa: HS = 7)




Quality of Life Factors The respondents were asked ‘Thinking about the community you live in and the infrastructure available and using the scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with <factor>?’

There is a large amount of variation in the level of satisfaction with these factors. Three quarters of the respondents (76%) are satisfied with the ‘availability of primary schools in your area’ but this drops to only 34% for the ‘availability of community or tertiary education in your area’.

-9

-11

-7

-12

-5

-9

-5

-5

-12

-15

-16

-3

-11

-9

-5

-9

-6

-17

-15

-15

-19

-9

0

-4

-2

-5

-2

-3

-5

-4

-5

-6

-2

-2

0

-3

-2

-7

-1

-3

-1

-2

-6

-6

0

-1

-1

-4

-1

-4

0

-5

-1

-3

-9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-3

0

-1

-5

0

-1

0

-2

-2

-3

-2

0

-5

-1

-2

19

7

14

9

18

19

14

23

15

18

12

16

28

18

24

41

41

29

25

20

15

15

24

19

13

13

4

10

10

14

15

6

4

17

17

14

14

9

4

6

5

6

6

4

10

1

19

11

3

1

11

1

4

5

18

80.5

76.0

75.0

72.1

70.5

70.3

69.0

67.5

66.1

62.4

55.9

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100






Essential services






% of respondents

0 = Very Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Very Satisfied No answer CSI Score

Red=

Dissatisfied

Green

= Satisfied




This reflects in the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI scores)5, (a weighted score across the satisfaction scale) which range from a CSI score of 80.5 for the ‘availability of primary schools in your area’ down to a CSI score of 55.9 for the ‘availability of community or tertiary education in your area’. The low CSI scores for most of these factors infer these factors are an issue for respondents.

5 The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) converts each respondents answer across the satisfaction scale to a score out of 100. The CSI score is

10 times the average individual score based on the 11 point satisfaction scale (0 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied)

80.5

76.0

75.0

72.1

70.5

70.3

69.0

67.5

66.1

62.4

55.9

0 20 40 60 80 100






Essential services






CSI score

CSI Score




Quality of Life Factors - Comparison to 2010

The following chart compares the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007 for the Quality of Life factors. There were 2 decreases and 8 increases in the Indexes among the Quality of Life factors. The largest increase was 8.1 points for the ‘recreational facilities and opportunities provided in your area’ (Index 76.0) followed by an increase of 4.5 points for the ‘cultural facilities and opportunities provided in your area’ for (Index 69.0). The largest decrease was 7.8 points for the ‘amount of business or commercial development in your area e.g. new

businesses or shops’ (Index 62.4) followed by a decrease of 4.6 points for the ‘availability of community or

tertiary education in your area’ for (Index 55.9).

64.3

66.6

71.2

69.0

65.2

73.5

71.4

69.0

76.5

67.3

85.5

60.5

70.1

66.1

66.3

64.5

68.0

67.4

68.6

74.8

67.9

79.5

55.9

62.4

66.1

67.5

69.0

70.3

70.5

72.1

75.0

76.0

80.5

-4.6

-7.8

1.2

4.5

2.3

3.1

3.5

0.3

8.1

0.9

0 20 40 60 80 100






Essential services






Index



Decreases Increases




Quality of Life Factors by Gender


There is limited variation in the CSI scores for the Quality of Life factors based on gender with women being slightly more satisfied with most factors. . It seems that the ‘accessibility of health services in your area’ and ‘the range of health services provided in your area’ are more of an issue for men than women.

Quality of Life Factors by Age Grouping

The CSI scores for the Quality of Life factors vary by age group with those aged 65 or older being more satisfied with most factors. However, it is generally expected that the older the respondent, the higher the level of satisfaction.

82.2

74.7 75.0

75.7 75.5

65.5

70.6

61.1 60.8 60.7

55.9

79.2

77.0 75.1

69.7

66.9

73.7

67.7

72.1 70.1

63.5

55.8

50

60

70

80

90

100

Availa

bili

ty o

f prim

ary

schools

Recre

atio

nal

facili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Availa

bili

ty o

f pre

school c

hild

care

Availa

bili

ty o

f secondary

schools

Am

ount of

resid

entia

l develo

pm

ent

Essentia

l serv

ices

Cultu

ral fa

cili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Accessib

ility

of

health s

erv

ices

Range o

f health

serv

ices

Am

ount of

busin

ess

develo

pm

ent

Availa

bili

ty o

f com

mu

nity /

tert

iary

educatio

n

CS

I S

core

Men (n = 28)

Women (n = 53)

100 = Very

73.3

63.3

70.0

56.7 56.7

70.0

53.3

70.0 70.0

63.3

46.7

81.0

80.8 79.0

81.7

72.9

63.3

76.1 78.3

73.9

64.0 65.5

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Availa

bili

ty o

f prim

ary

schools

Recre

atio

nal

facili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Availa

bili

ty o

f pre

school child

care

Availa

bili

ty o

f secondary

schools

Am

ount of

resid

entia

l develo

pm

ent

Essentia

l serv

ices

Cultura

l fa

cili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Accessib

ility

of

health s

erv

ices

Range o

f health

serv

ices

Am

ou

nt o

f b

usin

ess

develo

pm

ent

Availa

bili

ty o

f com

mu

nity / tert

iary

educatio

n

CS

I S

core


26 - 45 years (n = 22)

46 - 64 years (n = 33)

65+ years (n = 21)

100 = Very

Satisfied




Quality of Life Factors by Home Ownership

There is some variation in the CSI scores for the Quality of Life factors between those in their own homes and those who are renting or boarding with respondents who are renting being less satisfied with most factors. The largest difference (15 points) is for the factor ‘the availability of secondary schools in your area’.

Quality of Life Factors by Household Income

There is limited variation in the CSI scores for most of the Quality of Life factors based on household income. The largest difference is 23 points for the factor ‘the amount of business or commercial development in your area e.g. new businesses or shops’.

82.2

78.8 76.1 75.9

71.9

67.7

71.3 69.6 69.5

63.4

58.4

75.8

68.2

71.8

60.7

67.0

76.6

62.4 61.9

57.5 59.1

48.8

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Availa

bili

ty o

f prim

ary

schools

Recre

atio

nal

facili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Availa

bili

ty o

f pre

school c

hild

care

Availa

bili

ty o

f secondary

schools

Am

ount of

resid

entia

l develo

pm

ent

Essentia

l serv

ices

Cultura

l fa

cili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Accessib

ility

of

health s

erv

ices

Range o

f health

serv

ices

Am

ount of

busin

ess

develo

pm

ent

Availa

bili

ty o

f com

mu

nity /

tert

iary

educatio

n

CS

I S

core

Own home (n = 62)

Renting (n = 17)

100 = Very

Satisfied

78.7

73.6

83.3

72.9

77.9

73.8

73.2

76.5 77.5

81.7

64.0

79.9 77.6

78.8 75.3

67.7

74.3

70.1

75.5

68.8

58.4

56.8

81.1

74.9

71.7 69.6

72.7

68.3 67.1

61.1

63.6

63.7

55.1 50

60

70

80

90

100

Ava

ilab

ility

of

prim

ary

sch

oo

ls

Recre

atio

nal

facili

ties /

opport

unitie

s

Availa

bili

ty o

f pre

school c

hild

care

Availa

bili

ty o

f secondary

schools

Am

ount of

resid

entia

l develo

pm

ent

Essentia

l serv

ices

Cultura

l fa

cili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Accessib

ility

of

health s

erv

ices

Ran

ge

of

he

alth

se

rvic

es

Am

ount of

busin

ess

develo

pm

ent

Availa

bili

ty o

f com

mu

nity /

tert

iary

educatio

n

CS

I S

core

Less than $30,000 (n = 9)

$30,000 to $70,000 (n = 31)

More than $70,000 (n = 29)

100 = Very

Satisfied




Quality of Life Factors by Living in Town versus the Country

There is limited difference in the CSI scores for most of the Quality of Life factors between those who live in town and those who are living in the country. The difference is greatest (14 points) for the factor ‘the

essential services provided in your area e.g. power and telecommunications.

Quality of Life Factors by Highest Educational Qualification

There is limited difference in the level of satisfaction with the Quality of Life factors based on the education level of the respondent. The largest difference is 29 points in the CSI scores for the ‘range of health services

provided in your area’.

79.6

74.9

75.4 73.2

71.4 73.6

68.0

69.3 68.7

61.7 56.8

81.9

78.3

74.3 72.6

67.5

59.8

71.0

65.6 63.2

62.4

55.9

50

60

70

80

90

100

Availa

bili

ty o

f prim

ary

schools

Recre

atio

nal

facili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Availa

bili

ty o

f pre

school child

care

Ava

ilab

ility

of

se

co

nd

ary

sch

oo

ls

Am

ount of

resid

entia

l develo

pm

ent

Essentia

l serv

ices

Cultura

l fa

cili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Accessib

ility

of

health s

erv

ices

Range o

f health

serv

ices

Am

ount of

busin

ess

develo

pm

ent

Availa

bili

ty o

f com

mu

nity /

tert

iary

educatio

n

CS

I S

core

Town (n = 56)

Country (n = 23)

100 = Very

Satisfied

79.3

60.5

86.3

76.0

71.0

77.0

73.1

80.1

85.2

58.4

69.9

78.8

68.3 69.3

68.3 66.7

61.8

56.5

61.6

53.1

82.9 81.3

74.5 72.0 70.2 69.9 70.1

71.2

63.4

56.3

50

60

70

80

90

100

Availa

bili

ty o

f prim

ary

schools

Recre

atio

nal

facili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Availa

bili

ty o

f pre

school child

care

Availa

bili

ty o

f secondary

schools

Am

ount of

resid

entia

l develo

pm

ent

Essentia

l serv

ices

Cultura

l fa

cili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Accessib

ility

of

health s

erv

ices

Range o

f health

serv

ices

Am

ount of

busin

ess

develo

pm

ent

Availa

bili

ty o

f com

mu

nity /

tert

iary

educatio

n

CS

I S

core



Tertiary (n = 37)

100 = Very

Satisfied

50 = Neutral




Quality of Life Factors by Happiness with Quality of Life

Those who are happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 9 or 10) are more satisfied with most of the Quality of Life factors. The largest difference is 30 points in the CSI scores for the ‘essential services provided in your

area e.g. power, telecommunications and broadband’.

80.4

63.9

70.5

56.4

68.4

46.4

67.0

63.6

75.1 73.5

54.4

74.5 72.7

67.6 65.2 65.1

69.8

65.8

59.4

54.0 55.1

47.0

88.0

82.5

86.6 84.2

77.5 76.4

73.0

77.8 78.9

67.2 67.2

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Availa

bili

ty o

f prim

ary

schools

Recre

atio

na

l fa

cili

tie

s /

op

port

un

itie

s

Availa

bili

ty o

f pre

school c

hild

care

Availa

bili

ty o

f secondary

schools

Am

ou

nt o

f re

sid

en

tia

l d

eve

lop

me

nt

Essentia

l serv

ices

Cultura

l fa

cili

tie

s /

opport

unitie

s

Accessib

ility

of

health s

erv

ices

Range o

f health

serv

ices

Am

ou

nt o

f b

usin

ess

de

ve

lop

me

nt

Availa

bili

ty o

f com

mu

nity /

tert

iary

educatio

n

CS

I S

core

Qual of Life (Score 0 - 6) (n = 8)



100 = Very

Satisfied




Proximity Factors The respondents were asked ‘The proximity to work, recreational facilities and other community resources varies from place to place. Using the scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with how close you live to each of the following?’

Three quarters of the respondents (77%) are satisfied with the ‘proximity to schools’ but this drops to 51% for the ‘proximity to other educational facilities’ and the ‘proximity to where you work’.

This reflects in the CSI scores which range from a CSI score of 82.2 for the ‘proximity to schools’ down to a CSI score of 65.2 for the ‘proximity to other educational facilities.

-6

-6

-10

-15

-6

-8

-4

-12

0

-4

-3

-2

0

-2

-5

-5

0

0

0

-7

-2

0

0

-2

0

0

0

-1

9

7

17

13

26

19

31

15

18

13

15

14

24

25

15

9

11

17

1

7

82.2

79.3

76.3

65.2

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100





% of respondents


Red=

Dissatisfied

Green

= Satisfied

82.2

79.3

76.3

65.2

0 20 40 60 80 100





CSI score CSI Score




Proximity Factors - Comparison to 2010

The following chart compares the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007 for the Proximity factors. There were 3 increases and 1 decrease in the Indexes among the Proximity factors. The largest increase was 6.0 points for the ‘proximity to where you work’ (Index 79.3) followed by an increase of 3.1 points for the ‘proximity to

recreational and leisure facilities’ (Index 76.3).The only decrease was 0.7 points for the ‘proximity to other

educational facilities’ (Index 65.2)

68.6

73.1

78.6

82.9

65.9

73.1

73.3

81.3

65.2

76.3

79.3

82.2

-0.7

3.1

6.0

0.9

0 20 40 60 80 100





Index



Decreases Increases




Proximity Factors by Gender


There is limited variation in the CSI scores for the Proximity factors based on gender.

Proximity Factors by Age Grouping

There is limited variation in the CSI scores for the Proximity factors based by age group.

81.4

79.8 77.8

64.2

82.8

79.0

75.1

65.9

50

60

70

80

90

100

Proximity to schools Proximity to where you work Proximity to recreational facilities


CS

I S

core

Men (n = 28)

Women (n = 53)

100 = Very

Satisfied

50 = Neutral

85.2

83.4

74.8 70.6

83.1

79.2 79.9

66.1

60

70

80

90

100



CS

I S

core

26 - 45 years (n = 22)

46 - 64 years (n = 33)

65+ years (n = 21)

100 = Very

Satisfied

50 = Neutral




Proximity Factors by Home Ownership

Those in their own homes are more satisfied than those who are renting or boarding with the Proximity factors. The difference is greatest from the ‘proximity to where you work’ (11.6 points variation).

Proximity Factors by Household Income

There is some variation in the CSI scores for the Proximity factors based on household income. Those on the highest household income seem most satisfied with most factors while those with the lowest household income seem least satisfied with most factors.

82.7 82.9

78.9

66.9

80.6

71.3 69.3

60.5

50

60

70

80

90

100



CS

I S

core

Own home (n = 62)

Renting (n = 17)

100 = Very

Satisfied

50 = Neutral

75.7

80.0

67.5

53.4

85.6 86.5

77.1

66.4

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



CS

I S

core

Less than $30,000 (n = 9)

$30,000 to $70,000 (n = 31)

More than $70,000 (n = 29)

100 = Very

Satisfied

50 = Neutral




Proximity Factors by Living in Town versus the Country

There is limited difference in the Proximity factors between those living in the country and those living in town. The difference is greatest (9 points) for the factor ‘proximity to schools’.

Proximity Factors by Highest Educational Qualification

There is limited variation in the CSI scores for most of the Proximity factors based on the respondents highest education qualification. The largest difference is of 20 points for the factor the ‘proximity to other

educational facilities’.

84.7

80.6

76.4

65.5

75.7

78.5

75.8

66.1

50

60

70

80

90

100



CS

I S

core

Town (n = 56)

Country (n = 23)

100 = Very

Satisfied

50 = Neutral

80.5

76.2

77.1

76.0 79.9

76.5 75.5

56.4

84.8

80.0

77.6

70.8

50

60

70

80

90

100



CS

I S

core



Tertiary (n = 37)

100 = Very

Satisfied

50 = Neutral




Proximity Factors by Happiness with Quality of Life

Those who are happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 9 or 10) are most satisfied with all of the Proximity factors. Those who are not happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 0 or 6) are the least satisfied with most of the Proximity factors.

69.8

64.1

66.8

64.2

77.5 77.1

69.2

52.5

91.0

85.1 86.4

79.8

50

60

70

80

90

100



CS

I S

core




100 = Very

Satisfied




Cultural Facilities The respondents were asked ‘We are interested in understanding your views on the Cultural facilities and events within your district. For each of the following statements can you please tell if you agree or disagree using the scale

where 0 = Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree’ ‘Your district does a good job of protecting and valuing the history of the area’?

Four fifths of the respondents (83%) agreed (Scores 6 – 10) with the statement ‘Your district does a good job

of protecting and valuing the history of the area’. Only a few respondents (5%) strongly agreed (Score of 10) while 18% rated this with a score of 9. The mode (most frequent value) is a score of 8 (28%).

A ninth of the sample (11%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement ‘Your district does a good job of

protecting and valuing the history of the area’ (Score 5). Only a few respondents (4%) disagreed with the statement ‘Your district does a good job of protecting and valuing the history of the area’ (Scores 0 – 4).

The Agreement Index (AI score)6, (a weighted score across the Agreement scale) for ‘Your district does a

good job of protecting and valuing the history of the area’ was 73.7. This is up 4.4 points from 2010 and this again implies most respondents feel the district does a good job of protecting and valuing the area's history.

6 The Agreement Index (AI) converts each respondents answer across the satisfaction scale to a score out of 100. The AI is 10 times the average

individual score based on the 11 point satisfaction scale (0 = strongly disagree to 10 = strongly agree)

1.2 1.3

21.8

9.0

26.0

21.5

3.7

10.1

1.6 2.7

10.9

4.4

27.3 28.3

17.7

4.8

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f re

sp

on

de

nts

0 = Strongly Disagree

10 = Strongly Agree Your District does a good

job of protecting and valuing the history of the

area Agreement Index

2013 = 73.7 2010 = 69.3 2007 = 72.0

Ave

rag

e =

7.3

7




Agreement with ‘Your district does a good job of protecting and valuing the history of the area’ by demographics


Generally, most of the subgroups agree with the statement ‘your district does a good job of protecting and valuing the history of the

area’. However, some subgroups tend to have higher levels of agreement than others. The chart opposite compares these variables.

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on level of agreement with the statement ‘Your district does a good job of protecting and valuing the history of the

area’ were:

Those aged over 65 (Agreement Index 76.9) are more likely to agree with this statement.

Respondents who live in their own home (Agreement Index 76.0) are more likely to agree with this statement than those who rent or board (Agreement Index 67.1)

Those with a household income over $70,000 (Agreement Index 72.4) are less likely to agree with this statement than those in the other income streams (Agreement Index 73.9 – 79.6)

Those who live in the town (Agreement Index 74.5) are more likely to agree with this statement than those who live in the Country (Agreement Index 71.1).

Respondents of Maori descent are more likely to agree with this statement (Agreement Index 83.3)

Those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 9 or 10 (Agreement Index 81.2) are more likely to agree with this statement than those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 0 to 6 (Agreement Index 66.0)

73.7

72.1

74.8

70.0

74.3

71.7

76.9

76.0

67.1

79.6

73.9

72.4

74.5

71.1

83.3

73.4

73.2

70.0

76.7

72.2

74.5

66.0

68.8

81.2

81

28

53

3

22

33

21

62

17

9

31

29

56

23

4

70

2

5

7

34

37

8

34

38

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total

Men

Women

Under 25 years

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

Own home

Renting

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Town

Country

Maori descent

European descent

Other

Kiwi / New Zealander

Secondary School

SC or Trade

Tertiary

Qual of Life (Score 0 - 6)



Agreement Index

Agreement Index # of respondents




Barriers to Accessing Health Care The respondents were asked ‘Has there been any time in the last 12 months when you or a member of your

household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t?’ Three quarters (75.0%) of the respondents said there was no time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t.

However, a quarter of the sample (24.6%) said there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t. The remaining three respondents (0.4%) did not know if there was a time or not.

There is much variation in the proportion who said there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t. This varies from 13.2% for Otorohanga to 41.0% in the South Waikato District and 30.1% in the Rotorua District.

No -75.0%

Yes, there has been a time

24.6%

Don't know 0.4%

-75.0

-78.3

-82.0

-75.3

-75.7

-79.8

-75.2

-57.1

-86.8

-81.5

-69.9

-77.4

24.6

21.7

18.0

24.7

23.6

20.2

24.8

41.0

13.2

18.5

30.1

22.6

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Total (n = 713)


Hauraki (n = 33)

Waikato (n = 111)

Hamilton (n = 181)


Waipa (n = 81)


Otorohanga (n = 16)

Waitomo (n = 15)

Rotorua (n = 6)

Taupo (n = 59)

Percent of the sample

No Yes, there has been a time Don't know




Barriers to Accessing Health Care - Comparison to 2010

The respondents were asked ‘Has there been any time in the last 12 months when you or a member of your

household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t?’

The following chart compares the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007 for the percentage who said there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t.

Overall this had increased 4.9% from 2010. There were 8 increases and 3 decreases in the percentage who said there was a time when they didn’t go to a GP. The largest increases were 20% for the South Waikato District and 11% for the few from the Rotorua District. The largest decreases were 13% for the Waitomo District and 6% for the Otorohanga District.

The difference may be caused because of abnormal results in previous years, because of changing demographics or because the situation in relation to accessing GP’s has changed since 2010.

15.1

16.4

19.8

14.8

9.3

19.1

21.7

23.0

36.1

14.0

25.7

22.5

12.6

18.5

31.6

19.1

21.0

19.9

19.5

19.2

23.8

21.1

15.5

19.7

22.6

30.1

18.5

13.2

41.0

24.8

20.2

23.6

24.7

18.0

21.7

24.6

-13.1

-5.9

-3.1

10.0

11.6

20.0

4.9

0.7

4.4

0.9

6.2

4.9

0 20 40 60 80

Taupo (n = 59)

Rotorua (n = 6)

Waitomo (n = 15)

Otorohanga (n = 16)


Waipa (n = 81)


Hamilton (n = 181)

Waikato (n = 111)

Hauraki (n = 33)


Total (n = 713)

% of the sample

2013 Yes, there has been a time 2010 Yes, there has been a time 2007 Yes, there has been a time

Percentage Difference 2013 - 2010

Decreases Increases




Barriers to Accessing Health Care by demographics


There is some variance in the proportion of respondents from Waipa who said they experienced barriers to health care across the subgroups of interest. The chart opposite compares these variables.

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on the proportion who said ‘there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t’ were:

Women are more likely to say there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t (32%) versus 15% for men.

Those aged 26 – 45 years (47%) are more likely to say there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t versus 0% - 9% for those in the other age brackets.

Those with a household income over $70,000 are less likely to say there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t (19%).

Those who are not happy with their Quality of Life are more likely to say there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t (44%) versus 13% for those who are happy with their Quality of Life.

-75.2

-84.7

-67.8

-100.0

-53.3

-91.4

-91.6

-75.7

-72.1

-67.3

-73.8

-80.9

-75.9

-71.3

-69.7

-78.0

-77.6

-55.7

-68.0

-87.4

24.8

15.3

32.2

46.7

8.6

8.4

24.3

27.9

32.7

26.2

19.1

24.1

28.7

30.3

22.0

22.4

44.3

32.0

12.6

-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75

Total (n = 81)

Men (n = 28)

Women (n = 53)


26 - 45 years (n = 22)

46 - 64 years (n = 33)

65+ years (n = 21)

Own home (n = 62)

Renting (n = 17)

Less than $30,000 (n = 9)

$30,000 to $70,000 (n = 31)

More than $70,000 (n = 29)

Town (n = 56)

Country (n = 23)



Tertiary (n = 37)




Percent of the sample

No Yes, there has been a time Don't know




Why did you or your family not go to the doctor when you wanted to The respondents were asked ‘Has there been any time in the last 12 months when you or a member of your household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t?’

Across the Waikato Region three quarters of the respondents said there was no time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t. However, a quarter of the sample (24.6%) said there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t. These respondents (n = 159) who said they had not visited the doctor were asked ‘For what reasons did you or your family not go to the doctor when you wanted to?’ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

Across the Waikato Region (orange bars on chart) there was a range of responses, with the main themes revolving around cost (9% of the sample which equates to 40% of those who did not visit a doctor when they wanted to go) and availability (7% of the sample).

Smaller numbers mentioned travelling issues (2.0%), the fact they had no after-hours GP available (1.5%), or the time it took to get an appointment (1.3%). A few did not like the choice of doctor (1.0%), or not being a convenient time (0.6%) or said their need was not serious (0.6%). There was also a range of other comments. The results are similar to 2010 and 2007 although availability was a bigger issue.

For Waipa (teal bars on chart), 25% of the respondents (n = 18) said there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t. Waipa respondents were more likely than the Regional sample to mention cost (14%) or no after hours GP available (4%) and less likely to mention availability (3%), travelling issues (0%), or the time it took to get an appointment (0%).

13.6

2.5

3.7

1.2

3.7

9.0

7.0

2.0

1.5

1.3

1.0

0.6

0.6

2.9

0.3

0 5 10 15 20

Cost

Availability

Travelling Difficlties / Distance

No after Hours GP available

Time concerns

Choice of Dr negative

Not convenient time

Wasn't urgent/serious

Other

Positive % of respondents

Waipa

Total




Why did you or your family not go to the doctor when you wanted to - Verbatim Comments

A quarter of the Waipa sample (24.8%) said there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t. These respondents (n = 18) who said they had not visited the doctor were asked ‘For what reasons did you or your family not go to the doctor when you wanted to’.

This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes. There was a range of responses, with the main theme revolving around cost (13.6% of the subgroup) who said they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t). These respondents’ comments included:7

'It could have waited until we could afford to go’ (Waipa)

'Because of the cost to go to the doctor here in Te Awamutu' (Waipa)

'Cost' (Waipa)

'Cost basically’ (Waipa)

'Financial - the cost of the visit was too high’ (Waipa)

'Money reasons I suppose, like everyone else’ (Waipa)

'No money' (Waipa)

'The affordability’ (Waipa)

'The cost of going’ (Waipa)

'The cost’ (Waipa)

'Too expensive’ (Waipa)

Other respondents (3.7%) mentioned the fact they had no after hours GP available as the reason they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t:

'Out of hours and too much of a hassle’ (Waipa)

'Because they weren't open, because it was a weekend. And we didn't want to travel all the way into Hamilton to sit in a waiting area’ (Waipa)

'They weren't open; none of the GPs were open during after hours or the weekends’ (Waipa)

This was followed by 2.5% who mentioned availability. This included comments like:

'He's never there; he's always on holiday at the time we wanted to go’ (Waipa)

'They were fully booked' (Waipa)

Another commented that it was not urgent or serious (1.2%) with the following comment:

'It could have waited until we could afford to go’ (Waipa)

There was a range of other comments as to why respondents did not access their GP which included:

'Out of hours and too much of a hassle’ (Waipa)

'Because I only have a scooter and it was raining’ (Waipa)

'Don't really like going’ (Waipa)






Social Factors The respondents were asked ‘The level of community / social support within a community varies from place to place. Using the scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with each of the following?’

Three quarters of the respondents (77%) are satisfied with the ‘support within the community from family,

friends and neighbours’ but this drops to 60% for the ‘support within the community from networks and agencies

(e.g. Welfare agencies, Citizens Advice, Drug and Alcohol Advisors etc).

This reflects in the CSI scores which range from a CSI score of 76.2 for the ‘support within the community from

family, friends and neighbours’ down to a CSI score of 65.3 for the ‘support within the community from networks

and agencies’.

-12

-4

-4

-11

-3

-4

-1

-3

-2

-2

0

-3

-1

-2

12

24

34

28

18

3

13

6

1

10

76.2

65.3

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100



% of respondents


Red=

Dissatisfied

Green

= Satisfied

76.2

65.3

0 20 40 60 80 100



CSI score CSI Score




Social Factors - Comparison to 2010

The following chart compares the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007 for the Social factors. The factor ‘support

within the community from family, friends and neighbours’ was down 2.2 points from 2010 (Index 76.2). The factor ‘support within the community from networks and agencies (e.g. Welfare agencies, Citizens Advice, Drug and

Alcohol Advisors etc.)’ was 4.4 points lower than 2010 (Index 65.3).

70.6

78.4

69.7

78.4

65.3

76.2

-4.4

-2.2

0 20 40 60 80 100



Index



Decreases Increases




Satisfaction with ‘support within the community from family, friends and neighbours’ by demographics


There is a high level of satisfaction across the subgroups of interest. However, there are a number of variables which have a impact on level of satisfaction with the respondents’ ‘support within the community

from family, friends and neighbours’. The chart opposite compares these variables.

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on the respondents’ satisfaction with ‘support within the community from family, friends and

neighbours’ were:

Those whose highest qualification was secondary school (CSI Score 82.2) are more satisfied.

Those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 9 or 10 (CSI Score 83.0) are more satisfied than those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 0 to 6 (CSI Scores 61.1)

76.2

75.6

76.6

79.7

74.0

80.3

77.6

72.3

75.9

80.8

74.5

76.6

76.1

82.2

73.8

76.6

61.1

73.5

83.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n = 81)

Men (n = 28)

Women (n = 53)

26 - 45 years (n = 22)

46 - 64 years (n = 33)

65+ years (n = 21)

Own home (n = 62)

Renting (n = 17)

Less than $30,000 (n = 9)

$30,000 to $70,000 (n = 31)

More than $70,000 (n = 29)

Town (n = 56)

Country (n = 23)



Tertiary (n = 37)




CSI Score




Support within the community from family, friends and neighbours The respondents were asked ‘The level of community / social support within a community varies from place to place. Using the scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the support

within the community from family, friends and neighbours?’ If any respondent rated this with a score lower than 7 they were then asked ‘Can you tell me why you were not totally satisfied with the support within the community from

family, friends and neighbours?’ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

For the Waipa district, 16 respondents (22%) were less than satisfied with the support within the community from family, friends and neighbours. These respondents offered a number of explanations for being less than satisfied. The main theme was to do with there being no support available or not knowing where to go (mentioned by 3.7% of the Waipa sample). This was followed by 3% who said there was no support from family or neighbours or who mentioned having no friends or family.

A few (3%) made positive comments or said there was support from neighbours or family (1%) and 1% did not answer this question.

The results for Waipa for 2013 are similar to the 2010 results.

6.2

3.7

2.5

2.5

1.2

1.2

2.5

1.2

1.2

1.4

2.9

4.3

7.1

1.4

0 3 6 9

Don't know people in area

No support available / Don't know where to go

No support from family / neighbours

No family / friends

General concerns

Other

Don't need support

Positive

Support from neighbours/family

No answer % of respondents

Waipa 2013

Waipa 2010




Reasons for being less than satisfied

The largest group of respondents (6.2% of the subgroup) who were less than satisfied felt that they didn’t know people in the area (SS = satisfaction score):8

'Mainly people here are more reserved as compared to where I came from in Auckland’ (Waipa: SS = 4)

'Low residential area; not much contact with neighbours’ (Waipa: SS = 5)

'Have no family or friends here and don't know our neighbours' (Waipa: SS = 5)

'I've lived here for four years, and I barely know my neighbours’ (Waipa: SS = 5)

'I don't really know my neighbours that well. My whole life is more in Hamilton. My parents live overseas and I don't know a hell of a lot of people in this area’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

'Because I'm not often here and have no family in the area also I don’t know my neighbours’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

A number of respondents commented that it was not readily available or they did not know where to go for support (3.7%)

'Found it hard to find antenatal or other family groups. Thought networks would be available but they just weren’t available’ (Waipa: SS = 4)

'It's only a rural community now. There's neighbourhood watches. The factor of people having cars and going their own way rather than supporting, we have a hall community. We don't get much support from

district people’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

'There isn't many’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

A number commented on getting no support from family / neighbours, (mentioned by 2.5%).

'My husbands had two years of cancer and we haven't had anything from anybody, not even our neighbour’ (Waipa: SS = 3)

'Low residential area; not much contact with neighbours’ (Waipa: SS = 5)

'It's only a rural community now. There's neighbourhood watches. The factor of people having cars and going their own way rather than supporting, we have a hall community. We don't get much support from

district people’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

Other respondents (2.5%) commented that they had no family or friends to give them support and offered comments that included

'We live in the wopwops; couple of kms to the next neighbour' (Waipa: SS = 2)

'Have no family or friends here and don't know our neighbours' (Waipa: SS = 5)

Others commented that they did get support from family or neighbours (1.2%) with the following comments:

'Family yes but neighbours no. They don't communicate with people really at all’ (Waipa: SS = 2)

'We are a tight knit community. Rugby mates and that's about it’ (Waipa: SS = 4)

Two respondents made positive comments about the support of family, friends and neighbourhood

'Support is there’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

'It's ok’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

There was a range of other comments from respondents who gave a less than totally satisfied score for the support they received and these included:






'When I walked in to a community house they did not seem very friendly and had put me off’ (Waipa: SS = 0)

'Family yes but neighbours no. They don't communicate with people really at all’ (Waipa: SS = 2)

'We lead such a busy life that it makes it difficult to make quality time to socialise and make those connections’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

There was one respondent who was less than totally satisfied but gave no reason as to why.




Satisfaction with ‘support within the community from networks and agencies’ by demographics


There is a moderate level of satisfaction across the subgroups of interest. However, there are a number of variables which have a impact on level of satisfaction with the respondents’ ‘support within the community from networks and agencies (e.g. Welfare agencies, Citizens

Advice, Drug and Alcohol Advisors etc)’. The chart opposite compares these variables.

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on the respondents’ satisfaction with ‘support within the

community from networks and agencies’ were:

Those aged over 65 (CSI Score 74.9) are more satisfied than those in the other age brackets ( CSI Scores 60.0 – 66.2)

Those with a household income under $30,000 (CSI Score 77.3) are more satisfied than those in the higher income brackets (CSI Scores 60.3 – 72.0).

Those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 9 or 10 (CSI Score 76.5) are more satisfied than those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 0 to 6 (CSI Scores 62.8)

65.3

60.1

68.9

60.0

63.5

66.2

74.9

64.4

67.0

77.3

72.0

60.3

65.3

67.7

70.4

60.2

68.5

62.8

56.4

76.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n = 81)

Men (n = 28)

Women (n = 53)


26 - 45 years (n = 22)

46 - 64 years (n = 33)

65+ years (n = 21)

Own home (n = 62)

Renting (n = 17)

Less than $30,000 (n = 9)

$30,000 to $70,000 (n = 31)

More than $70,000 (n = 29)

Town (n = 56)

Country (n = 23)



Tertiary (n = 37)




CSI Score




Support within the community from networks and agencies The respondents were asked ‘The level of community / social support within a community varies from place to place. Using the scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the Support within the community from networks and agencies (e.g. Welfare agencies, Citizens Advice, Drug and Alcohol Advisors

etc?.)’ If any respondent rated this with a score lower than 7 they were then asked ‘Can you tell me why you were not totally satisfied with the Support within the community from networks and agencies (e.g. Welfare agencies,

Citizens Advice, Drug and Alcohol Advisors etc)?’ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

For the Waipa District sample, 22 respondents (30%) were less than satisfied with the support within the community from networks and agencies. These respondents offered a number of explanations for being less than satisfied. The main theme was to do with there being problems with support agencies or having no support network (both mentioned by 6% of the sample). A few did not think enough support was offered (3%) and there were a few other comments.

A number of respondents (7%) said they don’t use or don’t need to use these services while 3% mentioned they don’t know where to get support or a lack of advertising and a few respondents (3%) did not answer this question.

The Waipa results for 2013 are similar to the 2010 results.

7.4

2.5

2.5

6.2

6.2

2.5

1.2

10.0

1.4

4.3

4.3

2.9

2.9

7.1

0 3 6 9 12 15

Don't use / don't need to use

Don't know where to get support / lack of advertising

No answer

Problems with support Agencies

No support network

Not enough support offered

Other

% of respondents

Waipa 2013

Waipa 2010




Reasons for being less than satisfied

A number of respondents commented that they had no need to use the agencies for support, (mentioned by 7.4% of the subgroup) 9

'Haven't had anything to do with them so can't really base any opinion on that’ (Waipa: SS = 0)

'I don't use them’ (Waipa: SS = 4)

'I don't use them so I don't have problems so I gave them a neutral number’ (Waipa: SS = 5)

'Don't have an interaction as it's not applicable to us' (Waipa: SS = 5)

'I don't have much to do with them’ (Waipa: SS = 5)

'Just haven't come across it and no need for it even though I know it is there’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

Many respondents had problems or issues with the support agencies (6.2%). This included comments like:

'My need at that time was to find other mothers and the two places I found would normally run these groups were not running them due to budget changes. I spoke to the matariki,

which is the maternity hospital and plunket and found no access to meeting other mothers to be through these network groups’ (Waipa: SS = 3)

'I haven't dealt with many of them but WINZ and some of them are pretty awful’ (Waipa: SS = 4)

'When I go into social services for example I feel like they can only help me so far’ (Waipa: SS = 5)

'District group meetings are often at the wrong time and not convenient’ (Waipa: SS = 5)

'Because you have to go to them, they don’t come to you’ (Waipa: SS = 5)

'They don't seem to be particularly out there with getting involved. You have to ask them. They don't seem to be that accessible’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

This was followed by several respondents who felt there was no support within the community from networks and agencies (6.2%). These respondents commented:

'There isn't anything here’ (Waipa: SS = 0)

'They are not available; we had to deal with a mental heath case and there are none available in Cambridge, we have to go Hamilton. We just need medical centres open 24/7, we have 16 - 20 000 people in Cambridge and is most likely going up to

30 or 40 000 and we only have the Waikato Hospital to go to’ (Waipa: SS = 1)

'I don't think there is any of those either’ (Waipa: SS = 2)

'Well, I’m not dissatisfied, it's just practicality, we are a rural area and our nearest thing is about 20km away but Hamilton is only 5km away’ (Waipa: SS = 3)

'This is a small town so there isn't very much here. I would only know where one of those are, the rest would be in town’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

A number of respondents (2.5%) felt there was not enough support offered:

'My need at that time was to find other mothers and the two places I found would normally run these groups were not running them due to budget changes. I spoke to the matariki,

which is the maternity hospital and plunket and found no access to meeting other mothers to be through these network groups’ (Waipa: SS = 3)

'I don’t think there are enough support agencies’ (Waipa: SS = 6)

Some respondents (2.5%) felt that the agencies were not advertised well enough or they were not sure where to go for support and offered comments that included:

'Don't really know what out there and is available to me' (Waipa: SS = 4)

'Because I wouldn't even know where to go’ (Waipa: SS = 5)






This was followed by a range of comments from respondents who gave other reasons for giving a less than totally satisfied score with the amount of support given through agencies. This included comments like:

'Maybe I can't really comment efficiently on that and I think it is a new area and it may come. I don't know but at the moment I don't see anything like that’ (Waipa: SS = 0)

'Mainly the agencies we rely on are from Hamilton' (Waipa: SS = 5)

There were two respondents who gave no reason for not being totally satisfied with the amount of support available through agencies.




Safety Factors

The respondents were asked ‘Thinking now about issues of crime and safety, and using a scale where 0 = very

unsafe and 10 = very safe; please tell me how safe or unsafe you would feel in the following situations’. All respondents (100%) felt safe (Scores 6 – 10) with the factor ‘Safety in your town centre during the daytime’ and none (0%) felt unsafe (Scores 0 – 4). Conversely, four fifths of the sample (80%) felt safe (Scores 6 – 10) with the factor ‘Safety in your town centre after dark’ and 7% felt unsafe (Scores 0 – 4).

This reflects in the Safeness Index which is 91.2 for ‘Safety in your town centre during the daytime’ versus 72.4 for the ‘Safety in your town centre after dark’. The lower Index for the last two factors implies that the safety after dark is more of an issue for respondents.

0

0

0

0

9

7

19

25

19

24

28

14

18

25

10

9

52

39

17

16

91.2

88.4

75.0

72.4

-25 0 25 50 75 100





% of the sample

0 = Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree No answer Safety Index

91.2

88.4

75.0

72.4

0 20 40 60 80 100





Safeness Index

Safeness Index




Safety Factors - Comparison to 2010

The following chart compares the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007 for the Safety factors. There were 4 increases and 0 decreases in the Indexes among the Safety factors. The largest increase was 4.7 points for the factor ‘safety in your community after dark’ (Index 75.0) followed by an increase of 4.4 points for the factor ‘safety in your town centre after dark’ (Index 72.4).

Safety Factors by Location

The Safeness Index for the Safety factors varies by location but it seems that Rotorua (Index 90.8) is rated the highest for the ‘safety in your community during the daytime’ and Waipa (Index 75.0) is rated the highest for ‘safety in your community after dark’. Rotorua (Index 51.2) and South Waikato District (Index 57.3) are rated the lowest for ‘safety in your community after dark’. The Waikato District is rated the lowest for the ‘safety in

your community during the daytime’ (Index 79.8).

65.8

69.6

89.9

89.9

67.9

70.4

87.5

89.4

72.4

75.0

88.4

91.2

4.4

4.7

0.9

1.8

0 20 40 60 80 100





Index



Decreases Increases

86

.1

83

.4

79

.8

81

.1

87

.2

88

.4

83

.7

80

.9

80

.9

90

.8

88

.7

71

.8

63

.1

63

.3

64

.5 6

9.1

75

.0

57

.3

68

.7

57

.9

51

.2

68

.5

50

60

70

80

90

100

Th

am

es-

Coro

ma

nd

el (

n =

7

1)

Hau

raki (

n =

33

)

Waik

ato

(n

= 1

11

)

Ham

ilto

n (

n =

18

1)

Ma

tam

ata

-Pia

ko

(n

=

70

)

Waip

a (

n =

81

)

So

uth

Wa

ikato

(n

=

70

)

Oto

roh

an

ga

(n

=

16

)

Waitom

o (

n =

15

)

Roto

rua

(n

= 6

)

Ta

up

o (

n =

59

)

Index

Safety in your community during the daytime Safety in your community after dark 100 = Very

Safe




Safety Factors by Gender


There is little variation in the Safety factors based on gender.

Safety Factors by Age Grouping

There is reasonable difference in the level of safety based on age. Those aged 26 - 45 feel slightly safer compared to the other age brackets with most of the safety factors.

88.9 86.9

78.1

72.3

92.8

89.6

72.6 72.4

50

60

70

80

90

100





Safe

ness Index

Men (n = 28)

Women (n = 53)

100 = Very Safe

50 = Neutral

93.2

90.7

76.4 76.2

90.8

84.3

70.9

65.8

50

60

70

80

90

100





Safe

ness Index

26 - 45 years (n = 22)

46 - 64 years (n = 33)

65+ years (n = 21)

100 = Very Safe

50 = Neutral




Safety Factors by Home Ownership

There is little difference in the feeling of safety based on home ownership versus renting.

Safety Factors by Household Income

There is little difference in the feeling of safety based on household income.

91.2

88.1

75.0

69.7

91.4 89.4

74.2

77.9

50

60

70

80

90

100





Safe

ness Index

Own home (n = 62)

Renting (n = 17)

100 = Very Safe

50 = Neutral

95.0

85.2

76.0

77.6

94.3 91.1

73.6

74.0

90.3 88.6

77.1

72.0

60

70

80

90

100





Safe

ness Index

Less than $30,000 (n = 9)

$30,000 to $70,000 (n = 31)

More than $70,000 (n = 29)

100 = Very Safe

50 = Neutral




Safety Factors by Living in Town versus the Country

There is little difference in the feeling of safety based on living in town or living in the country.

Safety Factors by Happiness with Quality of Life

There is some variation in the rating for the Safety factors based on the respondents’ satisfaction with their overall Quality of Life. Respondents who are happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 9 or 10) rate all of the Safety factors considerably higher than those who are not happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 0 or 6).

91.7

88.2

74.2

71.5

89.3 88.4

76.2

73.3

60

70

80

90

100





Safe

ness Index

Town (n = 56)

Country (n = 23)

100 = Very Safe

50 = Neutral

76.5

69.8

56.0

54.6

96.7

94.0

80.4

78.9

50

60

70

80

90

100





Safe

ness Index




100 = Very Safe

50 = Neutral




Work Opportunities The respondents were asked ‘Using the scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with your job makes good use of your skills, training and experience?’

A tenth of the respondents (11%) did not answer this question, presumably because they were not working. Four fifths of the respondents (81%) agreed with the statement ‘Your job makes good use of your skills, training

and experience’ (scores of 6 – 10). A third of the respondents (34%) strongly agreed (Score of 10) while 13% rated this with a score of 9. The mode (most frequent value) is a score of 10.

A small number of respondents (2%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement ‘Your job makes good

use of your skills, training and experience’ (Score 5). Only a few respondents (6%) disagreed with the statement ‘Your job makes good use of your skills, training and experience’ (Scores 0 – 4).

The Agreement Index (AI score)10 , (a weighted score across the Agreement scale) for ‘Your job makes good

use of your skills, training and experience’ was 83.8. This is 1.2 points lower than that recorded in 2010 but on par with the 2007 result. This is again a result that implies most respondents feel their jobs are making good use of their skills, training and experience.



1.3

1.2

1.1

2.6

7.5

19

.3

20

.4

24

.0

22

.7

1.7

4.5

1.5

4.2

7.7

22

.4

12

.8

34

.2

10

.9

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No answer

% o

f re

spondents


10 = Strongly Agree

Your job makes good use of your skills, training

and experience Agreement Index

2013 = 83.8 2010 = 85.0 2007 = 83.7 A

ve

rag

e =

8.3

8




Agreement with ‘Your job makes good use of your skills, training and experience’ by demographics

Generally most of the subgroups agree with the statement ‘Your job makes good use of your skills, training and experience’. However, some subgroups tend to have higher levels of agreement than others. The chart opposite compares these variables.

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on level of agreement with the statement ‘Your job makes good use of

your skills, training and experience’ were:

Those aged over 65 (Agreement Index 89.8) are more likely to agree with this statement.

Those with a household income over $70,000 (Agreement Index 84.0) are slightly less likely to agree with this statement.

Those who say they live in the country (Agreement Index 75.3) are more likely to agree with this statement.

Respondents who describe their ethnicity as New Zealander or Kiwi (Agreement Index 75.0) are less likely to agree with this statement.

Those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 9 or 10 (Agreement Index 91.6) are more likely to agree with this statement than those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 0 to 6 (Agreement Index 61.4).

83.8

83.6

84.0

85.7

82.4

89.8

83.7

84.0

86.7

85.4

84.0

87.9

75.3

82.0

85.0

75.0

84.5

78.7

87.8

61.4

81.5

91.6

81

28

53

22

33

21

62

17

9

31

29

56

23

4

70

5

7

34

37

8

34

38

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total

Men

Women

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

Own home

Renting

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Town

Country

Maori descent

European descent


Secondary School

SC or Trade

Tertiary




Agreement Index





The role of Maori economic activity The respondents were asked ‘Using the scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with your community understands and appreciates the role that Maori economic activity plays in the districts economic well being?’

A quarter of the respondents (29%) did not answer this question, presumably because they were not aware of Maori economic activity.

Half of the respondents (49%) agreed with the statement ‘Your community understands and appreciates the role

that Maori economic activity plays in the districts economic well being’ (scores of 6 – 10). Only a few respondents (3%) strongly agreed (Score of 10) while 3% rated this with a score of 9. The mode (most frequent value) is a score of 7 (22%).

An eighth of the sample (12%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement ‘Your community understands

and appreciates the role that Maori economic activity plays in the districts economic well being’ (Score 5). A tenth of the respondents (11%) disagreed with the statement ‘Your community understands and appreciates the role that

Maori economic activity plays in the districts economic well being’ (Scores 0 – 4).

The Agreement Index (AI score)11, (a weighted score across the Agreement scale) for ‘Your community

understands and appreciates the role that Maori economic activity plays in the districts economic well being’ was 61.7. This is 3.6 points lower than 2010 and this again implies most respondents have modest agreement that the community appreciates Maori economic activity.



2.3

6.3

11

.8

8.9

23

.8

12

3.7

2.5

28

.6

1.0

2.5

2.4

5.0

11.8

13.8

22.0

7.0

2.6

3.2

28.7

0

10

20

30

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No answer

% o

f re

sp

on

de

nts


10 = Strongly Agree

Your community understands and appreciates the role that Maori economic activity plays in the Districts economic well being

Agreement Index 2013 = 61.7 2010 = 65.3 2007 = 69.6

Ave

rag

e =

6.1

7




Agreement with ‘Your community understands and appreciates the role that Maori economic activity plays in the districts economic well being’ by demographics


Generally, most of the subgroups reflect modest agreement with the statement ‘Your community understands and appreciates the role that Maori economic activity plays in

the districts economic well being’. However, some subgroups tend to have higher levels of agreement than others. The chart opposite compares these variables.

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on level of agreement with the statement ‘Your community understands and appreciates the role that Maori economic activity plays in the districts economic well

being’ were:

Those with a household income over $70,000 (Agreement Index 57.6) are less likely to agree with this statement.

Respondents who describe their ethnicity as New Zealander or Kiwi (Agreement Index 57.0) are less likely to agree with this statement.

Those whose highest educational qualification was tertiary (Agreement Index 61.2) are less likely to agree with this statement.

Those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 9 or 10 (Agreement Index 67.0) are more likely to agree with this statement than those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 0 to 6 (Agreement Index 53.4).

61.7

59.6

63.1

60.0

62.3

62.6

64.2

57.1

77.6

64.9

57.6

62.4

60.0

69.9

61.2

66.5

57.0

72.0

61.9

61.2

53.4

58.5

67.0

81

28

53

22

33

21

62

17

9

31

29

56

23

4

70

2

5

7

34

37

8

34

38

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total

Men

Women

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

Own home

Renting

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Town

Country

Maori descent

European descent

Other


Secondary School

SC or Trade

Tertiary




Agreement Index





Participation in Sport and Active Leisure The respondents were asked ‘Now a question about exercise and other physical activities. By that I mean activity

that increases your heart rate or breathing for 30 minutes or more. This might include brisk walking, running and

gardening. How often do you do this kind of activity for 30 minutes or more?’ The largest group, (43%) said they exercised for 30 minutes or more every day while 36% said they did this 2 to 4 times per week and 12% said they did this weekly. Only 2% of the sample said they exercised for 30 minutes or more 2 – 3 times per month and 1% did this monthly while 2% did this less often. Only 4% of the respondents said they never exercised for 30 minutes or more and the remaining 0.1% did not know how often they did this level of exercise.

There is limited variation in frequency of exercising for 30 minutes or more based on the district the respondent was from. Only a minority of respondents from each district never exercise, this varies from 0% in Rotorua and Waitomo up to 10% in Hauraki. The proportion that exercise at least weekly ranges from 100% in Rotorua down to 85% in Hauraki.

Never 4.2%

Every day or nearly every day

43.0%

2 - 4 times per week 35.9%

Once per week 12.1%

2 - 3 times per month 2.1%

Once a month 1.0%

Less often 1.6%

Don't know 0.1%

-4.2

-4.5

-9.6

-4.1

-3.5

-7.5

-7.6

-0.7

-3.4

-1.9

43.0

41.4

49.1

48.5

34.8

42.0

32.7

48.8

56.2

70.1

92.1

48.1

35.9

42.6

28.6

30.5

41.7

28.0

44.8

28.5

28.2

21.0

7.9

39.1

12.1

8.7

7.0

12.6

12.5

16.7

10.3

20.2

8.0

4.4

7.9

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Total (n = 713)


Hauraki (n = 33)

Waikato (n = 111)

Hamilton (n = 181)


Waipa (n = 81)


Otorohanga (n = 16)

Waitomo (n = 15)

Rotorua (n = 6)

Taupo (n = 59) Percent of the sample

Never Every day or nearly every day 2 - 4 times per week Once per week

2 - 3 times per month Once a month Less often Don't know




Participation in Sport and Active Leisure - Comparison to 2010

The respondents were asked ‘Now a question about exercise and other physical activities. By that I mean activity that increases your heart rate or breathing for 30 minutes or more. This might include brisk walking, running and gardening. How often do you do this kind of activity for 30 minutes or more?’

The following chart focuses on the proportion of respondents who exercised for 30 minutes or more at least once per week (the sum of those who exercised every day or nearly every day, 2 - 4 times per week and once per week). The vast majority of the respondents exercised for 30 minutes or more at least once per week 91% versus 87% in 2010 and 89% in 2007.

The majority of respondents from each district exercised at least once per week. This ranges from 100% for the few from Rotorua and 98% for those from the South Waikato down to 85% in Hauraki. The variance by area may be caused by demographic differences in the samples.

The results are similar to previous years although there are some larger differences for some districts like South Waikato and Waitomo. The differences may be caused by the smaller sample sizes, abnormal results in 2010, because of changing demographics or because the situation in relation to exercise has changed since 2010.

91.9

95.1

90.6

90.2

84.9

90.2

87.2

87.4

86.0

90.8

94.7

88.5

90.6

100.0

77.3

88.7

82.5

78.3

85.4

89.9

83.1

88.1

97.5

87.2

95.1

100.0

95.5

92.4

97.5

87.8

86.7

89.0

91.6

84.7

92.7

91.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Taupo

Rotorua

Waitomo

Otorohanga

South Waikato

Waipa

Matamata-Piako

Hamilton

Waikato

Hauraki

Thames-Coromandel

Total

% of the sample

2013 2010 2007




Council Decision Making Factors

The respondents were asked ‘We are interested in understanding your views on the role of your local Council. For each of the following statements can you please tell if you agree or disagree using the scale where 0 = Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree.’

Half of the respondents (54%) agreed (scores 6-10) with the statement ‘Overall, you have confidence that the

Council makes decisions that are in the best interests of your district’ but this drops to only 43% for the statement ‘You have enough say in what your Council does’. Between 28% and 38% disagreed with each statement (scores 0 – 4).

This reflects in the Agreement Index which is 55.9 for the statement ‘Overall, you have confidence that the

Council makes decisions that are in the best interests of your district’ down to an Agreement Index of 48.5 for the statement ‘You have enough say in what your Council does’.

-2

-10

-10

14

18

14

17

19

13

4

5

2

2

5

1

55.9

55.8

48.5

-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100




% of the sample

0 = Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = Strongly Agree No answer Agreement Index

55.9

55.8

48.5

0 20 40 60 80 100




Agreement Index

Agreement Index




Council Decision Making Factors - Comparison to 2010

The following chart compares the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007 for the Council Decision Making factors. There were 3 decreases in the Indexes among the Council Decision Making factors. The factor ‘Overall, you

have confidence that the Council makes decisions that are in the best interests of your district’ (Index 55.9) was down 2.4 points while the factor ‘Overall, you understand how your Council makes decisions’ (Index 55.8) was down 0.8 points. The factor ‘You have enough say in what your Council does’ (Index 48.5) was down 2.7 points.

Council Decision Making Factors by Gender

There is limited variation in the Agreement Index for the Council Decision Making factors based on gender.

51.2

56.6

58.3

48.5

55.8

55.9

-2.7

-0.8

-2.4

0 20 40 60 80 100




Index



Decreases Increases

55.5 54.4

51.6

56.2 56.8

46.1

30

40

50

60

70

80




Agre

em

ent In

dex

Men (n = 28)

Women (n = 53)

100 = Strongly

Agree

50 = Neutral




Council Decision Making Factors by Age Grouping

There is some variation in the Agreement Index for the Council Decision Making factors by age group. The greatest variation is in the statement ‘Overall, you understand how your Council makes decisions’.

Council Decision Making Factors by Home Ownership

There is limited variation in the Agreement Index for the Council Decision Making factors based on home ownership. Those who rent are more likely to agree with the statement ‘Overall, you understand how your

Council makes decisions’ (Index 63.9).

53.9

50.8

44.3

57.8

63.6

56.4

57.3

52.2

40

50

60

70

80




Agre

em

ent In

dex

26 - 45 years (n = 22)

46 - 64 years (n = 33)

65+ years (n = 21)

100 = Strongly

Agree

50 = Neutral

55.5

52.5

48.1

56.2

63.9

49.4

30

40

50

60

70

80




Agre

em

ent In

dex

Own home (n = 62)

Renting (n = 17)

100 = Strongly

Agree

50 = Neutral




Council Decision Making Factors by Household Income

There is limited variation in the Agreement Index for the Council Decision Making factors based on household income. The greatest variation is in the statement ‘Overall, you have confidence that the Council

makes decisions that are in the best interests of your district’.

Council Decision Making Factors by Living in Town versus the Country

There is some difference in the level of agreement with each of the Council Decision Making statements between those who live in town and those who live in the country. Those who live in town are more likely to agree with the statement ‘Overall, you understand how your Council makes decisions’ (Index 59.1).

48.3

50.9

47.2

56.7 56.3

47.9

57.8 57.7

50.6

30

40

50

60

70


Understand how Council makes decisions Have enough say in what your Council does

Agre

em

ent In

dex

Less than $30,000 (n = 9)

$30,000 to $70,000 (n = 31)

More than $70,000 (n = 29)

100 = Strongly

Agree

50 = Neutral

56.4

59.1

51.1

52.3

46.8

39.4

30

40

50

60

70

80



Agre

em

ent In

dex

Town (n = 56)

Country (n = 23)

100 = Strongly

Agree

50 = Neutral




Council Decision Making Factors by Highest Educational Qualification

There is some variation in the Agreement Index for the Council Decision Making factors based on highest education qualification. Those whose highest qualification was secondary school are the most likely to agree with each of these statements.

Council Decision Making Factors by Happiness with Quality of Life

There is some variation in the Agreement Index for the Council Decision Making factors based on the respondents’ satisfaction with their overall Quality of Life. Respondents who are happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 9 or 10) rate most of the Council Decision Making factors considerably higher than those who are not happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 0 or 6).

58.8

61.1

65.2

55.6

49.1

46.1

56.7 59.8

49.4

30

40

50

60

70

80



Ag

ree

me

nt In

de

x



Tertiary (n = 37)

100 = Strongly

Agree

50 = Neutral

52.1

43.7

14.5

58.5

62.7

53.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70




Agre

em

ent In

dex Qual of Life (Score 0 - 6) (n = 8)



100 = Strongly

Agree

50 = Neutral




Environment Factors The respondents were asked ‘Thinking about the environment you live in and using the same scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with <…>?’

The majority of respondents (85%) are satisfied (scores 7 – 10) with the ‘unique or special character of your

town’ but this drops to 56% for the ‘quality of your rivers and waterways’.

This reflects in the CSI scores which range from a CSI score of 79.4 for the ‘unique or special character of

your town’ down to a CSI score of 66.3 for the ‘quality of your rivers and waterways’.

-7

-8

-13

-1

-2

-12

-2

-1

-7

-2

-4

-9

-2

0

0

0

0

-1

0

0

0

17

24

20

35

24

19

14

17

9

19

10

8

2

12

3

79.4

76.7

66.3

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100




% of respondents


Red=

Dissatisfied

Green

= Satisfied

79.4

76.7

66.3

0 20 40 60 80 100




CSI score CSI Score




Environmental Factors - Comparison to 2010

The following chart compares the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007 for the Environmental factors. There were 3 increases and 0 decreases in the Indexes among the Environmental factors. The largest increase was 4.6 points for the ‘level of protection given to special landscape features’ (Index 76.7) followed by an increase of 3.3 points for the ‘unique or special character of your town’ (Index 79.4).The factor the ‘quality of

your rivers and waterways’ (Index 66.3) was up 2.2 points.

Environmental Factors by Gender


There is some variation in the CSI scores for the Environmental Factors based on gender and women are more satisfied with each of these factors.

64.1

72.1

76.2

66.3

76.7

79.4

2.2

4.6

3.3

0 20 40 60 80 100




Index



Decreases Increases

79.2

73.9

61.0

79.6 78.8

70.2

50

60

70

80

90

100

Unique or special character of your town Protection given to special landscape features


CS

I S

core

Men (n = 28)

Women (n = 53)

100 = Very

Satisfied

50 = Neutral




Environmental Factors by Age Grouping

The CSI scores for the Environmental Factors vary little by age group.

Environmental Factors by Home Ownership

There is limited variation in the CSI scores for the Environmental Factors between those in their own homes and those who are renting or boarding.

78.5

80.9

67.6

86.3

73.1

65.3

50

60

70

80

90

100



CS

I S

core

26 - 45 years (n = 22)

46 - 64 years (n = 33)

65+ years (n = 21)

100 = Very

Satisfied

80.6

75.2

65.0

76.8

80.8

70.9

50

60

70

80

90

100



CS

I S

core

Own home (n = 62)

Renting (n = 17)

100 = Very

Satisfied




Environmental Factors by Household Income

There is some variation in the CSI scores for the Environmental Factors based on household income. The greatest variation is for the factor the ‘unique or special character of your town’.

Environmental Factors by Living in Town versus the Country

There is limited difference in the Environmental Factors between those living in the country and those living in town.

92.0

75.0

77.3

80.5 80.0

67.0

77.0

76.4

65.8

50

60

70

80

90

100



CS

I S

core

Less than $30,000 (n = 9)

$30,000 to $70,000 (n = 31)

More than $70,000 (n = 29)

100 = Very

Satisfied

50 = Neutral

79.1

77.0

64.3

80.3

75.7 70.9

50

60

70

80

90

100



CS

I S

core

Town (n = 56)

Country (n = 23)

100 = Very

Satisfied

50 = Neutral




Environmental Factors by Happiness with Quality of Life

There is some variation on most of the Environmental Factors based on how happy the respondent is with their Quality of Life. There is little pattern in the results which infers it is other variables that are causing the variance.

76.3 80.1 79.9

73.6 72.0

61.1

86.8

81.9

69.3

50

60

70

80

90

100



CS

I S

core




100 = Very

Satisfied




Sense of Pride The respondents were asked ‘Using the scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with you feel a sense of pride in the way your district looks and feels?’

The vast majority of the Waipa District respondents (89%) agreed with the statement ‘you feel a sense of

pride in the way your district looks and feels’ (scores of 6 – 10). However, only a few respondents (6%) strongly agreed (Score of 10) while 22% rated this with a score of 9. The mode (most frequent value) is a score of 8 (36%).

Less than a tenth of the sample (5%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement ‘You feel a sense of

pride in the way your district looks and feels’ (Score 5). Only a few respondents (6%) disagreed with the statement ‘You feel a sense of pride in the way your district looks and feels’ (Scores 0 – 4).

The Agreement Index (AI score)12 , (a weighted score across the Agreement scale) for ‘You feel a sense of

pride in the way your district looks and feels’ was 75.3. This is 1.8 points higher than the 2010 result and the result again implies most respondents feel some sense of pride in their district.



1.2

14

9.4

24.4

32.3

8.5

10.3

0.7

3.1 2.3

4.5

8.8

16.5

36.3

21.7

6.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% o

f re

sp

on

de

nts


10 = Strongly Agree

You feel a sense of pride in the way your District looks

and feels Agreement Index

2013 = 75.3 2010 = 73.5 2007 = 76.1

Ave

rag

e =

7.5

3




Agreement with ‘You feel a sense of pride in the way your district looks and feels’ by demographics

Generally, most of the subgroups agree with the statement ‘You feel a sense of pride in the way your district looks and feels’. However, some subgroups tend to have higher levels of agreement than others. The chart opposite compares these variables.

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on level of agreement with the statement ‘You feel a sense of pride in

the way your district looks and feels’ were:

The few aged under 25 (Agreement Index 70.0) are less likely to agree with this statement than those from the other age brackets (Agreement Index 74.3 – 76.3).

Those with a household income under $30,000 (Agreement Index 69.8) are less likely to agree with this statement than those from the other household income brackets (Agreement Index 74.9 – 77.2).

Respondents who described their ethnicity as New Zealander or Kiwi (Agreement Index 60.9) are less likely to agree with this statement.

Those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 9 or 10 (Agreement Index 81.7) are significantly more likely to agree with this statement than those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 0 to 6 (Agreement Index 65.1).

75.3

75.3

75.4

70.0

75.3

76.3

74.3

76.5

72.6

69.8

77.2

74.9

74.7

75.6

80.0

75.8

79.9

60.9

75.5

72.7

76.5

65.1

72.0

81.7

81

28

53

3

22

33

21

62

17

9

31

29

56

23

4

70

2

5

7

34

37

8

34

38

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total

Men

Women

Under 25 years

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

Own home

Renting

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Town

Country

Maori descent

European descent

Other


Secondary School

SC or Trade

Tertiary




Agreement Index





Sense of pride in the way district looks and feels: Verbatim Comments The respondents were asked ‘Using the same scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the statement ‘You feel a sense of pride in the way your district looks and

feels?’ They were then asked ‘What is the ONE main reason for saying this?’ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

Across the Waikato Region (orange bars on chart) there was a range of responses, with some respondents offering positive reasons for agreeing strongly with the statement while others offered reasons for giving a lower score. The main positive comments evolved around their district being clean and tidy or about the appearance of the district (34.5%), having a good atmosphere or being a good place to live (17.5%), the area having good natural resources or facilities (13.5%), the upgrades or improvements happening (5.2%) or having a general pride in their district (4.6%). The main negative comments had to do with concerns about the Council (12.8%), concerns about the place not being well maintained (11.1%), issues with the facilities (5.2%), or concerns about graffiti, crime and vandalism (4.1%). Others offered neutral comments (4%) did not know (4%) or thought there was room for improvement (4%). The results are very similar to 2010 and 2007.

The results are similar for Waipa (teal bars on chart), although there are more comments around their district being clean and tidy or about the appearance of the district (41%), about having a good atmosphere or being a good place to live (30%), or having general pride in their district (12%) and less negative comments.

40.7

29.6

14.8

8.6

12.3

3.7

4.9

1.2

4.9

2.5

8.6

2.5

3.7

1.2

6.2

34.5

17.5

13.5

5.2

4.6

4.3

1.8

5.3

3.8

3.6

3.9

12.8

11.1

5.2

4.1

1.5

7.6

0 10 20 30 40 50

Clean and tidy / Maintenance / Appearance

Good atmosphere / community feel / good place to live

Good facilities / resources / natural resources

Upgrades / improvements happening

Having pride

Council / leadership positive

Happy general

Other Positives

Room for improvement

Neutral Comments / Other general

Don't know / no answer / no reason

Council Negative

Not well maintained / rubbish around

Facilities not good enough

Graffiti / crime / vandalism

Town planning negative

Other negative % of respondents

Waipa (n = 81)

Total (n = 713)




Positive comments

Many respondents made positive comments about the appearance of their district, including it being kept clean and tidy and well maintained (40.7%). These respondents comments included:13

'The town looks nice. The Council is always working’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 10)

'A beautiful small town’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 10)

'I rarely see graffiti’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 10)

'The town is kept nice; they probably could spend a bit more money on footpaths and kerbs in certain areas that don't have them’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'Because everybody works hard and the country side looks good’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'The area is just lovely. The paving and parks are kept so nicely’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'I think it's a well kept town. The town of trees and champions philosophy is really apparent and really good town to live in. I really like it’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'Looks tidy and enjoying living in Te Awamutu’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'Because the residents look after it. Council does the flower beds in town. We have a Tree Trust that do all the trees’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'Doing all the clean up jobs’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'How clean and tidy it is’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'It's just a tidy area. People just clean up after themselves’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'Town is kept nice and tidy, the main street always looks nice' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'There are lovely trees around. They keep the town area nice. The only worry is there are many elderly homeless in streets in town’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'The rose gardens and everything is pretty tidy’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Because the town looks lovely and I'm very proud of it' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I think it's a tidy town and the people have pride in their environment’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'The Council keeps the grounds tidy and has pride in their town' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Well, it's fairly well looked after by householders, shop people and all the rest. People have a reasonable pride in the place’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I travel a lot with my job and I like how clean it is. Seems to be a good community spirit, when you walk along the street people smile and say hello’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Looks and feels good. I feel that well Cambridge anyway it has a lovely sort ambiance about it. I find the people very friendly’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Te Awamutu is a nice town, has a good feel and people are friendly’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Just I don't know when you walk through or drive through it’s nice. It feels homely, open, clean, and tidy. Has a community spirit. People say hello to you and acknowledge you in the street. You know whether

they are strangers or not’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I think its a clean tidy town' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I think our community looks nice, it's always tidy’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'It looks pretty, when entering the town; it's a nice view with all the trees. It's pretty well cared for, some of it. Trees creating a picture with leaves at the moment’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'The general appearance of district and our surroundings’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'The way they keep it nice and clean’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'The way it's been kept, the parks, the walks and facilities’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

'I like how they revamped the new streets and stuff and it looks nice and I like the sense of community as well’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

'Because it is a pretty town’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

'The town looks pretty good’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

13 Please note that when verbatim comments cover more than one point these are reported in total to keep comments in perspective. The

comments with multiple themes are repeated under each relevant section.




'We're a pretty tidy little town' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

This was followed by 29.6% who mentioned a good atmosphere or community feel about the place or that it was a good place to live. This included comments like:

'A beautiful small town’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 10)


'This area is a really nice place to raise a family and looks like a nice place to live, the community looks after the place and they take pride’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'I think it's a well kept town. The town of trees and champions philosophy is really apparent and really good town to live in. I really like it’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'Looks tidy and enjoying living in Te Awamutu’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'Cambridge is one of the safest places we have ever lived in’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'It's a good atmosphere’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'There is a strong community feeling here’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'I love the community and Waikato, the overall combination of growth, I am happy with the progress, new motorway, with my industry within the Waikato. It looks pristine throughout winter, opportunities are huge

within NZ’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I think it's a good quality family life here. Plus it's also very central to Upper North Island’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Waipa has good facilities as far as sport, because of location and it is a place to be proud of because of the layout and it is a safe place to be’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I think what there is available for the community in our district. Sports wise, community group wise and school wise. I just think it's just a good area’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I travel a lot with my job and I like how clean it is. Seems to be a good community spirit, when you walk along the street people smile and say hello’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Looks and feels good. I feel that well Cambridge anyway it has a lovely sort ambiance about it. I find the people very friendly’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Te Awamutu is a nice town, has a good feel and people are friendly’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Just I don't know when you walk through or drive through it’s nice. It feels homely, open, clean, and tidy. Has a community spirit. People say hello to you and acknowledge you in the street. You know whether

they are strangers or not’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I think our district has a strong Council that works for the greater good and the atmosphere of the district is very positive and the way it looks is advertised. I like the way it is advertised with "home of champions"

and it's a good image overall. Iconic’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I think they keep the small town country look, e.g. Lovely greenery, with a village feel, with a lovely park square’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'It's a nice place to live’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)


'I think this area, Waipa, has a proud tradition and well recognised as a nice place to live. We have stability in leadership above other parts of the Waikato’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

'People pride. It's still a small enough and large enough community rurally attached, close to a big centre, a progressive centre, elderly population, but I will not put it down to Council. Down to the people not the

Council’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

'I think they generally look after each other’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

'It's a nice place to live in’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 6)

A number commented on the great facilities and resources in the district including natural resources, (mentioned by 14.8% of respondents).





'The area is just lovely. The paving and parks are kept so nicely’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'Have everything you could think of here.

Don't need to go anywhere else to do anything’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'Should be given a lot of credit for making and looking after the cemeteries’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)


'The rose gardens and everything is pretty tidy’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I think what there is available for the community in our district. Sports wise, community group wise and school wise. I just think it's just a good area’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I think there is a large variety of community facilities and they are well maintained' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'The sporting aspect' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'The way it's been kept, the parks, the walks and facilities’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

'Condition of the parks and gardens’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

'There are a lot of parks and things around’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 6)

This was followed by 12.3% who mentioned a general pride in their district. This included comments like:

'Because the pride of the farmers in their farms and the citizens in their homes, for the most part, is very high. Most New Zealanders are very proud of keeping their farm up and their

properties and gardens tidy’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 10)

'This area is a really nice place to raise a family and looks like a nice place to live, the community looks after the place and they take pride’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)


'Because the town looks lovely and I'm very proud of it' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I think it's a tidy town and the people have pride in their environment’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'The Council keeps the grounds tidy and has pride in their town' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Well, it's fairly well looked after by householders, shop people and all the rest. People have a reasonable pride in the place’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Talking to people around town, regardless of the Council people of Cambridge I feel proud of Cambridge whether we like the Council or not’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)


'People pride. It's still a small enough and large enough community rurally attached, close to a big centre, a progressive centre, elderly population, but I will not put it down to Council. Down to the people not the

Council’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

A number of respondents (8.6%) were proud because of the improvements and upgrades happening in their district:


'Live in Cambridge - I like they are going ahead with new projects for the area and they are valuable to the community' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)

'I love the community and Waikato, the overall combination of growth, I am happy with the progress, new motorway, with my industry within the Waikato. It looks pristine throughout winter, opportunities are huge

within NZ’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)




'Just the upgrading of the streets they are doing now, it's going to be really nice when they are finished’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Keeping up with everything. Moving ahead' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)


'There is a fair bit of work being done tidying up, road verges being cleared and spraying operations’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 6)

Some respondents (3.7%) made positive comments about their Council that included:


'I think our district has a strong Council that works for the greater good and the atmosphere of the district is very positive and the way it looks is advertised. I like the way it is advertised with "home of champions"

and it's a good image overall. Iconic’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)


This was followed by 4.9% who made other positive comments as to why they felt pride in their district. This included comments like:

'I love the community and Waikato, the overall combination of growth, I am happy with the progress, new motorway, with my industry within the Waikato.

It looks pristine throughout winter, opportunities are huge within NZ’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'I think it's a good quality family life here. Plus it's also very central to Upper North Island’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'We live in a comparatively wealthy area’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 6)

'I think this is an awesome little town but the Council let it down by making it so expensive for people to move in’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 2)

Neutral comments

There were also respondents (1.2%) who felt there was room for improvement in the district and they made the following comment:

'I think they could do better’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 4)

This was followed by 4.9% who made neutral or other comments about the sense of pride in their district. This included comments like:

'Family' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 10)

'I read the newspaper and the local paper’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'Because I live here’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

'Not due to the present Council, but historic building and planting’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

Negative comments

There was a range of negative comments from 8.6% of respondents who were not totally satisfied with the Council in their district and these included:

'Because I don't think they do all they should or could, in regards to some of the streets, potholes. The roading things like that’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 6)

'The lack of attention to the local residents; tends to be going more to Te Awamutu than Cambridge’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 6)

'They spend too much on the cycle thing that the average person doesn't use’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 6)




'I think there is a lot of division in the Council - one group wants to improve, other group wants to keep rates low so no decision is made well' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 5)

'The Council are interested in their egos (i.e. building or monuments) than the people's needs. Lower the rates and electricity' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 5)

'I think this is an awesome little town but the Council let it down by making it so expensive for people to move in’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 2)

'They take petitions around and they take no notice of it. They make decisions and the ratepayers are paying more. In other words they are useless’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 0)

This was followed by 4% who felt there were not enough facilities available or those available were not good enough in their district. This included comments like:

'The town is kept nice; they probably could spend a bit more money on footpaths and kerbs in certain areas that don't have them’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 9)


'Some of the roads in the Waipa District are crap' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 4)

This was followed by 2.5% of respondents who made comments about their district not being well maintained or the fact that there was rubbish around. This included comments like:


'Some of the roads in the Waipa District are crap' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 4)

One respondent mentioned the amount of graffiti, crime and vandalism in their district (1%):

'Too much graffiti around town’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

There were several other comments as to why people did not have total pride in their district and these included:

'Because the rugby ground is the only thing we have to be proud of down here’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 10)

'There are lovely trees around. They keep the town area nice. The only worry is there are many elderly homeless in streets in town’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 8)

'The amount of time it's taken for the works going on outside Te Awamutu College down to the railway. All the digging up of the pipes and all the power cuts and the detours that need to be taken because of it’

(Waipa: Agreement Level = 7)

'We had a number of problems in the district lately so the district has become a little - fractured shall we say?' (Waipa: Agreement Level = 6)

'In Te Awamutu main street there are beautiful buildings ruined by the cheap and loud shop signs in the front. I think they could look really pretty if they stopped the cheap signs. In the UK shop signage has to

stay in line with the heritage of the building’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 2)

Two respondents either didn’t know why they weren’t totally proud of their district, or they did not give a reason.

'Never thought about it before’ (Waipa: Agreement Level = 5)




What makes your district unique or special The respondents were asked ‘What do you think makes your district unique or special?’ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

Across the Waikato Region (orange bars on chart) the main theme was to do with the atmosphere or sense of community in the district (33%). Others commented on the natural resources like beaches, rivers or mountains or natural beauty (24%). A smaller number thought the activities, events or tourist attractions made their district unique (13%) while 12% commented on the proximity to cities or their central location. A similar number mentioned the geographic location or situation of the district made it unique (11%). Note in 2007 the natural resources were coded as part of geographic situation

Less than a tenth of the sample (7%) mentioned agriculture or horticulture or the rural feel of the area making their district unique while for others it was shops, facilities and amenities (7%) or parks and gardens (7%) or the history or cultural heritage (5%). There was a range of other suggestions.

A number of respondents did not answer this question (10%) and a few did not know what made their district unique (1%).There was also a range of negative suggestions as to what made their district unique (5%). The results are very similar to 2010 and 2007.

For Waipa (teal bars on chart), more respondents mentioned the parks, gardens and trees (31%) or mentioned agriculture or horticulture or the rural feel of the area making their district unique (19%) while fewer mentioned the natural features / beauty (beaches, mountains, rivers etc.) (14%) or mentioned the activities, events or tourist attractions (6%) and fewer made negative comments (1%).

30.9

13.6

6.2

9.9

4.9

18.5

1.2

30.9

6.2

2.5

17.3

12.3

1.2

32.7

24.3

13.2

11.5

10.7

7.4

7.4

7.4

4.8

2.0

12.8

9.5

0.1

5.3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Community, atmosphere, size

Natural features / beauty (beaches, mountains, rivers etc)

Activities available / tourist attraction / events

Central location / proximity to cities / places

Geographic situation / location / environment (general)

Rural / countryside / agriculture / horticulture

Shops / Facilities / Amenities available

Parks, gardens and trees

History / culture

Climate

Other

No answer

Don't know / no reason

Negative comments % of respondents

Waipa (n = 81)

Total (n = 713)




Reasons why the district is unique or special

Many respondents felt the atmosphere or community around them made their district unique (30.9%). These respondents comments included:14:

'It's got a charm with the trees. We have old buildings and the park at the top of town. But they need to stop letting people take the older buildings, we need to keep with a theme, let

everything look old fashioned. It has the charm with the old buildings and we don't want that to be destroyed. It's sad that they are letting buildings get destroyed.

I feel there is a sense of unfairness between us and Te Awamutu. The new cycling facilities help motels and eatery places which is good but we need to hold onto the charm’ (Waipa)

'The trees, racing and field days. A village feel to it’ (Waipa)

'That's a hard one. I like the rose gardens and everyone here is usually quite friendly’ (Waipa)

'Probably the layout of the town - Green belt, parks, ambience of the housing within the town’ (Waipa)

'It is the overall look and character of the building, parks and gardens’ (Waipa)

'Because we have lots of sports people here that’s emphasized by parks down the streets, green belt to promote trees and greenery. Lots of trees, nice feel, nice wide main street.

Well designed, nice feel’ (Waipa)

'The smallness and the authentic look of Cambridge, also good parking and no meters’ (Waipa)

'Sport, outdoor activities, the general community, community projects etc.’ (Waipa)

'Little town it's neat, you can walk everywhere, shops are all nice. Council listens, you have a say even though it may not work out and a good newspaper’ (Waipa)

'It's the home of champions. Again it’s a good place to bring up a family’ (Waipa)

'It's a boutique town, and it's user friendly for all sporting activities’ (Waipa)

'It's a nice place to be. Feels good, looks good’ (Waipa)

'The people and the landscape and how they interact’ (Waipa)

'All the farming communication and all the high performance sports. Country feel to the town’ (Waipa)

'I believe the geography of the town is very comfortable to live in - makes for a community including traffic planning, car parks, low rise buildings, and I believe there should be more open spaces for parks and

walkways through parks’ (Waipa)

'The people and overall it's a lovely little town to live’ (Waipa)

'The fact that I live here and the mix of cultures of people that live here’ (Waipa)

'The attitude of people is very friendly’ (Waipa)

'Quieter and safer than many bigger places’ (Waipa)

'It’s the way they look after it’ (Waipa)

'It hasn’t got any ethnic people out here so there is no theft’ (Waipa)

'I think like a safe environment’ (Waipa)

'Friendly and growing' (Waipa)

'Community are very welcoming and they care for the surroundings’ (Waipa)

'A nice friendly community’ (Waipa)

Other respondents commented on the parks, gardens and trees in the area being a unique feature (30.9%) with these comments:

'The multi sport look with rowing and cycling, equestrian and the trees’ (Waipa)

'Rose Gardens and dairy farming of the town' (Waipa)







'Dog walking parks, spa, new cycling tracks and good bush walks’ (Waipa)

'We have a lot of trees, we call it tree town. It's a very pretty town regards looking at it’ (Waipa)

'The big oak trees, with the Waikato River running through Cambridge’ (Waipa)


everything look old fashioned. It has the charm with the old buildings and we don't want that to be destroyed. It's sad that they are letting buildings get destroyed. I feel there is a sense of unfairness

between us and Te Awamutu. The new cycling facilities help motels and eatery places which is good but we need to hold onto the charm’ (Waipa)

'That's a hard one. I like the rose gardens and everyone here is usually quite friendly’ (Waipa)

'Probably the layout of the town - Green belt, parks, ambience of the housing within the town’ (Waipa)

'It is the overall look and character of the building, parks and gardens’ (Waipa)

'Because we have lots of sports people here that’s emphasized by parks down the streets, green belt to promote trees and greenery. Lots of trees, nice feel,

nice wide main street. Well designed, nice feel’ (Waipa)

'The climate and we are pretty town; our rose gardens are well looked after’ (Waipa)

'The big old trees, the tidiness of the town and you never need to worry about what Council is doing’ (Waipa)

'Trees’ (Waipa)

'Trees, the amount of trees’ (Waipa)

'The trees’ (Waipa)

'The trees’ (Waipa)

'The rose gardens and the businesses they have to offer are not spread out like Hamilton’ (Waipa)

'Te Awamutu is rose town and that's what makes it special I think’ (Waipa)

'Rose town of NZ' (Waipa)

'Our trees, parks and our houses’ (Waipa)

'Our rose gardens’ (Waipa)

'I think the trees’ (Waipa)

'Heaps of trees’ (Waipa)

'All the trees’ (Waipa)

This was followed by 18.5% of respondents who mentioned the agricultural or horticultural aspect of the district. This included comments like:

'We're in the Waikato. Well I mean we're very lucky aren't we? We have plants in the ground, and we have good growing conditions, we're a growing district. We're a farming district; we rely on crops and

grass. Our weather is magnificent most of the time’ (Waipa)

'Horse breeding, cycle track, rowing, dairy factory and the river’ (Waipa)

'The rural aspect, handy to Hamilton’ (Waipa)

'Good central farming area and its easy to go from here to lots of other places' (Waipa)

'It's quite a range of reasons - like the economic buoyancy of the dairy farming. The landscape. Our commitment to efficiency and our contribution the economy on a whole’ (Waipa)

'Waikato River, heart of the dairy country' (Waipa)

'All the farming communication and all the high performance sports. Country feel to the town’ (Waipa)


'Rose Gardens and dairy farming of the town' (Waipa)

'It once had the largest dairy industry in the Southern Hemisphere, and there are quite a lot of Maori history war accessories here and we have some good athletes that come from here’ (Waipa)




'It is farming based more so than governed by tourism and freezing works’ (Waipa)

'The racing and the equestrian. There are quite a lot of horses, stables for breeding horses, which give unique character to the town’ (Waipa)

'The neat farms and the quality of the properties’ (Waipa)

'I think it’s a rural community and I think generally rural communities are more friendly and more supportive’ (Waipa)

'I think it’s a good country area’ (Waipa)

Some respondents (13.6%) felt it was the districts natural beauty and landscape that made it so special and offered comments that included:

'It's a nice place to be. Feels good, looks good’ (Waipa)

'The people and the landscape and how they interact’ (Waipa)

'We have a lot of trees, we call it tree town. It's a very pretty town regards looking at it’ (Waipa)

'The big oak trees, with the Waikato River running through Cambridge’ (Waipa)


'We have some Olympians, river and the town's green spaces’ (Waipa)

'There's a mountain. It's quite historic - it's coming up to its 100th anniversary’ (Waipa)

'The physical landscape; and the facilities that we have here’ (Waipa)

'Waikato River, heart of the dairy country' (Waipa)

'Just the beauty of it’ (Waipa)

'Its general landscape’ (Waipa)

A number of respondents (9.9%) felt it was the central location and the proximity to other centres that made the district unique

'A few things really. We're in the middle of everywhere regarding travel to different places. Huge support regarding athletes. And the outdoor lifestyle’ (Waipa)


'The fact that the Finn brothers came from here. It's also close to Hamilton’ (Waipa)

'The rural aspect, handy to Hamilton’ (Waipa)

'Good central farming area and its easy to go from here to lots of other places' (Waipa)

'The location is central to other places’ (Waipa)

'The centralisation to Hamilton, not far to Tauranga’ (Waipa)

'The accessibility to other areas’ (Waipa)

A number commented on the activities available or tourist attractions in the district and other special events which take place, (mentioned by 6.2%).


'Dog walking parks, spa, new cycling tracks and good bush walks’ (Waipa)


'Mangatautari and being close to a lot of sports’ (Waipa)


This was followed by 4.9% who mentioned the geographic situation or location. This included comments like:




'I believe the geography of the town is very comfortable to live in - makes for a community including traffic planning, car parks, low rise buildings, and I believe there should be more

open spaces for parks and walkways through parks’ (Waipa)



'Location and history of Cambridge’ (Waipa)

'Last Waikato town before the King Country’ (Waipa)

There were some comments from respondents who felt the history / culture of the area made it unique (6.2%) and these included:


everything look old fashioned. It has the charm with the old buildings and we don't want that to be destroyed. It's sad that they are letting buildings get destroyed. I feel there is a sense of unfairness between us and Te Awamutu. The new cycling facilities

help motels and eatery places which is good but we need to hold onto the charm’ (Waipa)


'Location and history of Cambridge’ (Waipa)

'There's a mountain. It's quite historic - it's coming up to its 100th anniversary’ (Waipa)

'The background heritage' (Waipa)

Climate was mentioned as a reason for the district being unique by 2.5% of respondents with the following comments:

'The climate and we are pretty town; our rose gardens are well looked after’ (Waipa)



This was followed by 1.2% of respondents who mentioned the facilities and amenities available. This included comments like:

'The physical landscape; and the facilities that we have here’ (Waipa)

There was a range of other comments from respondents and these included:



'The big old trees, the tidiness of the town and you never need to worry about what Council is doing’ (Waipa)


'It is farming based more so than governed by tourism and freezing works’ (Waipa)


'The fact that the Finn brothers came from here. It's also close to Hamilton’ (Waipa)

'Mangatautari and being close to a lot of sports’ (Waipa)

'We have some Olympians, river and the town's green spaces’ (Waipa)

'The smallness and the authentic look of Cambridge, also good parking and no meters’ (Waipa)

'Sport, outdoor activities, the general community, community projects etc.’ (Waipa)




'Little town it's neat, you can walk everywhere, shops are all nice. Council listens, you have a say even though it may not work out and a good newspaper’ (Waipa)

'It's the home of champions. Again it’s a good place to bring up a family’ (Waipa)

'It's a boutique town, and it's user friendly for all sporting activities’ (Waipa)

There was one negative comment from respondents and this is as follows:

'It's not unique or special - not in a New Zealand context’ (Waipa)

There were ten respondents who did not answer the question as to what made their area unique.




Participation and Equity Factors The respondents were asked ‘New Zealand is becoming home for an increasing number of people from different countries with different lifestyles and cultures. Using the scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with <statement>?’

The vast majority of the respondents (87%) agreed (Scores 6 – 10) with the statement ‘Your family are

knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here’ and only 8% disagreed with this (Scores 0 – 4). Conversely, three quarters of the sample (74%) agreed (Scores 6 – 10) with the statement ‘Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of

the people who live here’ and 7% disagreed (Scores 0 – 4).

This reflects in the Agreement Index which is 77.7 for the statement ‘Your family are knowledgeable and show

respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here’ versus 71.2 for the statement ‘Your

neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here’.

-2

-1

20

22

26

32

23

6

14

5

77.7

71.2

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100



% of the sample


77.7

71.2

0 20 40 60 80 100



Agreement Index

Agreement Index




Participation and Equity Factors - Comparison to 2010

The following chart compares the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007 for the Participation and Equity factors. The factor ‘Your family are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live

here’ (Index 77.7) was down 1.7 points while the factor ‘Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show

respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here’ (Index 71.2) was down 1.8 points.

74.4

81.1

73.0

79.4

71.2

77.7

-1.8

-1.7

0 20 40 60 80 100



Index



Decreases Increases




Agreement with ‘Your family are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here’ by demographics


Generally, most of the subgroups agree with the statement ‘Your family are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live

here’. However, some subgroups tend to have higher levels of agreement than others. The chart opposite compares these variables.

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on level of agreement with the statement ‘Your family are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live

here’ were:

Those aged 46 – 64 years (Agreement Index 71.0) are less likely to agree with this statement than those from the other age brackets (Agreement Index 79.6 – 86.7).

Respondents who live in the town or city (Agreement Index 79.7) are more likely to agree with this statement.

Respondents who described their ethnicity as New Zealander or Kiwi (Agreement Index 67.8) are less likely to agree with this statement.

Respondents whose highest qualification was school certificate or a trade qualification (Agreement Index 69.0) are less likely to agree with this statement.


77.7

77.2

78.0

86.7

83.4

71.0

79.6

77.2

79.0

77.5

79.0

80.2

79.7

73.8

78.2

78.1

83.1

67.8

85.5

69.0

82.6

68.8

73.8

83.8

81

28

53

3

22

33

21

62

17

9

31

29

56

23

4

70

2

5

7

34

37

8

34

38

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total

Men

Women

Under 25 years

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

Own home

Renting

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Town

Country

Maori descent

European descent

Other


Secondary School

SC or Trade

Tertiary




Agreement Index





Agreement with ‘Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here’ by demographics


Generally, most of the subgroups agree with the statement ‘Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live

here’. However, some subgroups tend to have higher levels of agreement than others. The chart opposite compares these variables.

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on level of agreement with the statement ‘Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live

here’ were:

Women (Agreement Index 74.2) are more likely to agree with this statement.

Respondents who live in their own home (Agreement Index 69.5) are less likely to agree with this statement.

Respondents who live in the town or city (Agreement Index 74.0) are more likely to agree with this statement.

Respondents of Maori descent are more likely to agree with this statement (Agreement Index 76.0).

Respondents whose highest qualification was secondary school (Agreement Index 80.5) are more likely to agree with this statement.


71.2

67.2

74.2

71.5

71.5

73.5

69.5

75.1

73.4

76.8

66.6

74.0

64.9

76.0

71.5

59.9

67.0

80.5

68.8

71.6

70.4

66.2

77.0

81

28

53

22

33

21

62

17

9

31

29

56

23

4

70

2

5

7

34

37

8

34

38

0 20 40 60 80 100

Total

Men

Women

26 - 45 years

46 - 64 years

65+ years

Own home

Renting

Less than $30,000

$30,000 to $70,000

More than $70,000

Town

Country

Maori descent

European descent

Other


Secondary School

SC or Trade

Tertiary




Agreement Index





Respect for the cultures of the people who live here: Verbatim comments The respondents were asked ‘New Zealand is becoming home for an increasing number of people from different countries with different lifestyles and cultures. Using the scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with <Your family are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here>; < Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the

many and diverse cultures of the people who live here>?’ If the respondents rated either of these questions with scores that reflected agreement (Scores 7 – 10) or disagreement (scores 0 – 3) they were asked ‘For what

reasons do you say that?’ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

Across the Waikato Region (orange bars on chart), there was a range of responses, with some respondents offering positive reasons for agreeing strongly with the statement while others offered reasons for giving a lower score. The main positive comments evolved around feeling there were no cultural problems and that people were accepted as part of the community (27%). A number of respondents mentioned there was a multicultural mix in their communities. This used to be coded with the previous statements. Others commented that they have few other ethnicities in their town, (5%), or said they were foreign themselves and had no problems.

Less than a tenth of the respondents offered neutral comments (7%), while 6% did not know or could not comment and 5% did not answer this question.

Some respondents felt that different cultures were not welcomed by the community (9%) while a few (4%) had issues with other races or said they choose not to mix (1%). A small number of respondents (1%) said they were foreign themselves and had some problems. The results are very similar to 2010 and 2007.

The results are similar for Waipa (teal bars on chart), although fewer respondents (23%) felt there were no cultural problems and more felt that different cultures were not welcomed by the community (15%).

22.2

8.6

3.7

13.6

3.7

6.2

3.7

14.8

7.4

8.6

26.9

8.1

5.0

0.4

11.2

7.0

6.2

4.9

8.7

4.1

1.1

1.0

4.9

0 10 20 30 40

No problems / all get along

Multi-cultural mix

Few or no other ethnicities here / very little contact

Foreign myself - no problems

Other Positive

Other general / neutral

Don't know / can't comment

No answer

Different cultures not welcome by some

Have issues / concerns with other races

Choose not to mix

Foreign myself - problems

Other negative % of respondents

Waipa

Total




Respect for the cultures of the people who live here: Verbatim comments

Some people who were satisfied with one aspect e.g. ‘their family being knowledgeable and show

respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here’ but dissatisfied with the other aspect e.g. ‘their community being knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of

the people who live here’ often commented on the positive aspect but a few did the opposite.

Other ethnicities accepted and respected in community

Many respondents felt there were no problems with other races being accepted into the community (22.2% of the subgroup). These respondents comments included:15

'I don't really know anyone who is racist; everyone is friendly and nice’ (Waipa)

'I work with a wide range of people and there is good tolerance here' (Waipa)

'There doesn't seem to be any hatred around and everyone seems to understand and gets along’ (Waipa)

'Because there is harmony in the area. Everybody blends in and we don't have an issue’ (Waipa)

'Everyone gets on pretty well’ (Waipa)

'Everyone seems welcoming and open to new people’ (Waipa)

'I don't hear anything bad and I like to think that they do as I do' (Waipa)

'I have never had any problem with any so-called foreign people' (Waipa)

'The people we are talking about, well, we live down a road from some Maoris and we have never had any trouble with them at all; we all get along just fine’ (Waipa)

'There is no racism in town’ (Waipa)

'We don't have gangs against each other and I feel we live in harmony’ (Waipa)

'We have people from other cultures living within the neighbourhood and the neighbourhood respects the people who live here’ (Waipa)

'I have never broached a subject with anybody but I imagine that people would be quite tolerant’ (Waipa)

'Because I don't know but I have a nice neighbourhood and they are all nice people. I think they would all be culturally sensitive’ (Waipa)

'I see very little and what I see is very good’ (Waipa)

'I don't see any fights against different ethnic groups; they all seem to get along’ (Waipa)

'Never seen anyone being nasty to other cultures. They keep the place going’ (Waipa)

'They are respectful but they don't have the knowledge about the different cultures’ (Waipa)

Some respondents (14.8%) felt different cultures were not being welcomed in the community by some people. This included comments like:

'I think on the whole, the area we live in is a little bit racist’ (Waipa)

'It's farmers and farmers are very racist' (Waipa)

'I think some people aren't always welcoming of different ethnic groups in the area. People can be a bit judgmental’ (Waipa)

'Some people are a little less tolerant’ (Waipa)

'I still detect some intolerance with minorities’ (Waipa)

'I think that some don't appreciate there is value in other cultures’ (Waipa)

'One of the first things that the local Maori say is that I talk to them, so there must be a little bit of racism, or they wouldn't notice the difference’ (Waipa)

'People aren't, they're not used to different cultures’ (Waipa)

'We are not overly welcoming of people from the outside’ (Waipa)






'Because I come from England, having been raised in a multi-cultural country initially, everybody has an entitlement to their culture, just as I have an entitlement to my culture.

It is a bit different here. There is a bit of racism with some people’ (Waipa)

'I think that there are more Asians in the high school, less teaching for the Kiwis, not everybody likes them around’ (Waipa)

'Still racism exists' (Waipa)

Other respondents commented on the multicultural mix in their community (8.6%) with the following comments:

'I have a multi-cultural neighbourhood’ (Waipa)

'Just that regarding family we have a lot of people from different backgrounds. We know people who have immigrated who live next door. A neighbour from South Africa. Down the road are people from England. A Somali couple who have just moved in to the neighbourhood. We have a little

bit of diversity where I live’ (Waipa) 'There are a lot of English people that live here’ (Waipa)

'Well because there is a diverse culture in the school’ (Waipa)

'Being a nurse I meet with different cultures of people’ (Waipa)

'Because we have three different cultures in our house’ (Waipa)

'I've always lived with a diverse group of people. I haven't been in this area long’ (Waipa)

This was followed by 3.7% who mentioned that they had few or no people of other ethnicities in the area so had very little contact. This included comments like:

'Because we are in a rural area we don't have a lot of cultural differences' (Waipa)

'We don't have a diverse number of cultures here, we get along but there is always room for improvement’ (Waipa)

'In my neighbourhood it is predominantly white middle class people’ (Waipa)

A number of respondents (13.6%) made ‘other’ positive comments about the diverse ethnicities in the community with comments that included:

'I have never had any problem with any so-called foreign people' (Waipa)

'Well, I'm not racist am I’ (Waipa)

'I work at the hospital; I communicate to a lot of overseas people and have a good understanding of other peoples’ (Waipa)

'We live in a pretty friendly neighbourhood’ (Waipa)

'Because I worked with all sorts of people and with the job I had, if you want the value from them you need to get to know them and their families and learn what they want with life and the job’ (Waipa)

'I think it's important part of who we are, and we have to show respect to different cultures' (Waipa)

'Well if we didn't have people coming in we wouldn't know about them and if it’s to better their life - all good with me’ (Waipa)

'Because I think there is room for everyone so long as they obey the law and try and mould in the same as everybody else. They should be accepted if they are genuine and wanting to

live here and mix in with New Zealanders. Why not as long as they are happy

to adapt to our way of life and fit in’ (Waipa)

'The people I know and the activities they are involved in and are also good neighbours’ (Waipa)

'The activities my kids are involved with. They do Maori lessons, singing lessons, kapahaka; also I had a powhiri when I started work. There's a marae on my daughter's school ground.

I view it as being very important’ (Waipa)

'With rowing, our neighbours and ourselves have families from overseas staying in our homes’ (Waipa)




Some respondents (3.7%) made other general comments or were neutral about the mix of races:

'General feeling. A real gut feeling. Like-minded people’ (Waipa)

'I would like the question to be asked the other way around’ (Waipa)

'Because I don't know a lot of the neighbours but the ones that I do know I think they would be a lot like that’ (Waipa)

There were other comments from respondents who had issues or concerns with other races (7.4%) and these included:

'I think that there are more Asians in the high school, less teaching for the Kiwis, not everybody likes them around’ (Waipa)

'I have lived overseas. If they come over here, they have to live here as a kiwi’ (Waipa)

'Probably because I work with people of different nationalities and they come in here, and preach their ways to me. They come here so they should fit in with us, not us fitting in with them’ (Waipa)

'I think we don't mind other cultures. I think we're ok but when we get a sense of being over run then we don't like it; we're also weary’ (Waipa)

'Probably cos there's a neighbourhood have taken in overseas students. Chinese people are some of my good friends. Bit worried about the Somalis. Anyone with a Muslim fanaticism worries me

because they won't assimilate’ (Waipa)

'Those different culture people expect too much of me’ (Waipa)

There was a range of other negative comments from respondents about the ethnic mix in their community:

'They are respectful but they don't have the knowledge about the different cultures’ (Waipa)

'This is a kiwi country and we need to keep the kiwis here and stop moving across the country to get better jobs and money. They need to make more jobs here’ (Waipa)

'My reasons are that we should be heading in the same direction and it appears that we are bending over ourselves for people that we haven't done wrong which weren't appropriate to.

We all have grievances, but it seems like white people are not a race. We are supposed to be one people and we're not’ (Waipa)

'Half the time we don't know our neighbours. And we tend to keep to ourselves as some neighbours argue’ (Waipa)

'Because some people just don't know enough about other cultures and expect them to just slot into the New Zealand way’ (Waipa)

'Some people are a bit ignorant' (Waipa)

'We don't really take to our neighbours much’ (Waipa)

Some respondents did not know whether people of other races were accepted as part of the community or felt they couldn’t comment whereas others did not answer the question:

'I don't have a reasonably good knowledge. I have a knowledge of some ethnic groups, not all though’ (Waipa)

'I'm not up to play with them, I just hope that people do' (Waipa)

'I don't really know most of the neighbours’ (Waipa)

'Like to think that we treat other people the way I would, but I don't know the way they act - I hope they do though’ (Waipa)

'I don't really talk to anyone in my neighbourhood and don't know how they would feel about it’ (Waipa)




Three biggest issues for your district Respondents were asked ‘Thinking of the issues of your district, (issues such as social issues like education, safety and community, cultural issues, environmental issues or economic issues such as business, jobs and money) what do

you think are your areas three biggest issues?’ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

Across the Waikato Region (orange bars on chart), there was a range of responses, with the main comments covering employment opportunities or attracting business to the district (41%). The second main issue covers financial or economic issues (21%) followed by issues related to education, schools or training (19%) then environmental concerns (16%), and law and order (12%). A ninth of the sample (11%) mentioned the lack of facilities or activities, while 11% mentioned social or community related issues. There was a wide range of other themes mentioned by smaller groups of respondents.

Far fewer respondents from Waipa (teal bars on chart), mentioned employment opportunities or attracting business (32%), and more mentioned environmental concerns (21%) or Council or management concerns (14%).

32.1

19.8

12.3

21.0

7.4

8.6

8.6

13.6

4.9

3.7

3.7

6.2

7.4

2.5

4.9

2.5

1.2

7.4

22.2

1.2

40.8

21.0

18.5

16.1

12.3

11.2

10.9

9.3

8.0

5.8

5.5

5.5

5.2

4.8

4.2

3.8

3.2

1.4

0.8

0.4

8.4

16.7

1.8

0.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Business / Employment opportunities

Financial / Economy issues

Education / schools / training

Environment concerns

Law and order

Lack of facilities / activities

Social / community

Council / Management concerns

Safety / security

Youth related issues

Health / support services

Cultural issues

Planning / infrastructure

Public transport

Roading

Traffic concerns / road safety

Rates

Mining

Graffiti / vandalism

Recycling / rubbish

Other

No answer

Positive comments

No issues % of respondents

Waipa (n = 81)

Total (n = 713)




Three biggest issues for Waipa – Comparison to 2010

Respondents were asked ‘Thinking of the issues of your district, (issues such as social issues like education, safety and community, cultural issues, environmental issues or economic issues such as business, jobs and money) what do you think are your areas three biggest issues?’

The three issues for the Waipa district were similar to those mentioned in 2010. All of the main issues mentioned in 2013 were also the main issues mentioned in 2010 although there are minor variations in the order. The largest difference is a 7.9% increase in mention of concerns related to Council / Management (14% versus 6% in 2010) and a 7.8% increase in mention of employment opportunities or attracting business to the district (32% versus 24% in 2010). The other notable differences were a 6.3% decrease for health or support services (4% versus 10% in 2010) and a 4.9% decrease in mention of youth issues (4% mention versus 9% in 2010).

32.1

21.0

19.8

13.6

12.3

8.6

8.6

7.4

7.4

6.2

4.9

4.9

3.7

3.7

2.5

2.5

1.2

7.4

22.2

1.2

24.3

21.4

21.4

5.7

8.6

11.4

10.0

11.4

7.1

4.3

7.1

1.4

10.0

8.6

7.1

1.4

1.4

2.9

5.7

22.9

1.4

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50



Financial / Economic issues



Social / community

Lack of facilities / activities

Planning / infrastructure

Law and order

Cultural issues

Roading

Safety / security



Traffic concerns / road safety

Public transport

Rates


Mining

Recycling / rubbish

Other

No answer

Positive comments

No issues

Don't know % of respondents

Waipa 2013 (n = 81)

Waipa 2010 (n = 70)




The Important Issues in the community included the following comments: Business / Employment opportunities: 32.1%

The most common theme related to encouraging business into the area and creating employment opportunities particularly for young people as being an important issue. These comments included 16.

'Infrastructure - lack of broadband; Keeping communities safe. Keeping violence down and keeping people feel safe and be safe; Keeping unemployment down - we need to create more jobs’ (Waipa)

'Employment; Lack of money; Environmental issues (mainly waterways)' (Waipa)

'Housing growth; Keeping the central town alive; Roading issues. Traffic’ (Waipa)

‘Needs more employment e.g. more businesses; Social issues, such as drug use to legalise marijuana and reducing the alcohol level in the alcohol itself e.g. Beers are 4 percent and drop them to 2 percent

per bottle’ (Waipa)

'Increasing business growth and employment; Helping people so can increase incomes; Increase public transport' (Waipa)

'Our local Council at the moment; Employment; Splitting up the town in terms of infrastructure - we have two town centres at the moment’ (Waipa)

'Help the elders retire so that the young can get work; Having apprenticeship for the young' (Waipa)

'Environment; Education; Employment’ (Waipa)

'Environmental impacts from farming; Gap in wages. The gap between the wealthy and the poor - the living conditions; Job creation' (Waipa)

'Climate - farmers keeping having drought; Lack of planning for growth; Industry - big employers - important to town for employment' (Waipa)

'Employment; I’m concerned about the number of rural subdivisions being allowed; The use of chemicals in agriculture and waste disposal’ (Waipa)

'Lack of work; Lack of special education for gifted children; Older people needing to be looked after better when they are not 100% healthy' (Waipa)

'Labour force, lack of; Social, impact on staff bringing in outside work problems' (Waipa)

'Lack of work for youth' (Waipa)

'Jobs for young people; More practical education for trades' (Waipa)

'Employment; Money’ (Waipa)

'Lack of things for youth to do; Lack of jobs' (Waipa)

'Because we are quite small, there are not many jobs' (Waipa)

'Employment' (Waipa)

'Jobs’ (Waipa)

'Jobs for people in the future' (Waipa)

'Jobs' (Waipa)

'More jobs' (Waipa)

'More jobs' (Waipa)

'Unemployment' (Waipa)

'Young ones going out of town to get work due to our small population' (Waipa)

Environmental concerns: 21.0%

Many respondents had concerns to do with the environment and the comments are as follows:









'Being underpaid; Environmental issues; More security' (Waipa)

'Money; Environmental; Cultural' (Waipa)

'The drought has affected Te Awamutu - it being a farming area; Got to make sure the town stays prosperous so the people that don’t have a lot money still get enough to live on; Environmental. To be

sure we don't waste the resources’ (Waipa)

'Economic issues; Main street looks grubby; Power cost is high’ (Waipa)



'Complying with Environment Waikato rules and regulations; Working with the weather; The social side of people getting together’ (Waipa)

'Environmental; Social; Safety' (Waipa)

'Council spending, trying to keep it in tow. Making sure they get value for money with what they spend; Water quality around the area as we have lakes and the Waikato River. We still need maintenance. We

also are a high farming industry; Keeping the recreational facilities up’ (Waipa)

'Health; Environmental; Cultural’ (Waipa)

'Environment - keeping the native fauna around the district; The town pool issue - the Council wants to change it and put in something smaller;

The Council needs to be more open with what they are doing’ (Waipa)

'The water during the dry months especially. Need some upgrades; Roads. Some areas are unsafe to cross, a lot of blind spots; The foot paths, a lot of them need upgrading' (Waipa)

'Water supply; Greenhouse effect; Crime rate, emphasis on more police' (Waipa)

'Water quality’ (Waipa)

Financial / Economy issues: 19.8%

The next main theme related to financial concerns and the state of the economy. These comments included:




'Employment; Money’ (Waipa)

'Crime; Poverty; Nothing out for kids 12 - 17 after school and weekends' (Waipa)


'Financial, if our government can get us out of this, so far I think they've done quite well. Get a thief to catch a thief - and that's what John Key is, so it might work; If they work that one out, then

the rest will work itself out. There is a danger in bringing in overseas viruses here. We need to keep the overseas bacteria and viruses at bay; People generally make what they are and I

don't think - let's put it this way, as a 16yo I was sent to separate 10 cheeky Maori apart from the Dutch immigrants to keep the peace. I think we need to be careful about the hate

that is generated by politicians kicking up a fuss’ (Waipa)

'Political - the teaching side of things, teachers need to stop being so radical and just teach; Too much emphasis on the environment side of things. People consistently don't want production of new facilities;

The amount of debt that the Council and government are having’ (Waipa)


'Keeping the economic side of the town vibrant; Cultural needs are limited for cultural entertainment; Secondary school quality and choice of education' (Waipa)




'Financial issues; Tertiary or continuing education for adults; Segregation, lack of integration’ (Waipa)

'The drought has affected Te Awamutu - it being a farming area; Got to make sure the town stays prosperous so the people that don’t have a lot money still get enough to live on; Environmental. To be

sure we don't waste the resources’ (Waipa)

'Economic issues; Main street looks grubby; Power cost is high’ (Waipa)

'Education; Economic; No others’ (Waipa)

'Health; Money' (Waipa)

'There's a bigger gap between people who have enough to those who don't from government all the way down. People who are unemployed, government

not doing enough for those who don't have a good Quality of Life (Waipa)

Council / Management concerns: 13.6%

A number of respondents commented on Council or management concerns as an issue. These comments included:


'Drug abuse; The children that suffer from their parent's drug abuse; Councillors spending freely on things that they have been asked not to - that the general public don't want?

The cycle bay in Cambridge, the public did not want that but they still went ahead and spent all their money on it’ (Waipa)




'Environment - keeping the native fauna around the district; The town pool issue - the Council wants to change it and put in something smaller;

The Council needs to be more open with what they are doing’ (Waipa)



'Keeping the theme in our community and continuing to build old looking buildings and planting trees; Education' (Waipa)


'Bureaucracy in the Council; Costs involved with building houses within the Council and commercial properties' (Waipa)

'Council interaction with the local people on a more regular basis' (Waipa)

'Funding for local pool. It's crazy that they are ripping the big 50m one up to build a small 25m indoor one' (Waipa)

Education / Schools / Training: 12.3%

Slightly fewer mentioned education or training courses and lack of schools in the area with these comments:





'Education; Economic; No others’ (Waipa)







'Jobs for young people; More practical education for trades' (Waipa)

'Safety; Cultural; Education' (Waipa)

'Keeping the theme in our community and continuing to build old looking buildings and planting trees; Education' (Waipa)

Social / Community: 8.6%

Social or community concerns were a main concern for several respondents with these comments:





‘Needs more employment e.g. more businesses; Social issues, such as drug use to legalise marijuana and reducing the alcohol level in the alcohol itself e.g. Beers are 4 percent

and drop them to 2 percent per bottle’ (Waipa)

'Labour force, lack of; Social, impact on staff bringing in outside work problems' (Waipa)

'Drug abuse; The children that suffer from their parent's drug abuse; Councillors spending freely on things that they have been asked not to - that the general public don't want?

The cycle bay in Cambridge, the public did not want that but they still went ahead and spent all their money on it’ (Waipa)

Lack of Facilities / Activities: 8.6%

The lack of facilities of activities in the area was mentioned by some respondents as an issue with comments that included:

'Criminals; Education - better education; More entertainment’ (Hamilton)




'Lack of things for youth to do; Lack of jobs' (Waipa)

'I think the high level bridge. We need a third bridge; A decent sort of swimming pool but nothing too flash' (Waipa)

'Focusing on facilities for the average people in the town, like swimming pools; Dealing with population growth' (Waipa)

'I think we need more cultural facilities, such as a new museum. Te Awamutu needs a new museum and library; More affordable housing for young ones’ (Waipa)

'Facilities. Apart from the Warehouse where else can I shop to buy shoes and knickers? Needs a little bit more up market commercial shops' (Waipa)

Planning / Infrastructure: 7.4%

A number of the respondents mentioned planning or infrastructure issues as one of their main concerns. These comments included:









'Infrastructure, to maintain high traffic flow’ (Waipa)

Law and Order: 7.4%

A number of respondents commented on the law and order related issues with comments that included:


'Water supply; Greenhouse effect; Crime rate, emphasis on more police' (Waipa)



'Crime; Traffic' (Waipa)

'Lack of police support for women’ (Waipa)

Cultural issues: 6.2%

Other respondents mentioned cultural issues as a concern with these comments:






Roading: 4.9%

The next most common theme related to roads or roading being an important issue. These comments included


'Infrastructure, to maintain high traffic flow’ (Waipa)

'I think the high level bridge. We need a third bridge; A decent sort of swimming pool but nothing too flash' (Waipa)

'The water during the dry months especially. Need some upgrades; Roads. Some areas are unsafe to cross, a lot of blind spots; The foot paths, a lot of them need upgrading' (Waipa)

Safety / security: 4.9%

A number of respondents commented on safety / security as an issue. These comments included:

'Infrastructure - lack of broadband; Keeping communities safe. Keeping violence down and keeping

people feel safe and be safe; Keeping unemployment down - we need to create more jobs’ (Waipa)




Youth related issues: 3.7%

The next main issue related to youth. This was mentioned by three respondents and mainly concerned keeping youth employed. Their comments included:





'Lack of work for youth' (Waipa)

'There is not enough resources available for young people; Needs more public transport to be run more often' (Waipa)

Health / Support services: 3.7%

A number of the respondents mentioned health or support services as an issue. These comments included:



'Health; Money' (Waipa)

Public Transport: 2.5%

Public transport was mentioned by a number of respondents as one of their 3 main issues.

'There is not enough resources available for young people;

Needs more public transport to be run more often' (Waipa)


Traffic concerns / Road safety: 2.5%

A number of respondents mentioned traffic concerns or road safety as an issue. These comments included:


'Crime; Traffic' (Waipa)

Rates: 1.2%

One respondent felt rates was an issue for them and their comments include:

'Rates are very high; Water rates are high' (Waipa)

Positive Comments: 1.2%

One respondent made a positive comment. This comment included:


the rest will work itself out. There is a danger in bringing in overseas viruses here. We need to keep the overseas bacteria and viruses at bay; People generally make what they are and I

don't think - let's put it this way, as a 16yo I was sent to separate 10 cheeky Maori apart from the Dutch immigrants to keep the peace. I think we need to be careful about the hate that is

generated by politicians kicking up a fuss’ (Waipa)

Other: 7.4%

A range of other issues or concerns were mentioned:


the rest will work itself out. There is a danger in bringing in overseas viruses here. We need to keep the overseas bacteria and viruses at bay; People generally make

what they are and I don't think - let's put it this way, as a 16yo I was sent to separate 10 cheeky Maori apart from the Dutch immigrants to keep the peace. I think we need to be careful about the hate that is

generated by politicians kicking up a fuss’ (Waipa)

‘Needs more employment e.g. more businesses; Social issues, such as drug use to legalise marijuana and reducing the alcohol level in the alcohol itself e.g. Beers are 4 percent and

drop them to 2 percent per bottle’ (Waipa)




'Focusing on facilities for the average people in the town, like swimming pools; Dealing with population growth' (Waipa)

'I think we need more cultural facilities, such as a new museum. Te Awamutu needs a new museum and library; More affordable housing for young ones’ (Waipa)

'Size of the place; There's a very busy main road through the middle' (Waipa)

'Keep involved in the above issues' (Waipa)




Three biggest issues Council should be looking at Respondents were then asked ‘Now focusing only on the areas that your Council is responsible for what in your

opinion, are the three main issues that Council should be looking at?’ This question was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

Across the Waikato Region (orange bars on chart), many respondents mentioned specific Council activities like roading (17%), water (8%), the appearance of the place (4%), footpaths (4%), stormwater or wastewater (3%), and recycling or refuse collection (3%).

The other main themes covered financial concerns or economic issues (13%), the need for recreational facilities or entertainment (13%), environmental concerns (12%), concerns about Council finances or expenditure (12%), town planning or infrastructure (12%), and creating employment opportunities (12%). A tenth of the sample (10%) mentioned Council or Management concerns, while 9% raised concerns about rates and 7% raised concerns about education or schooling. There was also a wide range of other themes mentioned by smaller groups of respondents.

A higher proportion of respondents from Waipa (teal bars on chart) mentioned roading issues (28%) or issues related to water (19%), and concerns about Council finances or expenditure (17%) with fewer mentioning education or schooling (0%), or youth related issues (1%).

28.4

18.5

4.9

4.9

2.5

2.5

9.9

16.0

9.9

7.4

17.3

9.9

9.9

12.3

9.9

1.2

1.2

2.5

1.2

3.7

3.7

2.5

1.2

6.2

19.8

1.2

17.3

8.3

4.3

3.8

3.1

2.9

1.7

11.4

13.3

12.5

12.2

12.1

11.6

11.6

9.5

8.7

7.2

6.0

5.8

4.3

4.1

3.9

3.9

3.1

2.9

2.7

1.4

1.1

4.8

16.4

1.1

0 10 20 30 40

Roading

Water

Tidiness / appearance of area

Footpaths

Stormwater / wastewater

Recycling / rubbish

Consents (Building and Resource)

Other Council services / facilities


Recreational facilities / entertainment


Council finances and expenditure

Town planning / infrastructure



Rates



Social / community

Listening / Consulting / Communicating

Law and order

Safety / security

Traffic / road safety concerns

Public transport


Promote tourism / events


Cultural issues

Other

No answer

Positive comments % of respondents

Waipa (n = 81)

Total (n = 713)




Three biggest issues Council should be looking at – Comparison to 2010

Respondents were asked ‘Now focusing only on the areas that your Council is responsible for what in your opinion, are the three main issues that Council should be looking at?’

The three issues Waipa Council should be looking at were similar to those mentioned in 2010. Most of the main issues mentioned in 2013 were also the main issues mentioned in 2010 although there are some variations in the order. The largest difference is a 14.2% increase in mention of water related issues (19% versus 4.0% in 2010), a 10.3% increase in mention of financial or economic issues (16% mention versus 6% in 2010), a 10.1% increase in concerns about Council finances or expenditure (17% versus 7% in 2010) and a 10.1% decrease in concerns about town planning or infrastructure (10% versus 20% in 2010).

The other notable differences were for environment concerns (8% decrease), and rates (7% increase).

28.4

18.5

4.9

4.9

2.5

2.5

9.9

17.3

16.0

12.3

9.9

9.9

9.9

9.9

7.4

3.7

3.7

2.5

2.5

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

6.2

19.8

1.2

25.7

4.3

8.6

5.7

5.7

1.4

2.9

15.7

7.1

5.7

7.1

20.0

10.0

10.0

2.9

15.7

5.7

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

1.4

4.3

1.4

1.4

4.3

22.9

4.3

0 10 20 30 40

Roading

Water

Tidiness / appearance of area

Footpaths

Stormwater / wastewater

Consents (Building and Resource)

Recycling / rubbish

Other Council services / facilities

Council finances and expenditure



Town planning / infrastructure

Recreational facilities / entertainment


Rates


Traffic / road safety concerns


Promote tourism / events

Listening / Consulting / Communicating


Social / community

Cultural issues

Law and order


Safety / security

Public transport

Other

No answer

Positive comments % of respondents

Waipa 2013 (n = 81)

Waipa 2010 (n = 70)




The Important Issues for Council included the following comments: Roading: 28.4% 17.

The most common theme related to roads or roading being an important issue. The comments included

'Traffic congestion on Slone Street - it has two roundabouts it needs traffic lights 4-6pm' (Waipa)

'Roading, there are still unsealed roads in this district of the country like in the Waipa District. There are still some unsealed roads that haven't been sealed. We don't get much progress on improving roads.

Narrow roads, big vehicles are still expected to use narrow roads. It's very unsafe. We still have one way bridges; Rates, country people don't get much for their rates. They should be going down than coming

up; I suppose the community wellbeing. Make sure people are looked after during stress times. Not sure that counts businesses’ (Waipa)

'I don’t think they should bite off more than the house rates can cope with considering the economic climate at this time; Due to my scooter, it would be nice to have all pedestrian crossings to be made

smoother and easier access to crossing the roads' (Waipa)

'Mainly worry about roads. In the towns we have the supply of water and parks. Other than that I think that they should leave it to the groups who are interested' (Waipa)

'Services - what they've been elected for. Roading, sewerage, water supply, stormwater and libraries are what they need to do, not building grandiose things to put their names to' (Waipa)

'Pollution - waterways pollution, dairy farming runoff; Job creation; Roadway improvement. The Te Awamutu/ Cambridge Road and maybe the State Highway One diversion’ (Waipa)

'Quality of the roads and footpaths; Tree trimming especially back before the phone lines; Maintaining community facilities and more of them and keeping the pool’ (Waipa)

'Roads; Recreation facilities a little bit; Water and sewerage for the town’ (Waipa)

'Essential services such as water and roading; Recreational facilities' (Waipa)

'Things for our young people; help keep kids that don't have much of a home life out of trouble; Roading: Bypass by Carters Flat - very dangerous so the bypass should address that issue. Out by St Peters

School the traffic increasing' (Waipa)

'Employment; Quality of roading services; I think the land usage - well the breakdown of farms into small blocks. I have a problem with the amount of small blocks there are.

There are just so many nowadays and then you have rural blocks and people complain. I don't think that people in those small blocks appreciate rural values;

they seem to want to bring city values into the rural area’ (Waipa)

'A lot of the streets need to be improved such as Alexandra Street that they are re-vamping. Even coming into the main street, there are roads that need attention;

Controlling heavy traffic such as big heavy milk tankers coming down the main street; Less takeaways, we don't need any more of them’ (Waipa)

'Too much being put into sporting, just wasting of money on sports. Need to support a 24/hr medical centre instead of a cycle track (the Velodrome by St Peters). Medical centre that goes 24/7 is a benefit to

everyone, 100% of the community, whereas a cycle track is only for cyclists; Roading; State Highway One from Hamilton through Cambridge is frustrating, with the median strip that has been put in. Out the back of Leamington, Milton Street, needs kerb and channelling and a footpath, more highly populated than some other areas in Cambridge but it is still a country road; Medical centres are an issue, there is nothing available 24hr, we would relieve the Waikato Health Service if we had something in Cambridge

and the only place close is the Waikato Hospital’ (Waipa)

'Roads; Empty shops on Main Street; Water quality' (Waipa)

'Wastewater plant; Another bridge across the river and roading' (Waipa)

'Environment; Maintenance services like roading and sewerage' (Waipa)

'Infrastructure - broadband (access to broadband is limited); Roading - having enough money to maintain the roads' (Waipa)

'I think they need to be looking at the infrastructure like bridges and roading. That needs to predominate over athletic type activities; We have no doctors and vets on a Sunday. We badly need a doctor and vet

all weekend' (Waipa)

'Bypass issue as traffic will be diverted away from shops' (Waipa)






'Roading in general' (Waipa)

'Roading, got to grow as community grows' (Waipa)

'Roading, I have had them outside my house since December' (Waipa)

'Roading. They keep just doing patch up jobs' (Waipa)

Water: 18.5%

Many respondents mentioned water as an issue that Council should be looking at with these comments:

'Water; Rates; What services they provide’ (Waipa)


'Our water system - both sewerage and water; Overspending of money on projects that the town doesn't want; like Cambridge Swimming Pool, the velodrome, the new library and museum; I think they've lost

touch with the real people, become very ivory towered’ (Waipa)

'Bringing in new industry; Increasing water supply; Decisions between Te Awamutu and Cambridge more decisive' (Waipa)

'A reliable water supply, water taste like dirt most of the summer; More community based stuff like footpaths' (Waipa)



'Water supply, safe and sufficient; Greenhouse effect; Crime' (Waipa)


'More water available in summer; Better quality drinking water' (Waipa)

'Water; Footpaths' (Waipa)

'Looking ahead with the water supply' (Waipa)

'The water issue is the biggest one' (Waipa)

'Water' (Waipa)

'Water is a big thing; water is going to be on very short supply in the future' (Waipa)

Council Finances / Expenditure: 17.3%

The next main theme related to the fact that the money is being unwisely spent or the debt incurred by Council. These comments included:

'Rates and keeping them under control; Funding for environment; Introducing more industry into the town, looking for the future. Less on sporting and more in things like new business’ (Waipa)

'Community swimming pool. They are spending too much money on the consultation of it' (Waipa)

'Swimming pool; Cyclist; Where the Council money is going’ (Waipa)

'Keeping the rates down; Living within the budget; Maintaining what the District has over and above grand schemes' (Waipa)

'Spending less money to keep the rates down; Not focusing on effluent projects' (Waipa)



'Need to listen to their residents more and take note that we are not happy with the way they are spending our money; These annual conferences they have, they are taking their wives and they shouldn't be taking partners. Having a conference down in Queenstown was a waste of our money; The bus from Cambridge to Hamilton - We actually need one to go from Cambridge to Te Awamutu so we can make

full use of each other's resources’ (Waipa)

'Improving and maintaining public spaces such as walkways, parks and plants and trees and preventing damage to trees; Watching the Council budget and being careful how they are making financial planning -

more thorough financial planning; Encouraging people who own businesses to be more public and open. - Te Awamutu more like

Cambridge - more environmentally beautiful - small touches’ (Waipa)




'The way they spend their money and what they spend it on. I think it's wrong in all respects; User pay; I don't want to be paying for it’ (Waipa)

'The way they spend their money; They spend millions on the public pool and have got nowhere; Please don't go into paying for parking’ (Waipa)

'Budgeting' (Waipa)

'Finance. Learn how not to spend my money' (Waipa)




'Putting their money into services that are not so essential which I don't agree with' (Waipa)

Financial / Economy issues: 16.0%

The next main theme related to financial concerns and the state of the economy. These comments included:


'Rates and water rates are too high; I don't like paying for my rubbish bags' (Waipa)






'Economic issues in general; Environmental; Town planning' (Waipa)


'Cost of health; Make the town more attractive for people to visit more; Economic system' (Waipa)

'Improving and maintaining public spaces such as walkways, parks and plants and trees and preventing damage to trees; Watching the Council budget and being careful how they are making financial planning - more thorough financial planning; Encouraging people who own businesses to be more public and open.

- Te Awamutu more like Cambridge - more environmentally beautiful - small touches’ (Waipa)

'The way they spend their money and what they spend it on. I think it's wrong in all respects; User pay; I don't want to be paying for it’ (Waipa)

'The way they spend their money; They spend millions on the public pool and have got nowhere; Please don't go into paying for parking’ (Waipa)

'Budgeting' (Waipa)

'Finance. Learn how not to spend my money' (Waipa)

Council / Management concerns: 12.3%

A number of respondents commented on Council or management concerns as an issue. These comments included:








'Updating infrastructure. Council needs to be mindful building infrastructure but not building monuments to themselves' (Waipa)



'Stick to core Council business and to not branch out into exciting enterprises, which should be handled by businesses; They are loading themselves head heavy or management heavy with people to replace by numbers of what they've had which was working quite well but now they need something like three people to do one job. The population has not grown in that scale. Council is not worthy of trust. Lack of

trust; Our waterways are an absolute mess’ (Waipa)

'Mainly worry about roads. In the towns we have the supply of water and parks. Other than that I think that they should leave it to the groups who are interested' (Waipa)

'Getting their neck down and just do their work; Have a change of Council who don't lie; Reduce our rates. Because our rates are far too high than what we get back’ (Waipa)

'The government needs to focus on managing the local Council i.e. have supervision, accountable, transparency and honesty of their actions' (Waipa)

'We need better Councillors; the representation here is poor and they are useless' (Waipa)

Rates: 9.9%

Some respondents felt rates was an issue for them and their comments include:

'Getting their neck down and just do their work; Have a change of Council who don't lie; Reduce our rates. Because our rates are far too high than what we get back’ (Waipa)





'Rates and water rates are too high; I don't like paying for my rubbish bags' (Waipa)



up; I suppose the community wellbeing. Make sure people are looked after during stress times. Not sure that counts businesses’ (Waipa)

'I don’t think they should bite off more than the house rates can cope with considering the economic climate at this time; Due to my scooter, it would be nice to have all pedestrian crossings to be made

smoother and easier access to crossing the roads' (Waipa)

Business / Employment opportunities 9.9%

The next most common theme related to encouraging business into the area and creating employment opportunities particularly for young people. The comments included


There are just so many nowadays and then you have rural blocks and people complain. I don't think that people in those small blocks appreciate rural values; they seem to want to bring city

values into the rural area’ (Waipa)







'Tidying up the main street; Attracting bigger businesses; Invest in park wardens to ensure parks are kept nice and secure’ (Waipa)

'Promoting business growth; Promoting investment in cultural facilities; Promoting the quality of the town' (Waipa)

'More businesses and shops in main centre - franchises like Paper Plus' (Waipa)

'Trying to get industries into here to get more jobs going' (Waipa)

Town Planning / Infrastructure: 9.9%

A number of the respondents mentioned planning or infrastructure issues as one of their main concerns. These comments included:






There are just so many nowadays and then you have rural blocks and people complain. I don't think that people in those small blocks appreciate rural values; they seem to want to bring city

values into the rural area’ (Waipa)

'All those three things I just mentioned (Housing growth, Keeping the central town alive, Roading issues. Traffic)' (Waipa)

'Updating infrastructure. Council needs to be mindful building infrastructure but not building monuments to themselves' (Waipa)

'More say on the historical aspect of the business area; Keeping it a boutique and unique town; In the

urban district having more control on what is built’ (Waipa)

Lack of Recreational facilities / Entertainment: 9.9%

The lack of facilities or entertainment in the area particularly for youth was mentioned by several respondents as an issue with comments that included:







'Definitely the Cambridge Pool. It's under utilised and there has been an issue with it for a while. It needs to be brought into the 21st century; Everything else they seem to have a handle on things and moving

things forwards; No other issues' (Waipa)

'Waterways (Lake Karapiro and Waikato); Transport safety (limit speed); More cultural entertainment' (Waipa)

'Swimming pool; Cyclist; Where the Council money is going’ (Waipa)




Other Council services / facilities: 9.9%

The next main theme related to issues with other Council services or facilities. These comments included:





'Improving and maintaining public spaces such as walkways, parks and plants and trees and preventing damage to trees; Watching the Council budget and being careful how they

are making financial planning - more thorough financial planning; Encouraging people who own businesses to be more public and open. - Te Awamutu more like Cambridge - more environmentally

beautiful - small touches’ (Waipa)




'Tree planting on recreation areas' (Waipa)

Environment concerns: 7.4%

Some respondents had concerns to do with the environment and the comments are as follows:





'Stick to core Council business and to not branch out into exciting enterprises, which should be handled by businesses; They are loading themselves head heavy or management heavy with people to replace by numbers of what they've had which was working quite well but now they need something like three people to do one job. The population has not grown in that scale. Council is not worthy of trust. Lack of

trust; Our waterways are an absolute mess’ (Waipa)


Tidiness or appearance of area: 4.9%

The appearance of the area was an issue for some respondents with comments that included:

'More say on the historical aspect of the business area; Keeping it a boutique and unique town; In the urban district having more control on what is built’ (Waipa)


'Improving and maintaining public spaces such as walkways, parks and plants and trees and preventing damage to trees; Watching the Council budget and being careful

how they are making financial planning - more thorough financial planning; Encouraging people who own businesses to be more public and open. - Te Awamutu more like Cambridge - more environmentally

beautiful - small touches’ (Waipa)





Footpaths: 4.9%

Some respondents felt footpaths was an issue for them and their comments include:


'Water; Footpaths' (Waipa)


'Footpaths in general. They are a bit rough and ready in Alexander Street (main street)' (Waipa)

Health / Support services: 3.7%

A number of the respondents mentioned health or support services as an issue. These comments included:





'I think they need to be looking at the infrastructure like bridges and roading. That needs to predominate over athletic type activities; We have no doctors and vets on a Sunday. We

badly need a doctor and vet all weekend' (Waipa)

Traffic concerns / Road safety: 3.7%

A number of respondents mentioned traffic concerns or road safety as an issue. These comments included:



'Traffic congestion on Slone Street - it has two roundabouts it needs traffic lights 4-6pm' (Waipa)

Listening / Consulting / Communicating: 2.5%

Keeping the lines of communication open with the community was an issue for some respondents. These comments included:




Stormwater / Wastewater: 2.5%

Others mentioned stormwater or wastewater issues in the area with these comments:


'Wastewater plant; Another bridge across the river and roading' (Waipa)

Promoting Tourism / Events: 2.5%




A number of the respondents mentioned promoting tourism or events. These comments included:


'Promoting business growth; Promoting investment in cultural facilities; Promoting the quality of the town' (Waipa)

Consents – Building and Resource: 2.5%

A number of the respondents mentioned building and resource consents as an issue. These comments included:


'I don’t take a special interest in Council decision making because I don’t vote in the local by elections. I have seen some of the decisions that are made around building structures. I wonder why they allow that, and I think they seem like a toothless lion; it appears that if a developer had a project with a lot of money

the Council would allow them to build whatever they like' (Waipa)

Youth related issues: 1.2%

The next issue related to youth. The comment included:



Social / Community: 1.2%

Social or community concerns were a main issue for many respondents with these comments:



up; I suppose the community wellbeing. Make sure people are looked after during stress times. Not sure

that counts businesses’ (Waipa)

Law and Order: 1.2%

One respondent commented on law and order related issues such as crime with the following:


Cultural issues: 1.2%

One respondent mentioned cultural issues or entertainment as a concern with this comment:


Positive Comments: 1.2%

One respondent made a positive comment. This comment included:

'Definitely the Cambridge Pool. It's under utilised and there has been an issue with it for a while. It needs to be brought into the 21st century; Everything else they seem to have a handle on things and moving

things forwards; No other issues' (Waipa)




Other:

A range of other issues or concerns were mentioned:


'Improving and maintaining public spaces such as walkways, parks and plants and trees and preventing damage to trees; Watching the Council budget and

being careful how they are making financial planning - more thorough financial planning; Encouraging people who own businesses to be more public and open. - Te Awamutu more like

Cambridge - more environmentally beautiful - small touches’ (Waipa)


'A lot of the streets need to be improved such as Alexandra Street that they are re-vamping. Even coming into the main street, there are roads that need attention; Controlling heavy traffic such as big heavy milk tankers coming down the main street;

Less takeaways, we don't need any more of them’ (Waipa)

'Infrastructure - broadband (access to broadband is limited); Roading - having enough money to maintain the roads' (Waipa)

MARCO Regional Waikato Perception Survey 2013 Executive Summary



Waikato Regional Overview The following summarises the key findings of the 713 interviews included in the collaborative 2013 MARCO Waikato Regional Perception Survey.

Hamilton City and five of the 10 District Councils opted to financially participate in the 2013 survey. These six Councils account for 82% of the Waikato Region’s population. The sample of 713 was split with a minimum of 70 interviews set for each of the participating Councils. To give an accurate reflection of the region, respondents from all 11 Councils were included in the sample. However, for those Councils which were not financially participating, the number of interviews was set to reflect the number which would have been obtained in a random survey e.g. 6 interviews for Rotorua (reflecting the small population size of the district’s area that is within the Waikato Region), 15 for the Waitomo District, 16 for the Otorohanga District, 33 for the Hauraki District and 58 for the Taupo District. The Hamilton sample was bolstered by an additional 109 interviews to reduce the impact on data weighting on the Regional results.

Data weighting

With most random samples, there are subgroups of the population that tend to opt out of participating in surveys e.g. in this survey only 39% of the interviews were with men (versus 48% based on the 2006 census results) as a higher proportion of men opted out of the survey (refused). The data weighting is calculated by age and gender within the Waikato Region and then weighted by the Council population to reflect the correct geographic make up of the region.

Important Note: Data weighting has been used to correct the imbalances in the random sample caused by certain subgroups opting out more frequently (e.g. younger respondents / men). While overall the impact is small, this change does have a significant effect on a few specific results. Refer methodology section for detail.

Survey Results – An Overview

Similar to 2010, the survey shows that generally respondents from across the Waikato Region are happy with their Quality of Life but there are some issues among small subgroups. Similar to 2010, the three main issues for the district are employment opportunities or attracting business to the district; financial or economic issues, education, environmental concerns and law and order. However, the main issues vary from district to district.

The three main issues Council should focus on covered a variety of specific Council activities like roading, water, the appearance of the place, footpaths, stormwater or wastewater and recycling or refuse collection. The other main themes that Council should focus on were different to 2010 with financial / economic issues (13% mention versus 5% in 2010) and water related issues (8.3% versus 3.5% in 2010) being more commonly mentioned.

In general, the results are very similar to 2010 and 2007 which infers that the measurement process has been reasonably consistent but also on a Regional basis, little has changed since 2007.

Happiness with Quality of Life

Respondents were asked ‘Thinking in general about your Quality of Life and using the scale where 0 = very

unhappy and 10 = very happy, how happy are you with your Quality of Life?’ Similar to previous years, the vast majority of the respondents (85%) are happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 7 – 10). A fifth of the respondents (20%) rated their Overall Quality of Life with a score of 10 while 23% rated this with a score of 9. The mode (most frequent value) is a score of 8 (30%). A seventh of the sample (14%) rated their Quality of Life with a score that was neutral (scores 4 – 6). Only a few respondents (0.9%) were actually unhappy with their Quality of Life (Scores 0 – 3).

The Happiness Index (HI score)18 , (a weighted score across the happiness scale) for their Quality of Life was 80.6. This is down 1.4 points from 2010 but once again the result implies the respondents are very happy with their Quality of Life.

18 The Happiness Index (HI) converts each respondents answer across the scale to a score out of 100. The index is 10 times the average individual score based on the 11 point happiness scale (0 = very unhappy to 10 = very happy)




There is some variation in the Quality of Life based on where the respondent is from. The vast majority of each area are happy but those from Waipa appear the most happy.

This is reflected in the Happiness Index with those from Otorohanga (Happiness Index 84.3) and those from Thames-Coromandel (Happiness Index 83.1) being the most happy with their Quality of Life while those from Waitomo (Happiness Index 70.6) being the least happy with their Quality of Life.

Compared to 2010 there were 8 decreases and 3 increases in the Indexes among the individual districts. The largest increase was 3.5 points for South Waikato (Index 81.7). The largest decreases were 9.5 points for Waitomo (Index 70.6) and 3.7 points for Waipa (Index 82.0).

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on the respondents’ happiness with their Quality of Life were:

Those living in the rural areas (Happiness Index 82.8) were significantly happier with their Quality of Life than those live in the town or city (Happiness Index 79.7).

Those aged over 65 (Happiness Index 85.1) or aged under 25 (Happiness Index 86.1) are significantly happier with their Quality of Life versus a Happiness Index from 78.4 to 80.2 for the other age brackets. Generally the older the respondent, the higher the level of satisfaction.

Those who described their ethnicity as New Zealanders of European descent (Happiness Index 81.6) or New Zealanders of ‘Other’ descent (Happiness Index 83.3) were significantly happier with their Quality of Life than those of Maori descent (Happiness Index 74.0).

Those who own their own home are significantly happier than those who rent or board (Happiness Index 81.5 and 77.5) respectively.

Those who rated at 7 or less (n = 180: 25.2%) were then asked ‘Why do you feel this way?’ These respondents offered a number of explanations for being less than happy.

The main theme was to do with financial concerns (mentioned by 6.7% of the total sample but 27% of those who are less than happy). Slightly fewer mentioned health issues (4.3% of the sample), while 1.7% said that things could be improved and 1.5% felt they spent too much time working.

A few (0.7%) appeared to be unhappy in general while a few others (0.6%) had no particular reason to rate their Quality of Life the way they did. There was a range of other issues mentioned. A number of respondents (6.2%) made positive comments and 0.7% did not answer this question.

The results are similar to 2010 and 2007 but there are slightly more comments of a financial nature.

Quality of Life Factors

Respondents were asked ‘Thinking about the community you live in and the infrastructure available and using the

scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with <factor>?’ There is a large amount of variation in the level of satisfaction with these factors. The majority of respondents (77%) are satisfied with the ‘availability of primary schools in your area’ but this drops to only 41% for the ‘availability of

community or tertiary education in your area’.

This is reflected in the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI scores)19, (a weighted score across the satisfaction scale) which ranges from a CSI score of 78.6 for the ‘availability of primary schools in your area’ down to a CSI score of 56.4 for the ‘availability of community or tertiary education in your area’. The low CSI scores infer most of these factors are an issue for respondents.

Compared to 2010 there were 4 decreases and 1 increase in the Indexes for the Quality of Life factors. The only increase was 1.8 points for the ‘cultural facilities and opportunities provided in your area’ (Index 64.0). The largest decrease was 4.6 points for the ‘availability of community or tertiary education in your area’ (Index 56.4) followed by a decrease of 1.0 points for the ‘availability of primary schools in your area’ (Index 78.6).

19 The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) converts each respondents answer across the satisfaction scale to a score out of 100. The CSI score is

10 times the average individual score based on the 11 point satisfaction scale (0 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied)




The CSI scores for the Quality of Life factors vary by location but the variance for the ‘availability of primary

schools in your area’ is small compared to the variance in the ‘availability of community or tertiary education in

your area’. Hamilton is understandably rated the highest for this factor (CSI score 71.4) while the few from the Rotorua District within the Waikato Region (CSI score 41.3) and those from Waitomo are rated the lowest (CSI score 42.0).

The CSI scores for the Quality of Life factors vary by age group with those aged over 65 rating all factors significantly higher than those in the lower age brackets. However, it is generally expected that the older the respondent, the higher the level of satisfaction. It seems that the ‘availability of secondary schools in your

area’ is more of an issue for those with school aged children (26 - 45 age bracket) while the ‘availability of

community or tertiary education in your area’ and the ‘cultural facilities and opportunities provided in your area’ is an issue for all age brackets.

There is some variation in the Quality of Life factors between those who identify themselves as of Maori descent and other New Zealanders. .

Those who are happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 9 or 10) are the most satisfied with all of the Quality of Life factors. Those who are not happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 0 or 6) are the least satisfied with all the Quality of Life factors. The variation appears reasonably even for all the Quality of Life factors.

Proximity Factors

Respondents were asked ‘The proximity to work, recreational facilities and other community resources varies from place to place. Using the scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with how

close you live to each of the following?’ The majority of respondents (77%) are satisfied with the ‘proximity to

schools’ but this drops to 49% for the ‘proximity to other educational facilities’.

This is reflected in the CSI scores which range from a CSI score of 80.3 for the ‘proximity to schools’ down to a CSI score of 64.2 for the ‘proximity to other educational facilities’. The lower CSI scores for the ‘proximity to

other educational facilities’ and the ‘proximity to recreational and leisure facilities’ show respondents are less satisfied with the proximity of these resources.

Compared to 2010 there were 4 increases and 0 decreases in the Indexes among the Proximity factors. The largest increase was 1.1 points for the ‘proximity to where you work’ (Index 77.6) followed by an increase of 0.8 points for the ‘proximity to recreational and leisure facilities’ (Index 70.3).

Those who are happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 9 or 10) are the most satisfied with all the Proximity factors. Those who are not happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 0 or 6) are the least satisfied with all the Proximity factors.

Barriers to Accessing Health Care

Respondents were asked ‘Has there been any time in the last 12 months when you or a member of your household

wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t?’ Three quarters (75.0%) of the respondents said there was no time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t. However, a quarter of the sample (24.6%) said there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t.

There is much variation in the proportion who said there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t. This varies from 13.2% for Otorohanga to 41.0% in the South Waikato District and 30.1% the few from the Rotorua District within the Waikato Region.

Comparing the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007 for the percentage who said there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t, there was an overall increase of 4.9% from 2010 (24.6 in 2013 versus 19.7% in 2010 and 22.5% in 2007).

Compared to 2010 there were 8 increases and 3 decreases in the percentage who said there was a time when they didn’t go to a GP. The largest increases were 20% for the South Waikato District and 11% for the few from the Rotorua District within the Waikato Region. The largest decreases were 13% for the Waitomo District and 6% for the Otorohanga District.

The variables that appear to have the greatest impact on the proportion who said ‘there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t’ were:

Women are significantly more likely to say there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t (29%) versus 20% for men.




Those aged over 65 are significantly less likely to say there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t (12%) versus 33% for those aged under 26 - 45 years.

Those who rent are significantly more likely to say there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t (38%) versus 21% for those who live in their own home.

Those of Maori descent were significantly more likely to say there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t (37%) versus 23% for those of European descent.

Those with a household income over $70,000 appear less likely to say there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t (21%).

Those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 0 to 6 are significantly more likely to say there was a time in the last 12 months when they or a member of their household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t (42%) versus 19% for those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 9 or 10.

Respondents (n = 159) who said they had not visited the doctor were asked ‘For what reasons did you or your

family not go to the doctor when you wanted to’? This was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

There was a range of responses, with the main themes revolving around cost (9% of the sample which equates to 40% of those who did not visit a doctor when they wanted to go) and availability (7% of the sample). Smaller numbers mentioned travelling issues (2.0%), the fact they had no after-hours GP available (1.5%), or the time it took to get an appointment (1.3%). A few did not like the choice of doctor (1.0%), or not being a convenient time (0.6%) or said their need was not serious (0.6%). There was also a range of other comments. The results are similar to 2010 and 2007 although availability was a bigger issue in the 2013 survey.

Safety Factors

Respondents were asked ‘Thinking now about issues of crime and safety, and using a scale where 0 = very unsafe

and 10 = very safe; please tell me how safe or unsafe you would feel in the following situations’. The majority of respondents (93%) felt safe (Scores 6 – 10) with the factor ‘Safety in your community during the daytime’ and only 3% felt unsafe (Scores 0 – 4). Conversely just over two thirds of the sample (70%). felt safe (Scores 6 – 10) with the factor ‘Safety in your community after dark’ and 17% felt unsafe (Scores 0 – 4).

This is reflected in the Safeness Index which is 83.8 for the ‘Safety in your community during the daytime’ versus 65.9 for the ‘Safety in your community after dark’. The lower Index for the latter factor implies that the safety after dark is more of an issue for respondents.

Comparing the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007 shows there was 1 increase and 1 decrease in the Indexes among the Safety factors. The factor ‘safety in your community during the daytime’ (Index 83.8) was down 0.3 points while the factor ‘safety in your community after dark’ (Index 65.9) was up 1.8 points.

The Safeness Index for the Safety factors varies by location but it seems that the few from the Rotorua District within the Waikato Region (Index 90.8) are rated the highest for the ‘safety in your community during

the daytime’ and Waipa (Index 75.0) is rated the highest for ‘safety in your community after dark’. Rotorua (Index 51.2) and South Waikato District (Index 57.3) are rated the lowest for ‘safety in your community after

dark’. The Waikato District is rated the lowest for the ‘safety in your community during the daytime’ (Index 79.8).

Those with the highest household income rate both the Safety factors the highest. This group rates the ‘safety in your community during the daytime’ with an Index of 86.6 versus an Index of 80.4 for those with a household income under $30,000 p.a. In a similar fashion, those with a household income over $70,000 p.a. rate the ‘Safety in your community after dark’ with an Index of 69.3 versus an Index of 62.7 – 63.0 for those with a lower household income.

Those who are happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 9 or 10) feel safer with both of the Safety factors. Those who are not happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 0 or 6) feel the least safe, with both factors.

Work Opportunities

Respondents were asked ‘Using the scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with ‘your job makes good use of your skills, training and experience?’

A fifth of the respondents (20%) did not answer this question, presumably because they were not working. This is similar to the 24% from 2010 and 20% from 2007.




Over two thirds of the respondents (71%) agreed with the statement ‘Your job makes good use of your skills,

training and experience’ (scores of 6 – 10). A quarter of the respondents (24%) strongly agreed (Score of 10) while 15% rated this with a score of 9. The mode (most frequent value) is a score of 10.

Only 4% of the sample neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement ‘Your job makes good use of your

skills, training and experience’ (Score 5). Only a few respondents (6%) disagreed with the statement ‘Your job

makes good use of your skills, training and experience’ (Scores 0 – 4).

The Agreement Index (AI score)20 , (a weighted score across the Agreement scale) for ‘Your job makes good

use of your skills, training and experience’ was 80.8, virtually unchanged from 2010 (up 0.1 points). This result again implies most respondents feel their jobs are making good use of their skills, training and experience.

There is some variation in the level of agreement with the statement ‘Your job makes good use of your skills,

training and experience’ based on where the respondent is from. The proportion that did not answer this question varies from 11% in Waipa up to 35% in Thames – Coromandel. The majority of the respondents from each TA agree with the statement ‘Your job makes good use of your skills, training and experience’. Those from Waitomo, Taupo and Hauraki appear more likely to disagree (13%, 11% and 9% respectively) versus 5.5% overall.

The Agreement index for the statement ‘Your job makes good use of your skills, training and experience’ varies from 72.8 in the Waitomo District up to 93.4 for the few from the Rotorua District within the Waikato Region.

Comparing the 2013 results with 2010 shows across the region the Index was virtually unchanged (Index 80.8 in 2013 versus 80.7 in 2010 and 81.4 in 2007. There were 5 increases and 6 decreases in the Indexes among the individual districts. Excluding the few from Rotorua, the largest increase was 9.4 points for South Waikato (Index 84.4). The largest decrease was 9.3 points for Hauraki (Index 74.7).

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on level of agreement with the statement ‘Your

job makes good use of your skills, training and experience’ were:

Those with a household income over $70,000 (Agreement Index 82.5) are significantly more likely to agree with this statement than those in the lower income brackets (Agreement Index 77.8 and 79.2).


Participation in Sport and Active Leisure

Respondents were asked ‘Now a question about exercise and other physical activities. By that I mean activity that increases your heart rate or breathing for 30 minutes or more. This might include brisk walking, running and

gardening. How often do you do this kind of activity for 30 minutes or more?’ The largest group, (43%) said they exercised for 30 minutes or more every day while 36% said they did this 2 to 4 times per week and 12% said they did this weekly. Only 2% of the sample said they exercised for 30 minutes or more 2 – 3 times per month and 1% did this monthly while 2% did this less often. Only 4% of the respondents said they never exercised for 30 minutes or more and the remaining 0.1% did not know how often they did this level of exercise.

The vast majority of the respondents exercised for 30 minutes or more at least once per week (91%) versus 87% in 2010 and 89% in 2007.

The majority of respondents from each district exercised at least once per week. This ranges from 100% for the few from the Rotorua District within the Waikato Region and 98% for those from the South Waikato down to 85% in Hauraki. The variance by area may be caused by demographic differences in the samples.






Those significantly more likely to never exercise for 30 minutes or more included:

Those aged over 65 (9%) versus 2% - 4% for the other age brackets.

Respondents of ‘other’ ethnic backgrounds (10%) versus 3% - 4% in the other income streams.

Those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 0 to 6 (8%) versus 4% for those who rated their Quality of Life with a score of 7 to 10.

Council Decision Making Factors

Respondents were asked ‘We are interested in understanding your views on the role of your local Council. For each of the following statements can you please tell if you agree or disagree using the scale where 0 = Strongly

Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree.’ Almost half of the respondents (49%) agreed (scores 6-10) with the statement ‘Overall, you have confidence that the Council makes decisions that are in the best interests of your

district’ but this drops to only 38% for the statement ‘You have enough say in what your Council does’. Between 31% and 42% disagreed with each statement (scores 0 – 4).

The Agreement Index ranged from 54.4 for the statement ‘Overall, you understand how your Council makes

decisions’ down to an Agreement Index of 46.2 for the statement ‘You have enough say in what your Council

does’.

Comparing the 2013 results with 2010 and 2007 shows there were 3 decreases in the Indexes for the Council Decision Making factors a. The factor ‘Overall, you understand how your Council makes decisions’ (Index 54.4) was down 3.2 points while the factor ‘Overall, you have confidence that the Council makes decisions

that are in the best interests of your district’ (Index 50.0) was down 6.2 points. The factor ‘You have enough say

in what your Council does’ (Index 46.2) was down 4.4 points.

The Agreement Index for the Council Decision Making factors varies by location but the pattern is similar with most TA’s. The factor ‘You have enough say in what your Council does’ is rated the lowest by all TA’s. Respondents from Otorohanga have the highest Agreement Indexes for all three statements while Taupo is the lowest.

There is some variation in the Agreement Index for the Council Decision Making factors by age group. The greatest variation is in the statement ‘Overall, you have confidence that the Council makes decisions that are in

the best interests of your district’. The Agreement Index varies from 66.4 for the under 25 age bracket down to 47.6 for the 26 – 45 age bracket.

There is some variation in most of the Council Decision Making factors based on the respondents ethnic background. The largest difference is in the Agreement Index for statement ‘Overall, you have confidence that

the Council makes decisions that are in the best interests of your district’ which varies by 12.8 points from an index of 40.9 for those of Maori Descent versus 50.9 for those of European descent and 53.7 for those of ‘other’ ethnic backgrounds.

Those who are happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 9 or 10) are the most likely to agree with each of the Council Decision Making statements. Those who are not happy with their Quality of Life (scores of 0 or 6) are the least likely to agree with each of the Council Decision Making statements.

Sense of Pride

Respondents were asked ‘Using the scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with ‘you feel a sense of pride in the way your district looks and feels?’

Three quarters of the respondents (77%) agreed with the statement ‘You feel a sense of pride in the way your

district looks and feels’ (scores of 6 – 10). A tenth of the respondents (9%) strongly agreed (Score of 10) while 8% rated this with a score of 9. The mode (most frequent value) is a score of 8 (25%).

An eighth of the sample (13%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement ‘You feel a sense of pride in

the way your district looks and feels’ (Score 5). Less than a tenth of the respondents (6.5%) disagreed with the statement ‘You feel a sense of pride in the way your district looks and feels’ (Scores 0 – 4).

The Agreement Index (AI score)21 , (a weighted score across the Agreement scale) for ‘You feel a sense of

pride in the way your district looks and feels’ was 68.4. This is 0.3 points higher than 2010 but lower than the 70.1 recorded in 2007. The result implies most respondents feel a sense of pride in their district.






There is some variation in the respondent’s sense of pride in the way their District looks and feels based on where the respondent is from. The vast majority of each area agreed (Scores 6 – 10) they have a sense of pride but the few from the Otorohanga District appear most likely to agree. Conversely, it seems that a slightly higher proportion of those from the Waitomo District (38%) or the Waikato District (17%) disagreed with this statement (Scores 0 – 4).

This is reflected in the Agreement Index with those from Otorohanga (Agreement Index 83.6) and those from Matamata-Piako (Agreement Index 76.6) agreeing they feel a sense of pride in the way their District looks and feels. Those from Waitomo (Agreement Index 55.7) were the least likely to agree with this statement.

Comparing the 2013 results with 2010 shows across the region the Index was virtually unchanged (Index 68.4 in 2013 versus 68.1 in 2010 and 70.1 in 2007. There were 7 increases and 4 decreases in the Indexes among the individual districts. The largest increase was 5.2 points for Hauraki (Index 73.1) and 3.6 points for Otorohanga (Index 83.6). Ignoring the few respondents from Rotorua, the largest decreases were 2.9 points for Taupo (Index 72.5) and 2.2 points for South Waikato (Index 62.3).

The variables that appear to have had the greatest impact on level of agreement with the statement ‘You

feel a sense of pride in the way your district looks and feels’ were:

Respondents of Maori descent (Agreement Index 59.6) are significantly less likely to agree with this statement than those of ‘other’ ethnic backgrounds (Agreement Index 72.9).

Those with household income over $70,000 (Agreement Index 69.5) are significantly more likely to agree with this statement than those with a household income under $70,000 (Agreement Index 67.2 and 67.4).


Respondents were asked ‘Using the same scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly

do you agree or disagree with the statement “You feel a sense of pride in the way your district looks and feels?’ They were then asked ‘What is the ONE main reason for saying this?’ This was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

There was a range of responses, with some respondents offering positive reasons for agreeing strongly with the statement while others offered reasons for giving a lower score. The main positive comments evolved around their district being clean and tidy or about the appearance of the district (34.5%), having a good atmosphere or being a good place to live (17.5%), the area having good natural resources or facilities (13.5%), the upgrades or improvements happening (5.2%) or having general pride in their district (4.6%). The main negative comments had to do with concerns about the Council (12.8%), concerns about the place not being well maintained (11.1%), issues with the facilities (5.2%), or concerns about graffiti, crime and vandalism (4.1%). Others offered neutral comments (4%) did not know (4%) or thought there was room for improvement (4%). The results are very similar to 2010 and 2007.

What makes your district unique or special

Respondents were asked ‘What do you think makes your district unique or special?’ This was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

The main theme was to do with the atmosphere or sense of community in the district (33%). Others commented on the natural resources like beaches, rivers or mountains or natural beauty (24%). A smaller number thought the activities, events or tourist attractions made their district unique (13%) while 12% commented on the proximity to cities or their central location. A similar number mentioned the geographic location or situation of the district made it unique (11%).

Less than a tenth of the sample (7%) mentioned agriculture or horticulture or the rural feel of the area making their district unique while for others it was shops, facilities and amenities (7%) or parks and gardens (7%) or the history or cultural heritage (5%). There was a range of other suggestions.

A number of respondents did not answer this question (10%) and a few did not know what made their district unique (1%).There was also a range of negative suggestions as to what made their district unique (3%). The results are very similar to 2010 and 2007.

Participation and Equity Factors

Respondents were asked ‘New Zealand is becoming home for an increasing number of people from different countries with different lifestyles and cultures. Using the scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree,

how strongly do you agree or disagree with <statement>?’ Over four fifths of the respondents (87%) agreed




(Scores 6 – 10) with the statement ‘Your family are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse

cultures of the people who live here’ and only 4% disagreed with this (Scores 0 – 4). Conversely, just over two thirds of the sample (71%) agreed (Scores 6 – 10) with the statement ‘Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable

and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here’ and 7% disagreed (Scores 0 – 4). This is reflected in the Agreement Index which is 78.1 for the statement ‘Your family are knowledgeable and

show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here’ versus 70.5 for the statement ‘Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here’.

Both factors, ‘Your family are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who

live here’ (Index 78.1) and ‘Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse

cultures of the people who live here’ (Index 70.5) were up 0.8 points.

The Agreement Index for the Participation and Equity factors varies by location but all areas tend to agree that their family is doing a better job than their community in showing respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here. Waitomo, Hamilton and the Waikato District are rated the highest for ‘Your family are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here’ (Index 84.3, 79.8 and 79.3 respectively). There is limited variation in the ratings for the statement ‘Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here

(Index 66.8 to 73.8).

Three biggest issues for your district

Respondents were asked ‘Thinking of the issues of your district, (issues such as social issues like education, safety and community, cultural issues, environmental issues or economic issues such as business, jobs and money) what do

you think are your areas three biggest issues?’ This was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

There was a range of responses, with the main comments covering employment opportunities or attracting business to the district (41%). The second main issue covers financial or economic issues (21%) followed by issues related to education, schools or training (19%) then environmental concerns (16%), and law and order (12%). A ninth of the sample (11%) mentioned the lack of facilities or activities, while 11% mentioned social or community related issues. There was a wide range of other themes mentioned by smaller groups of respondents.

All of the main issues mentioned in 2013 were also the main issues mentioned in 2010 although there are minor variations in the order. The largest difference is a 5.9% reduction in mention of youth related issues (5.8% mention versus 11.7% in 2010) and a 3.9% increase in mention of social / community related issues (10.9% mention versus 7.1% in 2010). The other notable differences were for employment opportunities or attracting business to the district (40.8% versus 37.6% in 2010) and mention of concerns related to Council / Management (9.3% mention versus 6.3% in 2010) and a 2.7% reduction in the mention of environmental concerns.

Three biggest issues Council should be looking at

Respondents were asked ‘Now focusing only on the areas that your Council is responsible for what in your opinion,

are the three main issues that Council should be looking at?’ This was asked as an open question with the answers grouped together for analysis purposes.

Many respondents mentioned specific Council activities like roading (17%), water (8%), the appearance of the place (4%), footpaths (4%), stormwater or wastewater (3%), and recycling or refuse collection (3%).

The other main themes covered financial concerns or economic issues (13%), the need for recreational facilities or entertainment (13%), environmental concerns (12%), concerns about Council finances or expenditure (12%), town planning or infrastructure (12%), and creating employment opportunities (12%). A tenth of the sample (10%) mentioned Council or Management concerns, while 9% raised concerns about rates and 7% raised concerns about education or schooling. There was also a wide range of other themes mentioned by smaller groups of respondents.

Most of the main issues mentioned in 2013 were also the main issues mentioned in 2010 although there are minor variations in the order. The largest difference is an 8.2% increase in mention of financial / economic issues (13% mention versus 5% in 2010) and a 5% increase in mention of water related issues (8.3% versus 3.5% in 2010). The other notable differences were for stormwater or wastewater (3.6% decrease), concerns about Council finances or expenditure (3.5% increase), roading issues (3.4% decrease) and a 2.4% increase in the mention of social or community concerns.




Summary of Indexes – Waikato Region This project used a mix of scales, some covering the level of satisfaction while others were based on the level of agreement, safety or level of happiness. While the wording on each scale varied, the scales were all 11 points from 0 = very negative to 10 = very positive. The following gives an overview of all the indexes used in the core survey.

0

-1

-2

-3

-2

-7

0

-2

-1

-3

-1

-3

0

-7

-7

-9

-2

0

0

13

15

13

21

19

11

11

8

19

14

8

17

9

13

13

12

21

14

20

30

24

20

21

20

16

27

18

23

17

25

25

20

15

10

9

25

29

25

23

16

9

10

5

5

11

10

10

7

24

8

15

4

3

3

8

16

6

20

23

13

6

5

9

28

25

13

11

31

9

24

6

3

1

9

19

9

80.6

78.6

65.5

65.3

64.0

56.4

80.3

77.6

70.3

64.2

83.8

65.9

80.8

54.4

50.0

46.2

68.4

78.1

70.5

-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100




















% of the sample





Indexes – Waikato Region The indexes range from 83.8 for the ‘Safety in your community during the daytime’ down to an Index of 46.2 for the factor ‘You have enough say in what your Council does’.

80.6

78.6

65.5

65.3

64.0

56.4

80.3

77.6

70.3

64.2

83.8

65.9

80.8

54.4

50.0

46.2

68.4

78.1

70.5

711

658

665

689

652

625

653

508

686

636

713

698

505

693

699

679

710

694

622

0 20 40 60 80 100




















Index

CSI Score 2013 2013 # of respondents




Waikato Region - Comparison to 2010 and 2007 The following chart compares the 2013 results with 2010. There were a similar number of increases (10) and decreases (9) in the Indexes. The largest increases were 1.8 points for the statement Safety in your

community after dark' and for the statement ‘the cultural facilities and opportunities provided in your area’. The largest decreases were 6.2 points for the statement ‘Overall, you have confidence that the Council makes

decisions that are in the best interests of your district' and 4.6 points for satisfaction with ‘the availability of

community or tertiary education in your area’.

69.8

77.3

68.1

50.6

56.2

57.6

80.7

64.1

84.1

64.1

69.4

76.5

80.0

61.0

62.2

65.3

66.3

79.6

82.0

70.5

78.1

68.4

46.2

50.0

54.4

80.8

65.9

83.8

64.2

70.3

77.6

80.3

56.4

64.0

65.3

65.5

78.6

80.6

-4.4

-6.2

-3.2

-0.3

-4.6

-0.1

-0.8

-1.0

-1.4

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.1

1.8

0.1

0.8

1.1

0.2

1.8

0 20 40 60 80 100




















Index

CSI Score 2013 CSI Score 2010 CSI Score 2007


Decreases Increases




Tables of Core Indexes by Council The following table compares the Indexes (CSI Scores, Agreement Index, Safety Index or Happiness Index) for the factors in the core survey. The cells highlighted in green are the Districts with the highest index and those highlighted in pink highlight the District with the lowest index.

Th

am

es-

Coro

man

de

l

Hau

raki

Wa

ika

to

Ham

ilto

n

Ma

tam

ata

-

Pia

ko

Wa

ipa

So

uth

Wa

ika

to

Oto

roh

ang

a

Wa

itom

o

Roto

rua

Ta

up

o

Ma

xim

um

Min

imum

Ran

ge

We

ighte

d

Ave

rage

Number of interviews 71 33 111 181 70 81 70 16 15 6 59 713

Overall Quality of Life 83.1 79.9 79.8 79.6 82.4 82.0 81.7 84.3 70.6 82.0 79.8 84.3 70.6 13.7 80.6

Availability of primary schools 76.4 86.6 78.0 74.8 83.4 80.5 81.2 88.7 75.3 88.4 77.0 88.7 74.8 13.9 78.6

Availability of secondary schools 66.1 68.8 56.9 58.6 74.9 72.1 73.1 76.2 62.4 65.4 72.5 76.2 56.9 19.4 65.5

Recreational facilities / opportunities 57.3 68.2 55.9 67.2 65.8 76.0 67.0 72.8 55.3 67.2 67.5 76.0 55.3 20.7 65.3

Cultural facilities / opportunities 56.6 62.3 59.1 65.3 66.8 69.0 64.3 76.1 53.5 79.2 67.5 79.2 53.5 25.8 64.0

Availability of community / tertiary education 42.0 44.9 51.1 71.4 48.2 55.9 56.8 64.3 42.0 41.3 49.8 71.4 41.3 30.1 56.4

Proximity to schools 81.7 84.3 76.1 77.8 84.6 82.2 86.2 88.4 75.1 67.8 79.9 88.4 67.8 20.6 80.3

Proximity to where you work 82.6 87.4 71.5 75.5 84.0 79.3 78.5 92.8 71.4 62.6 78.1 92.8 62.6 30.2 77.6

Proximity to recreational facilities 68.0 70.1 59.6 69.0 75.3 76.3 78.2 75.9 59.8 59.9 76.5 78.2 59.6 18.6 70.3

Proximity to other educational facilities 56.0 62.1 56.0 71.7 66.3 65.2 66.6 83.7 47.2 45.7 60.2 83.7 45.7 38.0 64.2

Safety in your community during the daytime 86.1 83.4 79.8 81.1 87.2 88.4 83.7 80.9 80.9 90.8 88.7 90.8 79.8 11.0 83.8

Safety in your community after dark 71.8 63.1 63.3 64.5 69.1 75.0 57.3 68.7 57.9 51.2 68.5 75.0 51.2 23.8 65.9




Th

am

es-

Coro

man

de

l

Hau

raki

Wa

ika

to

Ham

ilto

n

Ma

tam

ata

-

Pia

ko

Wa

ipa

So

uth

Wa

ika

to

Oto

roh

ang

a

Wa

itom

o

Roto

rua

Ta

up

o

Ma

xim

um

Min

imum

Ran

ge

We

ighte

d

Ave

rage

Number of interviews 71 33 111 181 70 81 70 16 15 6 59 713

Your job makes good use of your skills, training and experience

78.3 74.7 79.5 79.1 86.6 83.8 84.4 91.3 72.8 93.4 78.6 93.4 72.8 20.6 80.8

Overall, you understand how your Council makes decisions 56.9 62.2 52.0 51.6 61.2 55.8 50.2 77.1 69.6 57.9 48.0 77.1 48.0 29.1 54.4

Overall, you have confidence that the Council makes decisions that are in the best interests of your District

49.7 59.1 46.4 47.2 64.2 55.9 42.7 71.6 55.0 46.3 42.0 71.6 42.0 29.6 50.0

You have enough say in what your Council does 47.1 51.1 43.1 44.9 59.9 48.5 42.0 68.9 50.8 42.7 35.7 68.9 35.7 33.2 46.2

You feel a sense of pride in the way your District looks and feels

70.2 73.1 60.6 66.9 76.6 75.3 62.3 83.6 55.7 69.4 72.5 83.6 55.7 27.9 68.4

Your family are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here

75.9 76.5 79.3 79.8 76.4 77.7 79.0 77.2 84.3 74.2 74.3 84.3 74.2 10.1 78.1

Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here

71.6 72.6 69.3 71.0 70.3 71.2 70.7 73.8 69.9 66.8 68.7 73.8 66.8 7.0 70.5

Maximum 86.1 87.4 79.8 81.1 90.3 91.2 86.2 92.8 84.3 93.4 88.7 93.4 79.8 38.0 83.8

Minimum 42.0 44.9 43.1 44.9 48.2 48.5 42.0 64.3 42.0 41.3 35.7 68.9 35.7 7.0 46.2

Range 44.0 42.5 36.7 36.2 42.1 42.7 44.2 28.5 42.3 52.1 53.0 24.5 44.1 31.0 37.6




Waikato Region

The following table compares the Indexes (CSI Scores, Agreement Index, Safety Index or Happiness Index) for all the Districts in the Waikato. The chart shows the range of scores with the orange shaded area stretching from the lowest index to the highest index. The greatest range is in the factor ‘how close you

live to other educational facilities’ (Index range from 45.7 to 83.7) and the smallest range is for ‘Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the many

and diverse cultures of the people who live here' (Index range from 66.8 to 74.2)

80.6 78.6

65.5 65.3 64.0

56.4

80.3 77.6

70.3

64.2

83.8

65.9

80.8

54.4

50.0

46.2

68.4

78.1

70.5

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Overa

ll quality

of life

Availa

bility

of p

rimary

schools

Availa

bility

of s

econdary

schools

Recre

atio

nal fa

cilitie

s / o

pportu

nitie

s

Cultu

ral fa

cilitie

s / o

pportu

nitie

s

Availa

bility

of c

om

munity

/ tertia

ry e

ducatio

n

Pro

xim

ity to

schools

Pro

xim

ity to

where

you w

ork

Pro

xim

ity to

recre

atio

nal fa

cilitie

s

Pro

xim

ity to

oth

er e

ducatio

nal fa

cilitie

s

Safe

ty in

your c

om

munity

durin

g th

e d

aytim

e

Safe

ty in

your c

om

munity

afte

r dark

Job m

akes g

ood u

se o

f your s

kills

Unders

tand h

ow

Council m

akes d

ecis

ions

Confid

ence C

ouncil d

ecis

ions b

est fo

r dis

trict

Have e

nough s

ay in

what y

our C

ouncil d

oes

Fe

el a

sense o

f prid

e in

the w

ay D

istric

t looks

Fa

mily

respect fo

r cultu

res o

f our p

eople

Neig

hbourh

ood re

spect c

ultu

res o

f our p

eople

Ind

ex (C

SI S

co

re, A

gre

em

en

t Ind

ex, S

afe

ne

ss In

de

x, H

ap

pin

ess in

de

x)

Quality of Life Council Work Safety Proximity Equity Culture

Shaded area = range of results Green Line = Regional Average




Waikato Region - Summary Tables – Percentages across the Various Scale Percentage of respondents rating each question with scores from 0 to 10



answer Index

Overall Quality of Life

Happiness Index Overall Quality of Life 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.5 5.1 6.1 12.8 29.5 22.9 19.9 0.3 80.6

Quality of Life CSI Score Availability of primary schools 0.9 1.0 0.7 1.5 0.9 6.0 6.1 14.6 24.0 15.5 22.7 6.1 78.6

Quality of Life CSI Score Availability of secondary schools 1.9 2.7 4.6 4.8 6.9 10.9 7.6 12.6 20.2 9.1 13.4 5.3 65.5

Quality of Life CSI Score Recreational facilities / opportunities 2.6 0.8 1.1 5.0 6.9 13.2 9.7 20.7 21.1 10.0 6.2 2.6 65.3

Quality of Life CSI Score Cultural facilities / opportunities 2.1 0.8 1.2 3.4 3.2 19.0 12.8 19.4 19.6 5.2 4.9 8.4 64.0

Quality of Life CSI Score

Availability of community / tertiary education 6.5 3.2 7.3 6.2 6.7 9.8 8.8 11.2 15.6 4.8 9.4 10.5 56.4

Proximity CSI Score Proximity to schools 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.1 2.1 7.0 5.7 10.9 26.5 11.4 28.2 6.0 80.3

Proximity CSI Score Proximity to where you work 1.5 0.6 1.0 1.6 2.9 7.4 3.9 8.2 17.8 10.0 25.2 20.0 77.6

Proximity CSI Score Proximity to recreational facilities 1.0 0.5 1.6 3.8 5.2 10.5 10.0 18.9 23.0 9.9 13.3 2.4 70.3

Proximity CSI Score

Proximity to other educational facilities 3.1 1.9 3.4 4.2 3.7 14.2 11.4 13.7 16.9 7.3 11.3 8.9 64.2

Crime and Safety Safety index

Safety in your community during the daytime 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.2 4.5 4.7 7.9 25.3 23.6 31.0 83.8

Crime and Safety Safety index Safety in your community after dark 2.9 1.7 1.9 4.9 5.9 11.1 10.4 17.1 25.4 8.3 9.1 1.4 65.9

Work opportunities

Agreement Index Job makes good use of your skills 0.4 0.3 2.1 0.7 2.0 3.7 3.7 8.5 19.9 15.0 23.7 20.1 80.8








answer Index


Agreement Index

Understand how Council makes decisions 7.4 3.2 6.0 6.2 8.1 17.9 9.6 13.2 15.3 4.1 6.4 2.6 54.4


Agreement Index

Confidence Council decisions best for district 7.3 4.7 5.7 9.0 10.3 17.7 13.4 13.2 10.4 3.2 3.4 1.6 50.0


Agreement Index

Have enough say in what your Council does 9.2 5.1 7.3 11.2 9.1 14.9 11.8 12.4 9.4 2.9 1.4 5.4 46.2


Agreement Index

Feel a sense of pride in the way District looks 1.6 0.6 2.3 2.0 2.9 12.9 14.2 21.3 24.9 8.4 8.5 0.5 68.4


Agreement Index

Family respect for cultures of our people 0.4 0.1 0.9 1.7 1.3 6.5 8.5 14.0 29.2 16.0 19.3 2.1 78.1


Agreement Index

Neighbourhood respect cultures of our people 0.3 1.8 2.5 2.1 10.7 10.7 19.9 25.1 5.5 9.3 12.1 70.5


MARCO Regional Waikato Perception Survey 2013 Questionnaire



Appendix

Questionnaire

MARCO Regional Waikato Perception Survey 2013 – Waipa Report Questionnaire



INTERNATIONAL

RESEARCH CONSULTANTS LTD

STRATEGIC PLANNING & BRAND SOLUTIONS

JOB NUMBER 060610 JUNE 2013

JOB DESCRIPTION: Collaborative Community Outcomes Monitoring Survey - Waikato Region

QX Good morning/afternoon. My name is XXX from XYZ, the market research company. We are conducting a survey in conjunction with your local and the Waikato Regional Council, about community perceptions in your area. This information will assist your council and other agencies to better coordinate their resources

QX The person I need to speak to is the person (male or female) who usually lives in your house, who is at least 18 years old and who had the last birthday. Who would that be?

RECORD NAME: _____________________ ASK TO SPEAK TO HIM / HER.

REINTRODUCE IF NECESSARY

The survey will only take 10 – 15 minutes.

INTERVIEWER NOTE: ADJUST TIME PROMISE IF ACTUAL INTERVIEWS ARE TAKING LONGER

QY Would you have time now or would you prefer me to call back at a more convenient time?

RECORD TIME TO CALL BACK: __________________________________________

QZ Can you tell me which District you live in? (Circle one only - If necessary: ask for nearest town and identify District using your map) (READ if necessary)

AREA BY REGION

Thames-Coromandel 02 ------------------------------------------ Hauraki ------------------- 03 Waikato ---------- 04

Hamilton ---------------- 05 Matamata-Piako -------- 06 Waipa ------------ 07

South Waikato --------- 08 Otorohanga -------------- 09 Waitomo -------- 10

Rotorua------------------ 11 Taupo --------------------- 12

QZa If in telephone exchanges close to the Waikato Council border with Auckland, or Rotorua – Need to ascertain if they are part of the Waikato Regional Council Area.

Are you in the Waikato Region?

Yes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

No ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 Thank and terminate

Don’t know ------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Thank and terminate

REINTRODUCE IF NECESSARY: INTERVIEWER RECORD START TIME




Each area to select the non core questions that are to be asked (questions not highlighted in green – before all non core questions there is a grid and each area is to decide whether their respondents will be

asked each non core question. Each question either needs a or a e.g.

Th

am

es

-

Co

rom

an

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilto

n

Mata

mata

-Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Waik

ato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Wait

om

o

Ro

toru

a

Tau

po

Q1A

Q1B

Q1C CORE QUESTION – ASK ALL

Q1D CORE QUESTION – ASK ALL

QUALITY OF LIFE

Th

am

es

-

Co

rom

an

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilto

n

Mata

mata

-Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Waik

ato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Wait

om

o

Ro

toru

a

Tau

po

Q1B



Q1E

Q1F

Q1G

Q1H

Q1I

Q1J CORE QUESTION – ASK ALL

Q1K CORE QUESTION – ASK ALL

Q1L CORE QUESTION – ASK ALL




Q1. Thinking about the community you live in and the infrastructure available and using the scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with <…>? (ROTATE STATEMENTS.

SINGLE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) (CIRCLE ONE ONLY)

Very Very

Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

Don’t Know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA/D

K

B

The essential services provided in your area e.g. power, telecommunications and broadband

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

C The cultural facilities and opportunities provided in your area

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

D The recreational facilities and opportunities provided in your area

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

E The amount of residential development in your area

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

F

The amount of business or commercial development in your area e.g. new businesses or shops

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

G The range of health services provided in your area

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

H The accessibility of health services in your area

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

I The availability of pre-school child care in your area

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

J The availability of primary schools in your area

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

K The availability of secondary schools in your area

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

L The availability of community or tertiary education in your area

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

Th

am

es

-

Co

rom

an

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilto

n

Mata

mata

-Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Waik

ato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Wait

om

o

Ro

toru

a

Tau

po

Q2A CORE QUESTION – ASK ALL

Q2B CORE QUESTION – ASK ALL






Proximity to Work, Study, Recreation

Q2. The proximity to work, recreational facilities and other community resources varies from place to place. Using the scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with how close you live to each of the following? (Circle one only) … (If any questions are not applicable to respondent circle don’t know)

Very Very


Don’t Know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA/DK

A To where you work 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

B To schools 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

C To other educational facilities 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

D To recreational and leisure facilities

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

Satisfaction with Cultural Facilities Provided

Th

am

es

-

Co

rom

an

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilto

n

Mata

mata

-Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Waik

ato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Wait

om

o

Ro

toru

a

Tau

po

Q3B

Q3 We are interested in understanding your views on the Cultural facilities and events within your District. For each of the following statements can you please tell if you agree or disagree using the scale where 0 = Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree. (Rotate statements. Single response for each.) (If asked “What do you mean by ‘cultural events’?” reply “Based on your own opinion of what ‘cultural events’ means”)

Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree

Don’t Know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK

B

Your District does a good job of protecting and valuing the history of the area

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

Barriers to Accessing Health Care (from Big Cities Quality of Life Survey 2004)

Q4 Has there been any time in the last 12 months when you or a member of your household wanted to go to a GP, but didn’t? (Don’t read out. Single response.)

Yes – there has been a time when wanted to go to doctor but didn’t -- 1

No -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Go to Q8

Don’t know --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Go to Q8




Q5 IF Q4 = 1 (YES) For what reasons did you or your family not go to the doctor when you wanted to? Probe: What other reasons?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Social

Th

am

es

-

Co

rom

an

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilto

n

Mata

mata

-Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Waik

ato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Wait

om

o

Ro

toru

a

Tau

po

Q8A

Q8B

Q8C

Q8D

Q8E

Q8. The level of community / social support within a community varies from place to place. Using the scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with each of the following?

Very Very


Don’t Know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK

A

Support within the community from family, friends and neighbours

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

B

Support within the community from networks and agencies (e.g. Welfare agencies, Citizens Advice, Drug and Alcohol Advisors etc)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

C The level of volunteer support within your community

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

D Your level of trust in others in your community

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

E Community support being accessible

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99




Q9. (PROGRAMME WRITTEN TO ONLY ASK FOR THOSE SERVICES IF RATED AS LOWER THAN 7>) IF ANY RATED LOWER THAN 7

– OTHER WISE SKIP Can you tell me why you were not totally satisfied with <facility>?

If SS less than 7 ask

Why you were not totally satisfied with this <Facility>

A Support within the community from family, friends and neighbours

B

Support within the community from networks and agencies (e.g. Welfare agencies, Citizens Advice, Drug and Alcohol Advisors etc)

C The level of volunteer support within your community

D The level of trust of others in your community

E Community support being accessible

Perceptions of Safety (from Big Cities Quality of Life Survey 2004 & 2006/New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims 2001)

Th

am

es

-

Co

rom

an

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilto

n

Mata

mata

-Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Waik

ato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Wait

om

o

Ro

toru

a

Tau

po


Q11B CORE QUESTION – ASK ALL

Q11D

Q11E

Q11G

Q11H

Q11 Thinking now about issues of crime and safety, and using a scale where 0 = very unsafe and 10 = very safe; please tell me how safe or unsafe you would feel in the following situations...? (ROTATE

STATEMENTS. READ OUT. SINGLE RESPONSE PER ITEM.)

Very Very

Unsafe Neutral Safe

Don’t Know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK

A In your community during the daytime

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

B In your community after dark 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

D Walking alone in your local neighbourhood during the daytime

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

E In your town centre during the daytime

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

G Walking alone in your local neighbourhood after dark

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99




H In your town centre after dark 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

Work Opportunities Matching Skills (from Big Cities Quality of Life Survey 2004)

Th

am

es

-

Co

rom

an

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilto

n

Mata

mata

-Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Waik

ato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Wait

om

o

Ro

toru

a

Tau

po


Q12D

Q12F

Q12 Using the scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with <….>? (IF ANY QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO RESPONDENT CIRCLE DON’T KNOW)


Don’t Know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA/DK

A Your job makes good use of your skills, training and experience

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

D

Your community is a place where young people can imagine building a life

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

F

Your community understands and appreciates the role that Maori economic activity plays in the District’s economic well being

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

Th

am

es

-

Co

rom

an

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilto

n

Mata

mata

-Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Waik

ato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Wait

om

o

Ro

toru

a

Tau

po

Q13a CORE QUESTION – ASK ALL




Participation in Sport and Active Leisure (from New Zealand Sport and Physical Activity Surveys/Big Cities Quality of Life Survey 2004)

Q13a Now a question about exercise and other physical activities. By that I mean activity that increases your heart rate or breathing for 30 minutes or more. This might include brisk walking, running and gardening. How often do you do this kind of activity for 30 minutes or more?

(Read out. Single response.)

Every day or nearly every day ------------------------------------------------------- 1

2 - 4 times a week ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

Once a week ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

2 - 3 times a month --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

Once a month --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Less often -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

Never ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

(Don’t read) Don’t know --------------------------------------------------------------- 8

SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY

Confidence in Council Decision Making (from Big Cities Quality of Life Survey 2004 & 2006)

Q14 We are interested in understanding your views on the role of your local Council. For each of the following statements can you please tell if you agree or disagree using the scale where 0 = Strongly Disagree and 10 is Strongly Agree. (ROTATE STATEMENTS. SINGLE RESPONSE FOR EACH.)


Don’t Know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK

A Overall, you understand how your Council makes decisions

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

B You have enough say in what your Council does

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

C

Overall, you have confidence that the Council makes decisions that are in the best interests of your district

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

Th

am

es

-

Co

rom

an

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilto

n

Mata

mata

-

Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Waik

ato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Wait

om

o

Ro

toru

a

Tau

po

Q14D

Q14E

Q14D Using the scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with the overall performance of your local Community Boards?

Very Very Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

Don’t know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99




Q14E How often have you had contact with a member of your community board in the past 12 months?

Daily ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

Weekly -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

Monthly ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

At least once in last 12 months ------------------------------------------- 4

Contacted but less than once in last 12 months -------------------- 5

Not had any contact in past 12 months --------------------------------- 6

No Answer --------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

CULTURE AND IDENTITY

Sense of Pride in the Way the District Looks and Feels (from Big Cities Quality of Life Survey 2004 & 2006)

Q15 Using the same scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the statement “You feel a sense of pride in the way your District looks and feels?


Don’t know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

Q16 What is the ONE main reason for saying this?? PROBE IF SAY BEAUTIFUL/ATTRACTIVE/PRETTY DISTRICT ASK: WHAT MAKES IT BEAUTIFUL/ATTRACTIVE/PRETTY? IF SAY LOVE/LIKE DISTRICT ASK: WHAT MAKES YOU LOVE/LIKE IT? IF

SAY IT’S A GREAT PLACE ASK: WHAT MAKES IT A GREAT PLACE? IF SAY COMPARES WELL WITH OTHER DISTRICTS ASK: WHAT MAKES IT COMPARE WELL?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Th

am

es

-

Co

rom

an

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilto

n

Mata

mata

-Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Waik

ato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Wait

om

o

Ro

toru

a

Tau

po

Q17B

Q17C

Q17E

Q17H

Q17I




Q17. Thinking about the environment you live in and using the same scale where 0 is very dissatisfied to 10 being very satisfied, how satisfied are you with <…>? (ROTATE STATEMENTS. SINGLE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) (CIRCLE ONE ONLY)

Very Very


Don’t Know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK

B The quality of your rivers and waterways

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

C

The community treatment of your districts natural assets (e.g. rivers, or bush)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

E The unique or special character of your town

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

H The level of protection given to special landscape features

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

I

That the impact from development on the coastline is adequately managed and minimised

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

Q18 What do you think makes your district unique or special?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY

Perception of Effect of Increased Diversity upon the Community (from Big Cities Quality of Life Survey 2004 & 2006)

Q19 New Zealand is becoming home for an increasing number of people from different countries with different lifestyles and cultures. Using the scale where 0 = strongly disagree and 10 = strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with <….>? …(Read out. Single response.)?


Don’t Know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DK

A

Your family are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

B

Your neighbourhood are knowledgeable and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

Q20 IF A OR B = DISAGREE (SCORES 0 – 3) OR AGREE (SCORES 7 – 10), ASK: For what reasons do you say that? PROMPT: WHAT OTHER REASONS?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




Q21 Thinking in general about your Quality of Life and using the scale where 0 = very unhappy and 10 = very happy, how happy are you with your Quality of Life?

Very Very Unhappy Neutral Happy

Don’t know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99

IF 7 OR LESS

IF MORE THAN 7 GO TO Q22E

GO TO

Q22E

Q21a IF Q21 RATED AT 7 OR LESS Why do you feel this way?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Th

am

es

-

Co

rom

an

del

Hau

raki

Waik

ato

Ham

ilto

n

Mata

mata

-Pia

ko

Waip

a

So

uth

Waik

ato

Oto

roh

an

ga

Wait

om

o

Ro

toru

a

Tau

po

Q22E CORE QUESTION – ASK ALL

Q22F CORE QUESTION – ASK ALL

Q22E Thinking of the issues of your District, (issues such as social issues like education, safety and community, cultural issues, environmental issues or economic issues such as business, jobs and money) what do you think are your areas three biggest issues?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

Q22F Now focussing only on the areas that your Council is responsible for what in your opinion, are the three main issues that Council should be looking at?

(PLEASE PROBE FULLY IDENTIFYING THE ACTUAL ISSUE E.G. IF ROAD CONGESTION FIND OUT WHAT ROADS, TIMES OF DAY

ETC)

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________




Q23 Finally, we wish to obtain some information about people participating in the survey to make sure we get a representative cross section of the community. Can you tell me what year you were born?

RECORD YEAR ___________________________

DO NOT READ OUT Refused---------------------- 9

Q24 Interviewer CIRCLE ONE ONLY

Male ------------------- 1 Female --------------- 2

Q25 Which ethnic group do you identify yourself with? (Circle one)

NZ of Maori descent --------------------- 1 NZ of European descent ---------------- 2

NZ of other descent ---------------------- 3 European / British ------------------------- 4

Pacific Islander ---------------------------- 5 Asian ----------------------------------------- 6

Indian ---------------------------------------- 7 Don’t read out – New Zealander ----- 8

Others (specify) ___________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

Q26 What type of accommodation do you live in? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY)

Own or live in family home ---------------- ---------- 1

Rent or lease --------------------------------- ---------- 2

Board ------------------------------------------ ----------- 3

Other (SPECIFY) ________________ ------------- 4

DO NOT READ OUT: REFUSED -------------------------- 5

Q27 Remembering the results of this survey are completely confidential, can you tell me which of these categories best matches the total annual income of your whole household before tax? (CIRCLE ONE)

Less than $20,000 --------------- 1 $20,000 to $30,000 -------------- 2

$30,000 to $40,000 -------------- 3 $40,000 to $50,000 -------------- 4

$50,000 to $70,000 -------------- 5 $70,000 to $100,000 ------------ 6

More than $100,000 ------------- 7

DO NOT READ OUT: REFUSED------------------------------- 8

DON’T KNOW -------------------------------------------------- 9

Q28 What is your highest educational qualification? (Read out again if necessary, circle one)

Primary school ----------------------------------------------- 1

Secondary school _________________________2

Secondary school qualification -------------------------- 3

Trade Certificate -------------------------------------------- 4

Tertiary qualification ---------------------------------------- 5

Other (specify) ----------------------------------------------- 6

DO NOT READ OUT: REFUSED------------------------------- 9

Q29 Do you live in a town or city or in a rural area?

Town / City ------------ 1 Rural -------------------- 2 Both -------------------- 3




Q30 Can you tell me where you live so that I can code your area?

____________________________________________________________________________

Q31 To allow us to analyse the data by District within the Waikato, can you please tell us the nearest intersection to your property?

First Road Second Road

Thank you very much for your time. The information that you gave us will be used to help your Council to focus on the issues which are important to the people of your District.

If you have any questions about this research, you are welcome to ring our office, on 07 859 2808. My name is Xxx, and the company name is Digipoll Ltd. (REPEAT IF NECESSARY)

Documents

MARCO Regional Waikato Perception Survey 2013 Waipa Report2010 Survey Feedback and evaluation of the 2007 survey was highly supportive for undertaking a similar survey every three