marco benchmark indicator report - december 2006 · 5.4.3.1 #68 – residents’ satisfaction with...
TRANSCRIPT
Whiriwhiria TeWaa HekeChoosing Futures
MARCOBenchmark Indicator Data Report 2006
December 2006
Page ii Doc #1093619
Table of Contents Acknowledgements 2
1 Introduction 31.1 Why monitor 31.2 What this report presents 3
2 Choosing Futures Waikato and MARCO 42.1 The Choosing Futures Process 42.2 Monitoring and Reporting on Community Outcomes – the MARCO group 5
3 Report Methodology 73.1 Background 73.2 Metadata collation 73.3 Data collation 83.4 Benchmark data report 83.5 Trend report 9
4 Indicator Summary 10
5 Benchmark Indicator Results 245.1 Sustainable Environment Theme 245.1.1 Air, land, water quality and biodiversity outcome 24
5.1.1.1 #1 – River water quality for ecological health 245.1.1.2 #2 – River water quality for recreation 255.1.1.3 #3 – Lakes water quality for ecological health 275.1.1.4 #4 – Lakes water quality for contact recreation 285.1.1.5 # 5 – Land use (under development) 295.1.1.6 #6 – Air quality (particulate matter, PM10) 305.1.1.7 #7 – Groundwater availability and use 325.1.1.8 #8 – Surface water availability and use 345.1.1.9 #9 – Protection of natural heritage and landscapes 345.1.1.10 #10 – Extent of native vegetation 345.1.1.11 #11 – Protected native vegetation areas (under development) 36
5.1.2 Environmental attitudes and behaviours outcome 365.1.2.1 #12 – People’s environmental attitudes 375.1.2.2 #13 – People’s personal environmental actions 38
5.1.3 Coastal environment outcome 435.1.3.1 #14 – Coastal water quality for recreation 435.1.3.2 #15 – Public access to coast (or Coastline ownership) 44
5.1.4 Rural environment outcome 465.1.4.1 #16 – Rural subdivision 465.1.4.2 #17 – Stock density 48
5.1.5 Energy outcome 505.1.5.1 #18 – Total energy consumption 505.1.5.2 #19 – Greenhouse gas emissions 515.1.5.3 #20 – Energy efficiency (or Energy use relative to economic growth) 54
5.1.6 Solid waste outcome 575.1.6.1 #21 – Waste to landfills 575.1.6.2 #22 – Proportion of recycling 59
5.2 Quality of Life Outcome Theme 615.2.1 Health outcome 61
5.2.1.1 #23 – Life expectancy at birth 615.2.1.2 #24 – Social deprivation index 625.2.1.3 #25 – Avoidable mortality and hospitalisation rates 675.2.1.4 #26 – Overall quality of life 695.2.1.5 #27 – Barriers to accessing General Practitioners (GPs) 71
5.2.2 Education outcome 725.2.2.1 #28 – School leavers with no formal qualification 725.2.2.2 #29 – Educational attainment of the adult population 745.2.2.3 #30 – Participation in early childhood education 84
Doc # 1084090 Page iii
5.2.2.4 #31 – Adult and community education 865.2.2.5 #32 – Work opportunities matching skills 87
5.2.3 Housing outcome 895.2.3.1 #33 – Rent to income ratio 895.2.3.2 #34 – Housing affordability 905.2.3.3 #35 – Home ownership rate 925.2.3.4 #36 – Household crowding (equivalised crowding index) 945.2.3.5 #37 – Proximity to work, study and recreation 95
5.2.4 Community safety outcome 955.2.4.1 #38 – Criminal victimisation rates 955.2.4.2 #39 – Perceptions of safety 975.2.4.3 #40 – Road traffic injury rates 101
5.2.5 Community participation outcome 1025.2.5.1 #41 – Unpaid work 102
5.2.6 Sport and leisure outcome 1095.2.6.1 #42 – Participation in sport and active leisure 110
5.2.7 Family and community cohesion outcome 1115.2.7.1 #43 – Participation in social networks and groups 1115.2.7.2 #44 – Contact between young people and their parents 114
5.2.8 Youth and older people outcome 1155.2.8.1 #45 – Youth and older people’s engagement in decision-making 116
5.3 Sustainable Economy Theme 1165.3.1 Sustainable Development Outcome 116
5.3.1.1 #46 – Genuine Progress Indicator (or Ecological footprint) 1165.3.2 Economic Prosperity Outcome 117
5.3.2.1 #47 – Regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 1175.3.2.2 #48 – Unemployment rate 1195.3.2.3 #49 – Median weekly income 1205.3.2.4 #50 – Number of businesses and employees by industry 1225.3.2.5 #51 – Building consents 131
5.3.3 Transport, infrastructure and services outcome 1335.3.3.1 #52 – Drinking water quality 1335.3.3.2 #53 – Road traffic crashes and casualties 136
5.3.4 Regional planning outcome 1375.3.4.1 #54 – Residents’ confidence in councils’ decision-making 1385.3.4.2 #55 – Residents’ satisfaction with councils’ approach to planning and providing services 139
5.3.5 Land-based industries outcome 1395.3.5.1 #56 – Regional GDP contributed by primary industries 139
5.3.6 Tourism outcome 1405.3.6.1 #57a – Nights in commercial accommodation 1405.3.6.2 #57b – Regions visited by international visitors and nights spent 1415.3.6.3 #58 – Income from tourism (international and domestic) 1425.3.6.4 #59 – Employment in the tourism industry 144
5.3.7 Research and innovation outcome 1455.3.7.1 #60 – Total research funding 1455.3.7.2 #61 – Enrolments at tertiary education institutes 147
5.4 Culture and Identity Outcome Theme 1495.4.1 Regional identity and pride outcome 149
5.4.1.1 #62 – Residents’ rating of their sense of pride in the way their city/town looks and feels 1495.4.1.2 #63 – Number of Maori speakers (in Maori and total population) 1515.4.1.3 #64 – Proportion of population that speak the ‘first language’ of their ethnic group 153
5.4.2 Historic buildings and places outcome 1555.4.2.1 #65 – Number of buildings and places listed on Historic Places Trust register 1555.4.2.2 #66 – Number and proportion of heritage buildings demolished or removed from heritage records 1575.4.2.3 #67 – Design of new developments 158
5.4.3 Culture and recreation outcome 1595.4.3.1 #68 – Residents’ satisfaction with cultural facilities provided 1595.4.3.2 #69 – Participation in cultural and arts activities 1595.4.3.3 #70 – Proportion of council’s spending on cultural activities and events 160
5.4.4 Creativity outcome 163
Page iv Doc #1093619
5.4.4.1 #71 – People employed in the cultural sector 1645.5 Participation and Equity Outcome Theme 1665.5.1 Civic participation 166
5.5.1.1 #72 – Percentage of voter turnout at local and general elections 1665.5.1.2 #73 – Degree of representation by tangata whenua and minority groups on governance and decision-making bodies 1685.5.1.3 #74 – Residents’ rating of satisfaction with council’s provision of opportunities for community involvement in decision-making 171
5.5.2 Cultural well-being outcome 1745.5.2.1 #75 – Percentage of residents’ perceiving that cultural diversity makes their region/city/town a better place to live 174
6 Data Gaps 1766.1 Summary of overall data gaps in core set of indicators 1766.2 Data gaps by coverage issue 1766.2.1 No data source identified 1766.2.2 No data available yet (indicator under development or data to be collected in
future) 1776.2.3 National data only 1776.2.4 Regional data only 1776.2.5 Data available for some territorial authorities only 1776.2.6 Territorial authority data only 1786.2.7 Data available but not within regional council boundaries 178
7 Recommendations 1797.1 Indicators where no data source identified 179
7.1.1.1 Recommendation 1 1797.2 Indicators where no data available yet 179
7.2.1.1 Recommendation 2 1797.2.1.2 Recommendation 3 180
7.3 Indicators where national data only 1807.3.1.1 Recommendation 4 1807.3.1.2 Recommendation 5 1807.3.1.3 Recommendation 6 180
7.4 Indicators where regional data only 1807.4.1.1 Recommendation 7 1817.4.1.2 Recommendation 8 181
7.5 Indicators where data available for some territorial authorities only 1817.5.1.1 Recommendation 9 1817.5.1.2 Recommendation 10 1817.5.1.3 Recommendation 11 1827.5.1.4 Recommendation 12 182
7.6 Indicators where data available for territorial authorities only 1827.6.1.1 Recommendation 13 1827.6.1.2 Recommendation 14 1827.6.1.3 Recommendation 15 182
7.7 Indicators where data available within non-regional boundaries 1837.7.1.1 Recommendation 16 183
8 Next Steps 184
9 Appendices 1859.1 Appendix 1 – LGA Requirements to Monitor and Report Community Outcomes 1859.2 Appendix 2 – Non-core indicators 186
Doc # 1084090 Page v
List of Tables Table 1: Summary of availability status for core indicators 10Table 2: Proportion of all samples collected during 2000-2004 which met the ‘excellent’,
‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ standards for ecological water quality in Waikato rivers and streams 25
Table 3: Proportion of all samples collected during 2000-2004 which met the ‘excellent’, ‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ standards for recreation in Waikato rivers and streams 26
Table 4: Nutrient enrichment of nine shallow lakes in the Waikato region (1993-2001) 27Table 5: Proportion of all samples collected during 2000-2004 which met the ‘excellent’,
‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ standards for ecological health in Lake Taupo 28
Table 6: Proportion of all samples collected during summer 2005-2006 which met the ‘excellent’, ‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ standards for contact recreation in Lake Taupo 29
Table 7: Percentage of air samples meeting “good”, “acceptable” or “alert” PM10 levels relative to guidelines, Waikato urban areas – 1998 to 2004 31
Table 8: Percentage of investigated areas with low, medium or high groundwater use in the Waikato Region 33
Table 9: Percentage of investigated areas with low, medium or high groundwater use – areas within the Waikato Region 33
Table 10: Extent of key land cover types in Waikato Region and territorial authorities, including indigenous vegetation 35
Table 11: Environmental attitudes in the Waikato Region 2004 37Table 12: Environmental attitudes in the Waikato Region 2004 by territorial authority 37Table 13: Most common named actions people have taken to protect the environment –
Waikato Region, 1998 and 2003 39Table 14: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Franklin
District 2003 39Table 15: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Hamilton City
2003 39Table 16: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Hauraki
District 2003 40Table 17: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Matamata-
Piako District 2003 40Table 18: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Otorohanga
District 2003 40Table 19: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Rotorua
District 2003 41Table 20: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – South Waikato
District 2003 41Table 21: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Taupo District
2003 41Table 22: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Thames-
Coromandel District 2003 42Table 23: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Waikato
District 2003 42Table 24: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Waipa District
2003 42Table 25: Top six actions people have taken to protect the environment – Waitomo
District 2003 42Table 26: Proportion of samples collected during 2005 (West Coast) and 2006 (East
Coast and Hauraki Gulf) which met the ‘excellent’, ‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ standards for contact recreation on the coast – Waikato Region 44
Table 27: Length and ownership of Waikato Region coastal margin property by coastal area – 2002 45
Table 28: Summary of rural land subdivided between March 5 1991- March 5 1996, and March 6 1996 – March 6 2001, Waikato Region 47
Table 29: Summary of intensified rural land in the Waikato Region between March 5 1991 - March 5 1996, by territorial authority 47
Table 30: Summary of intensified rural land in the Waikato Region between March 6 1996 - March 6 2001, by territorial authority 48
Page vi Doc #1093619
Table 31: Stock density in seven major water catchment zones in the Waikato Region, January 2001 49
Table 32: Annual energy consumption 2003 – Waikato Region and Hamilton City 50Table 33: Source of energy consumed in 2003 – Waikato Region and Hamilton City 50Table 34: Estimated total agricultural emissions of six greenhouse gases by territorial
authority, 2001 (estimates are reported in units of CO2 equivalents using Global Warming Potentials published in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) 52
Table 35: Estimated total area emissions of six greenhouse gases by territorial authority, 2001 (estimates are reported in units of CO2 equivalents using Global Warming Potentials published in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) 52
Table 36: Estimated total industrial emissions of six greenhouse gases by territorial authority, 2001 (estimates are reported in units of CO2 equivalents using Global Warming Potentials published in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) 53
Table 37: Estimated total natural emissions of six greenhouse gases by territorial authority, 2001 (estimates are reported in units of CO2 equivalents using Global Warming Potentials published in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) 53
Table 38: Estimated total transport emissions of six greenhouse gases by territorial authority, 2001 (estimates are reported in units of CO2 equivalents using Global Warming Potentials published in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) 54
Table 39: Energy use and contribution to GDP in the Waikato Region by economic sector 2003 55
Table 40: Landfill disposal data for selected territorial authorities in the Waikato Region – 2005 58
Table 41: Waste diverted from landfill (recycled) for selected territorial authorities in the Waikato Region – 2005 60
Table 42: Life expectancy from birth for Waikato Region and selected territorial authorities, 1990-92, 1995-97, 2000-02 61
Table 43: Avoidable mortality rate – Waikato District Health Board compared to New Zealand, 2000 68
Table 44: Avoidable hospitalisations - Waikato District Health Board compared to New Zealand, 2002 68
Table 45: Avoidable mortality by territorial authority in the Waikato DHB area 1998-2001 by population estimate (2001) 68
Table 46: Avoidable hospitalisations by territorial authority in the Waikato DHB area 2000-2003 by population estimate (2001) 69
Table 47: Respondents rating of overall quality of life – Hamilton City 2004 70Table 48: People who wanted to go to a GP in the last 12 months but felt unable to –
Hamilton City 2004 71Table 49: Number of students leaving Secondary Schools in 2004 with little or no
qualifications by gender – Waikato region and territorial authorities 73Table 50: Number of students leaving Secondary Schools in 2004 with little or no
qualifications by ethnicity – Waikato region and territorial authorities 73Table 51: Highest qualification by gender for usually resident population aged 15 years
and over 2001 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities 76Table 52: Highest qualification for Maori ethnic group by gender for the usually resident
population aged 15 years and over, 2001 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities 78
Table 53: Highest qualification for Maori ethnic group by gender for the usually resident population aged 15 years and over, 2001 – Waikato Region (continued) and territorial authorities 81
Table 54: Percent enrolments in Early Childhood Education services by age – Waikato Region 2005 85
Table 55: Number of Year 1 students who have had some Early Childhood Education (ECE), No ECE or unknown if had ECE, by territorial authority, 2005 85
Table 56: Number of Year 1 students who have had some Early Childhood Education (ECE) by ethnicity and territorial authority, 2005 86
Table 57: Respondents in paid employment who are using work skills, training and experience in their current jobs – Hamilton City 2004 88
Table 58: Rent to Income Ratio (percentage) for households paying rent for the private dwellings they occupy 1991, 1996, 2001 - Waikato Region and territorial authorities 90
Doc # 1084090 Page vii
Table 59: Households(1) with housing costs(2) that are at least 25%, 30% or 40% of total net income(3), as a percentage of all households 2000-2001 – Waikato Region and HES Regions 91
Table 60: Households in owner occupied private dwellings as a percentage of households in all private occupied dwellings, 1991, 1996 and 2001 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities 93
Table 61: Number of bedrooms per household, number of people per bedroom and Equivalised Crowding Index, 1991, 1996, 2001 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities 94
Table 62: Victimisation rates in 2000 per 100 people by sex and by type of personal victimisation – whole of New Zealand 95
Table 63: Victimisation rates in 2000 per 100 participants by ethnicity and by type of personal victimisation – whole of New Zealand 96
Table 64: Recorded offences and resolution rates for Waikato Police District 2004 and 2005 96
Table 65: Respondents who feel safe in their homes after dark – Hamilton City 2004 98Table 66: Respondents who feel safe in their local neighbourhood after dark – Hamilton
City 2004 99Table 67: Respondents who feel safe in their city centre after dark – Hamilton City 2004 100Table 68: Total number of road traffic crashes resulting in injury and total number of
injuries in 2004 and 2005 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities 102Table 69: Unpaid activities (total responses) and gender for census usually resident
population aged 15 years and over 2001 – Waikato Region 103Table 70: Unpaid activities (Total responses) and gender, for the Census usually resident
population aged 15 years and over, 2001, by territorial authority 105Table 71: Unpaid activities (Total responses) and gender, for the Census usually resident
population aged 15 years and over, 2001, by territorial authority (continued) 106Table 72: Unpaid activities (Total responses) and gender for Maori ethnic group, for the
Census usually resident population aged 15 years and over, 2001, by territorial authority 107
Table 73: Unpaid activities (Total responses) and gender for Maori ethnic group, for the Census usually resident population aged 15 years and over, 2001, by territorial authority (continued) 108
Table 74: Groups or social networks that matter the most to respondents – Hamilton City 2004 112
Table 75: Total people employed, unemployed and unemployment rate for Waikato Region – March 2004 to March 2006 119
Table 76: Unemployment rate for territorial authorities by total population and Maori population, 2001 119
Table 77: Median weekly income for the Waikato Region by age group 2005 121Table 78: Median weekly income for the Waikato Region by gender 2005 121Table 79: Median weekly income for the Waikato Region by ethnicity 2005 122Table 80: Number of business enterprises, geographic units and employee counts by
ANZSIC industry type – Waikato Region 2005 124Table 81: Number of business enterprises, geographic units and employee counts by
ANZSIC industry type, by territorial authority 2005 125Table 82: Number of business enterprises, geographic units and employee counts by
ANZSIC industry type, by territorial authority 2005 (continued) 126Table 83: Number of business enterprises, geographic units and employee counts by
ANZSIC industry type, by territorial authority 2005 (continued) 128Table 84: Number of new dwelling units authorised – Waikato Region and selected
territorial authorities – April 2005 -2006 132Table 85: Public health grading for community water supplies for over 500 people, by
territorial authority, as at May 2005 134Table 86: Total number of road traffic crashes resulting in fatality or injury and total
number of fatalities and injuries in 2004 and 2005 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities 137
Table 87: Residents’ rating of agreement that decisions made by their local council are in the best interests of the city (Hamilton City 2004). 138
Table 88: Guest nights by month for territorial authorities in the Waikato Region – October 2005 to May 2006 140
Table 89: Number of international visitors visiting Waikato Region and nights spent – December 2001 to December 2005 141
Table 90: International and domestic visitor expenditure – Waikato RTO 143Table 91: International and domestic visitor expenditure – Coromandel RTO 143
Page viii Doc #1093619
Table 92: International and domestic visitor expenditure – Lake Taupo RTO 143Table 93: Summary of Tourism Employment(1)(2) for New Zealand 144Table 94: National research and development expenditure by sector and published
industry – 2002 and 2004 145Table 95: Research and development expenditure as a proportion of GDP by sector 146Table 96: Number of students at major tertiary institutions in Waikato Region by provider,
nature of attendance, source of funding and gender - July 2004 148Table 97: Residents’ rating of their sense of pride in the way their city looks and feels –
Hamilton City 2004 150Table 98: Language spoken (Maori) and sex, for the Census usually resident population
count, 2001 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities 151Table 99: Language spoken (Maori) and sex, for the Maori ethnic group Census usually
resident population count, 2001 152Table 100: Proportion of people speaking the first language of their ethnic group – whole
of New Zealand 2001 (Table 1 from “Concerning Language” report) 154Table 101: Buildings and sites registered on Historic Places Trust Register as at 29 May
2006 by territorial authority 156Table 102: Number of historic places removed from the Historic Places Trust Register as
at 29 May 2006 by territorial authority 157Table 103: Number of people employed in cultural sector – change over time between
1991 and 2001 – New Zealand 165Table 104: People employed in cultural occupations by key employment indicators
(ethnicity, gender, qualifications, income) – New Zealand 2001 165Table 105: Percentage of all enrolled electors who cast a vote in the 2004 local body
elections – Waikato Region and territorial authorities 167Table 106: Percentage of estimated voting age population who cast a vote in 2002
general election – Waikato Region 167Table 107: The proportion of female elected members of city or district councils in the
2004 local body elections by territorial authority 170Table 108: Percentage of Maori elected members in local government across New
Zealand – 1992 to 2001 170Table 109: Percentage of respondents who agree that they would like more of a say in
what the council does – Hamilton City 2004 172Table 110: Residents’ rating of the amount of influence the public has on decisions that
council makes – Hamilton City 2004 173Table 111: Resident’s perceptions about whether cultural diversity makes Hamilton City a
better place to live – 2004 174Table 112: Summary of overall data gaps in core set of indicators 176
Doc # 1084090 Page ix
List of Figures Figure 1: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Franklin District usually resident population
2001 63Figure 2: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Waikato District usually resident population
2001 63Figure 3: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Hamilton City usually resident population
2001 63Figure 4: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Thames-Coromandel District usually resident
population 2001 64Figure 5: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Hauraki District usually resident population
2001 64Figure 6: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Matamata-Piako District usually resident
population 2001 64Figure 7: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Waipa District usually resident population
2001 65Figure 8: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Otorohanga District usually resident
population 2001 65Figure 9: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Waitomo District usually resident population
2001 65Figure 10: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for South Waikato District usually resident
population 2001 66Figure 11: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Taupo District usually resident population
2001 66Figure 12: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Rotorua District usually resident population
2001 66Figure 13: Proportion of female secondary school students (aged 12–18 years) reporting
that most weeks they spent enough time with their parents (Reference period 2001) 114
Figure 14: Proportion of male secondary school students (age 12-18 years) reporting that most weeks they spent enough time with their parents (Reference period 2001) 115
Figure 15: Number of adults experiencing most popular cultural activities in previous four weeks (Figure 1.01) - 2002 159
Figure 16: Number of adults experiencing most popular cultural activities in previous 12 months - 2002 160
Figure 17: Local government spending on culture across NZ – 1999/2000 to 2003/04 161Figure 18: Local government total and per capita spending on public libraries 2003/2004 162Figure 19: Local government spending on museums and galleries – 1999/2000 to
2003/2004 162Figure 20: Local government spending on venues – 1999/2000 to 2003/2004 163Figure 21: Number of people employed in cultural sector – New Zealand 2001 164Figure 22: Proportion of female elected members of the city or district council in the 2004
local body elections by region 169
Page 2 Doc #1093619
Acknowledgements The MARCO Team (Monitoring and Reporting Community Outcomes) has been formed to develop co-ordinated procedures for monitoring progress towards the achievement of community outcomes. The team includes representatives from local authorities, central government and the Waikato District Health Board.
This report could not have been produced without the assistance of a number of people from different organisations. Special thanks to the two contractors doing most of the work, Angie Bryant, Andy Haigh and Hannah Jones, supervised by the Project Manager Beat Huser. Invaluable guidance and direction were provided by the team members of MARCO (Monitoring and Reporting Community Outcomes) and COPT (Community Outcomes Project Team). Funding from the multi-agency Choosing Futures Waikato partnership is gratefully acknowledged. A sincere thanks to all the providers of data for their very helpful and timely assistance in making data available and providing information about the data. Lastly, we thank all the organisations who commented on an earlier draft for their input to improve the report. A special thanks to Statistics NZ for reviewing the final draft.
Doc # 1084090 Page 3
1 Introduction
1.1 Why monitor Monitoring of local and regional progress indicators is required to fulfil legislative obligations of councils and other organisations to better inform local strategic thinking and planning, and as a basis for community and stakeholder decision-making and action. Monitoring and reporting is a vital step in the overall planning cycle.
Integrated monitoring encompasses links between indicators at the national, regional and local level, covers all aspects of community well-being and is of benefit to a wide range of agencies and organisations.
Indicators summarise complex data so that changes can be detected over time. They provide a general signal about issues and trends. Additional information is generally required to understand changes and their implications.
1.2 What this report presents This document has been prepared for a working group of Waikato region strategic planners, known as MARCO (Monitoring and Reporting on Community Outcomes). MARCO is affiliated with the Waikato Information Forum (WINFO) and is part of the Choosing Futures Waikato (CFW) community outcome process.
This report presents metadata, the most recent data available and some trend data for the 75 core indicators identified by MARCO in March 2006 as most critical for measuring progress towards achievement of community outcomes across the Waikato Region. It provides a benchmark assessment of what data is available for these core indicators and where it can be found. Data gaps are identified and recommendations made about options for addressing these gaps where possible.
It is important to note that this is a data report only - no analysis has been undertaken to assess what recent data for each indicator tells us about progress towards achieving the relevant community outcomes. This report provides a platform for regional and territorial authority strategic planners to begin this analysis and prepare their inaugural community outcomes progress reports.
Page 4 Doc #1093619
2 Choosing Futures Waikato and MARCO
2.1 The Choosing Futures Process The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires every local authority (regional, district and city council) to carry out a process to identify community outcomes. These are statements of how the community wants to be in the intermediate to long-term future. A key purpose of the identification process is to provide an opportunity for people to discuss their desired community outcomes in terms of present and future social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being.
In 2004 the twelve territorial authorities of the Waikato Region agreed to cooperate with each other, and with the Waikato Regional Council (EW), to coordinate a process to identify regional-level community outcomes. Participating council areas are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The Waikato region
Source: www.choosingfutures.co.nz
The Waikato regional community outcomes are broader than just council activities or local issues, encompassing the overall social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of the Waikato Region. The regional community outcomes sit alongside and supplement the local community outcomes identified within each territorial authority area.
In mid 2004 a coordinator was appointed to oversee the regional community consultation project and a consultation plan was subsequently developed and undertaken, consisting of four steps:
Doc # 1084090 Page 5
1. Visioning (November 2004 to March 2005) – a key stakeholder workshop and series of nine community workshops held throughout the Waikato Region to gain ideas about people’s aspirations for the region.
2. Organising (May to June 2005) – collation of various strands of information by a broadly representative cross-sectoral Community Outcomes Working Group. Information was collated from (a) the regional visioning process, (b) local community outcomes processes undertaken by the local councils as part of their own community outcomes processes, (c) previous information collected by local authorities about community aspirations and issues, and (d) information collected through a parallel iwi consultation process undertaken at the regional level with the Trust Boards for Tuwharetoa, Maniapoto, Raukawa, Waikato and Hauraki, coordinated by the Tai-Ranga-Whenua Unit of EW and Kowhai Consulting Ltd. (Consultation has also been undertaken at a local level between local authorities and iwi, hapu and Maori organisations whose rohe falls within each of the local authority boundaries).
3. Key Stakeholder Review (June 2005) – key stakeholders reviewed the draft outcomes and contributed in more detail.
4. Community Review (August to September 2005) – the regional community reviewed the draft outcomes and provided feedback.
A draft set of community outcomes was confirmed by the Community Outcomes Working Group in September 2005 and the final set was ‘signed off’ in November 2005. For further information about the Choosing Futures Waikato process to identify regional community outcomes, e-mail [email protected].
2.2 Monitoring and Reporting on Community Outcomes – the MARCO group To develop co-ordinated procedures for monitoring progress towards achievement of regional community outcomes, a working group “Monitoring and Reporting on Community Outcomes” (MARCO) has been formed. The group is made up of strategic planners from across the Waikato Region, including Environment Waikato, city and district councils and Waikato District Health Board.
The goal of MARCO is to compile data for a regional core set of indicators that is relevant at both the regional and local levels. The intention is to ensure that monitoring of community outcomes is consistent, efficient and accurate. The core set is applicable to all or most local authorities and will be accessible using a web-based data discovery tool. The tool will allow the searching, discovery and download of data and important background information about each indicator (metadata). This will enable information sharing and more efficient use of expertise across the region, which should result in costs savings and better quality information being captured.
This report provides a benchmark for the identified core indicators, which can be used for monitoring trends over the coming years.
The core indicators were selected from an initial list of over 200 potential indicators, based on an evaluation of technical feasibility (measurability, cost effectiveness and understandability), local relevance (survey of all twelve Waikato district/city councils), regional relevance (Workshop with the Community Outcomes Working Group). A prioritised ranking list combines the results of all the above assessments (refer to http://choosingfutures.co.nz/indicators/).
Page 6 Doc #1093619
Further work will be carried out on the suitability and availability of non-core indicators to complement the information obtained from the core indicators and further assist tracking progress towards achieving regional and local community outcomes.
Also, in a parallel process, work has begun to explore and identify suitable Maori/Iwi indicators. This is being undertaken with Iwi representatives to ensure the relevance and usefulness of the indicators. Very little work has been undertaken on Maori/Iwi indicators and considerable effort and resources will be required to advance these.
Doc # 1084090 Page 7
3 Report Methodology
3.1 Background Data and associated metadata for the 75 core regional indicators were collated between March and June 2006. These were selected from over 200 initial indicators identified as potentially suitable to measure community outcomes (see www.choosingfutures.co.nz).
The core set was selected based on:
Regional relevance (defined at Community Outcomes Working Group workshop on 15 November 2005)
Local relevance (defined using the outcomes of a survey of all Waikato district and city councils undertaken through the Strategic Planners Network)
Technical evaluation – measurability, cost-effectiveness, understandability (defined by the MARCO group).
A combined ranking of all indicators led to the selection of the core group. For a copy of the combined ranking, as well as the results of the three individual assessments, contact the Choosing Futures Waikato Co-ordinator (http://choosingfutures.co.nz/index.asp?pageID=2145829820).
The resulting core indicator set formed the basis for gathering and collation of metadata and data and the preparation of this Benchmark Indicator report. The information provided by the MARCO (Monitoring and Reporting Community Outcomes) working group included data source/s for each indicator (where known), and notes about availability at different geographic levels and cross-tabulations.
3.2 Metadata1 collation MARCO required that a metadata template be used similar to that already used by Environment Waikato for regional environmental indicators. Metadata was collected under the following headings:
What this indicator is about Why we monitor this indicator Where and how this data is collected Monitoring sites Monitoring frequency Monitoring history Measurement techniques How this indicator is compiled Useful links Contact person.
As the task progressed, the following extra fields were added to provide better quality metadata: Current limitations Other indicators and data sources.
1 Metadata are "Data about data ". Structured information that describes and/or enables finding, managing, controlling, understanding or preserving other information over time. Used by search engines to find records of resources which match the search terms a searcher has entered into the search engine (http://www.e.govt.nz/standards/nzgls/standard/usage-guide-2-1/).
Page 8 Doc #1093619
The first step in gathering metadata was to investigate the data source provided by MARCO. Data sources were almost all web-based and relatively simple to locate. Relevant websites were accessed and searched for the relevant information. Some data sources provided clearly labelled metadata, while others required a more thorough search and follow up with contact people from the relevant organisation to check key points. A master spreadsheet was maintained by the contractors to document progress with each indicator – refer to EW document #1063382. This included when and who follow-up emails were sent to in order to check metadata details.
Metadata template documents were filled in for each indicator as the metadata was gathered. For all indicators sourced directly from Statistics NZ, metadata documents were reviewed by relevant Statistics NZ staff members to ensure accuracy.
Any data gaps or limitations were recorded, along with alternative indicator and data sources, and future monitoring plans where known.
3.3 Data collation The most recent data available at the time of report preparation were used as the benchmark (or baseline) for the report. For indicators based on Census data, 2001 data has been used in the benchmark report, as official 2006 Census was not yet available.
For most indicators, the most recent data available was able to be collated from the web-based data source provided by MARCO. Data was downloaded in whatever form available for each indicator, ranging from Excel spreadsheets to image files, and saved into clearly labelled data files on the EW computer system.
Where available and relevant, data was collated for each indicator at the following levels: Waikato Region Territorial authority By gender By age group By ethnicity.
Where relevant or specifically requested by MARCO, data for other cross-tabulations were also collated.
3.4 Benchmark data report This benchmark data report has involved the compilation of background information about the MARCO project and the benchmark data gathering process, together with key information for each core indicator.
The key section of the report (Section 5 – Benchmark Indicator Results) is structured around the themes and outcomes determined by the Choosing Futures Waikato process. This section was prepared largely by extracting the relevant metadata information for each indicator from the completed metadata sheets, together with the most recent data available for each indicator (as at end of May 2006 when the data gathering process was completed). Care has been taken to focus on presenting the available raw data, rather than undertaking any additional data analysis or processing to better meet the needs of MARCO. The author considers this is the next step for the MARCO team to consider, based on the raw data available.
Data gaps have been highlighted and the author has made some recommendations about how these could be addressed in the future.
Doc # 1084090 Page 9
3.5 Trend report Following the preparation of a comprehensive draft benchmark data report, the MARCO team requested that the author collate trend data for core indicators where available. While some trend data is already included in this benchmark report, a separate trend report has been prepared to include time series data for those core indicators where it is currently easily and freely available. Further trend data has not been included in this benchmark report in order to keep the report size manageable. Refer to Environment Waikato document # 1094863 for the trend data report.
Page
10
Doc
#10
8409
0
4 In
dica
tor S
umm
ary
Tabl
e 1:
Sum
mar
y of
ava
ilabi
lity
stat
us fo
r cor
e in
dica
tors
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
Sust
aina
ble
Envi
ronm
ent
5.1.
1.1
1 R
iver
wat
er q
ualit
y fo
r eco
logi
cal h
ealth
20
04
Reg
iona
l
Key
cat
chm
ents
N/A
5.1.
1.2
2 R
iver
wat
er q
ualit
y fo
r rec
reat
ion
20
04
Reg
iona
l
Key
cat
chm
ents
N/A
5.1.
1.3
3 La
kes
wat
er q
ualit
y fo
r eco
logi
cal h
ealth
20
04 (L
ake
Taup
o)
2001
(Pea
t lak
es)
Lake
Tau
po
Nin
e sh
allo
w p
eat l
akes
in R
egio
n
N/A
5.1.
1.4
4 La
kes
wat
er q
ualit
y fo
r con
tact
recr
eatio
n S
umm
er 2
005-
06
Lake
Tau
po (T
aupo
Dis
trict
onl
y)
N/A
5.1.
1.5
5 La
nd u
se
No
data
– p
roje
ct u
nder
way
with
Sta
tistic
s N
ew Z
eala
nd a
nd L
andc
are
Res
earc
h to
add
ress
this
gap
.
- N
/A
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
11
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
5.1.
1.6
6 A
ir qu
ality
(par
ticul
ate
mat
ter,
PM
10)
2004
R
egio
nal (
sele
cted
urb
an a
reas
) N
/A
5.1.
1.7
7 G
roun
dwat
er a
vaila
bilit
y an
d us
e 20
02
Reg
iona
l N
/A
5.1.
1.8
8 S
urfa
ce w
ater
ava
ilabi
lity
and
use
No
data
– in
dica
tor u
nder
dev
elop
men
t (li
kely
to b
e re
gion
al o
nly)
N
/A
5.1.
1.9
9 P
rote
ctio
n of
nat
ural
her
itage
and
land
scap
es
No
data
sou
rce
iden
tifie
d -
N/A
5.1
.1.1
0 10
E
xten
t of n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion
(fore
st,
wet
land
,coa
stal
)
1996
R
egio
nal,
loca
l (bu
t par
ts o
f som
e
TAs
not i
nclu
ded
if ou
t of r
egio
n)
N/A
5.1
.1.1
1 11
P
rote
cted
nat
ive
vege
tatio
n ar
eas
No
data
ava
ilabl
e ye
t at r
egio
nal l
evel
–
indi
cato
r und
er d
evel
opm
ent.
Som
e da
ta a
vaila
ble
at lo
cal l
evel
but
not c
lear
how
con
sist
ent b
etw
een
TAs.
Reg
iona
l
Som
e lo
cal
N/A
5.1.
2.1
12
Peo
ple’
s en
viro
nmen
tal a
ttitu
des
2004
R
egio
nal
Loca
l
Not
read
ily a
vaila
ble
but p
ossi
bly
on
requ
est
Page
12
Doc
#10
8409
0
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
5.1
.2.2
13
P
eopl
e’s
pers
onal
env
ironm
enta
l act
ions
20
03
Reg
iona
l
Loca
l
Not
read
ily a
vaila
ble
but p
ossi
bly
on
requ
est
5.1
.3.1
14
C
oast
al w
ater
qua
lity
for r
ecre
atio
n 20
05/2
006
Reg
iona
l N
/A
5.1
.3.2
15
P
ublic
acc
ess
(or C
oast
line
owne
rshi
p)
No
data
sou
rce
iden
tifie
d
2002
- Reg
iona
l
Coa
stal
are
as
N/A
5.1
.4.1
16
R
ural
sub
divi
sion
20
01
Reg
iona
l
Loca
l
N/A
5.1
.4.2
17
S
tock
den
sity
20
01
Reg
iona
l
Maj
or c
atch
men
t zon
es
N/A
5.1
.5.1
18
To
tal e
nerg
y co
nsum
ptio
n 20
03
Reg
iona
l
Ham
ilton
City
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
13
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
5.1
.5.2
19
G
reen
hous
e ga
s em
issi
ons
2001
Lo
cal
N/A
5.1
.5.3
20
E
nerg
y ef
ficie
ncy
(or E
nerg
y us
e re
lativ
e to
eco
nom
ic g
row
th)
- 2003
- Reg
iona
l
N/A
N/A
5.1
.6.1
21
W
aste
to la
ndfil
ls
2005
Lo
cal b
ut n
ot c
ompr
ehen
sive
N
/A
5.1
.6.2
22
P
ropo
rtion
of r
ecyc
ling
20
05
Loca
l but
not
com
preh
ensi
ve
N/A
Qua
lity
of
Life
5.2
.1.1
23
Life
exp
ecta
ncy
at b
irth
2000
-02
Reg
iona
l
Tham
es-C
orom
ande
l Dis
trict
Ham
ilton
City
, Wai
pa D
istri
ct
Not
ava
ilabl
e
5.2
.1.2
24
S
ocia
l dep
rivat
ion
inde
x 20
01
Loca
l
Sub
-loca
l ava
ilabl
e fro
m M
oH
N/A
as
inde
x is
are
a
base
d, s
o do
esn’
t
look
at i
ndiv
idua
ls
5.2
.1.3
25
A
void
able
mor
talit
y an
d ho
spita
lisat
ion
rate
s 20
00
Wai
kato
DH
B D
istri
ct
Loca
l – T
errit
oria
l aut
horit
ies
Not
read
ily a
vaila
ble
but c
ould
pos
sibl
y
be a
cces
sed
thro
ugh
Page
14
Doc
#10
8409
0
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
with
in W
aika
to D
HB
Dis
trict
; oth
er
terr
itoria
l aut
horit
ies
prob
ably
avai
labl
e fro
m a
djoi
ning
DH
Bs
Min
istry
of H
ealth
5.2.
1.4
26
Ove
rall
qual
ity o
f life
20
04
Ham
ilton
City
Reg
iona
l fro
m 2
006
Yes
5.2.
1.5
27
Bar
riers
to a
cces
sing
Gen
eral
Pra
ctiti
oner
s 20
04
Ham
ilton
City
Reg
iona
l fro
m 2
006
Yes
5.2.
2.1
28
Sch
ool l
eave
rs w
ith n
o fo
rmal
qua
lific
atio
n 20
04
Reg
iona
l
Loca
l
Yes
5.2
.2.2
29
Edu
catio
nal a
ttain
men
t of t
he a
dult
popu
latio
n 20
01
Reg
iona
l
Loca
l
Yes
5.2.
2.3
30
Par
ticip
atio
n in
ear
ly c
hild
hood
edu
catio
n 20
04
Nat
iona
l N
ot a
vaila
ble
5.2.
2.4
31
Adu
lt an
d co
mm
unity
edu
catio
n D
ata
not y
et a
vaila
ble
- -
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
15
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
5.2
.2.5
32
W
ork
oppo
rtuni
ties
mat
chin
g sk
ills
2004
R
egio
nal f
rom
200
6
Ham
ilton
City
Yes
5.2
.3.1
33
R
ent t
o in
com
e ra
tio
2001
R
egio
nal
Loca
l
N/A
bec
ause
bas
ed
on h
ouse
hold
s no
t
indi
vidu
als
5.2
.3.2
34
H
ousi
ng a
fford
abili
ty
2000
-01
Nat
iona
l
Reg
iona
l for
200
0-01
onl
y
N/A
(as
abov
e)
5.2
.3.3
35
H
ome
owne
rshi
p ra
te
2001
R
egio
nal
Loca
l
N/A
(as
abov
e)
5.2
.3.4
36
H
ouse
hold
cro
wdi
ng
2001
R
egio
nal
Loca
l
N/A
(as
abov
e)
5.2
.3.5
37
P
roxi
mity
to w
ork,
stu
dy, r
ecre
atio
n
No
data
sou
rce
iden
tifie
d -
-
38
C
rimin
al v
ictim
isat
ion
rate
s
2000
N
atio
nal
Yes
Page
16
Doc
#10
8409
0
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
5.2
.4.1
(a
ltern
ativ
e in
dica
tor a
t loc
al le
vel -
Rep
orte
d
crim
inal
offe
nces
and
reso
lutio
n ra
tes)
2004
and
200
5 R
egio
nal (
Wai
kato
Pol
ice
Dis
trict
)
Loca
l (M
PD
C),
othe
r TA
s un
sure
To b
e co
nfirm
ed
5.
2.4.
2 39
P
erce
ptio
ns o
f saf
ety
2004
H
amilt
on C
ity
Reg
iona
l fro
m 2
006
Yes
5.
2.4.
3 40
R
oad
traffi
c in
jury
rate
s
2004
R
egio
nal
Loca
l
To b
e co
nfirm
ed
5.
2.5.
1 41
U
npai
d w
ork
2001
R
egio
nal
Loca
l
Yes
5.
2.6.
1 42
P
artic
ipat
ion
in s
port
and
activ
e le
isur
e 20
01
Reg
iona
l (S
PA
RC
)
Reg
iona
l fro
m 2
006
(QoL
)
Ham
ilton
City
from
200
6 (Q
oL)
To b
e co
nfirm
ed
Yes
Yes
5.
2.7.
1 43
P
artic
ipat
ion
in s
ocia
l net
wor
ks a
nd g
roup
s 20
04
Ham
ilton
City
Reg
iona
l fro
m 2
006
Yes
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
17
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
5.
2.7.
2 44
C
onta
ct b
etw
een
youn
g pe
ople
and
thei
r par
ents
20
01
Reg
iona
l N
ot a
vaila
ble
5.2
.8.1
45
Y
outh
and
old
er p
eopl
e’s
enga
gem
ent i
n
deci
sion
-mak
ing
No
data
sou
rce
iden
tifie
d -
-
Sust
aina
ble
Econ
omy
5.3
.1.1
46
Gen
uine
Pro
gres
s In
dica
tor
(alte
rnat
ive
indi
cato
r unt
il G
PI a
vaila
ble
-
Eco
logi
cal f
ootp
rint)
No
data
ava
ilabl
e ye
t – in
dica
tor u
nder
deve
lopm
ent
Eco
logi
cal f
ootp
rint –
199
6-99
- Reg
iona
l onl
y
N/A
N/A
5.3
.2.1
47
R
egio
nal G
DP
N
o da
ta a
vaila
ble
yet –
indi
cato
r und
er
deve
lopm
ent
Reg
iona
l onl
y
N/A
5.
3.2.
2 48
U
nem
ploy
men
t rat
e D
ec 2
005
2001
Reg
iona
l
Loca
l
Yes
Yes
5.
3.2.
3 49
M
edia
n w
eekl
y in
com
e 20
05
Reg
iona
l
Loca
l not
read
ily a
vaila
ble
but
poss
ibly
by
requ
est f
or a
fee
Yes
To b
e co
nfirm
ed
Page
18
Doc
#10
8409
0
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
5.
3.2.
4 50
N
umbe
r of b
usin
esse
s an
d em
ploy
ees
by
indu
stry
2005
R
egio
nal
Loca
l
N/A
5.3
.2.5
51
B
uild
ing
cons
ents
A
pril
2006
R
egio
nal
Ham
ilton
City
, Fra
nklin
Dis
trict
,
Tham
es-C
orom
ande
l Dis
trict
,
Wai
pa D
istri
ct a
nd T
aupo
Dis
trict
read
ily a
vaila
ble.
Rem
aini
ng T
As
avai
labl
e fro
m IN
FOS
for a
fee
or
from
TA
s th
emse
lves
.
N/A
5.3
.3.1
52
D
rinki
ng w
ater
qua
lity
20
05
Loca
l and
sub
-loca
l N
/A
5.3
.3.2
53
R
oad
traffi
c cr
ashe
s an
d ca
sual
ties
2004
R
egio
nal
Loca
l
To b
e co
nfirm
ed
5.3
.4.1
54
R
esid
ents
’ con
fiden
ce in
cou
ncil’
s de
cisi
on
mak
ing
2004
R
egio
nal 2
006
Ham
ilton
City
Yes
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
19
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
5.3
.4.2
55
R
esid
ent s
atis
fact
ion
with
cou
ncils
' app
roac
h to
plan
ning
and
pro
vidi
ng s
ervi
ces
No
data
sou
rce
iden
tifie
d -
-
5.3
.5.1
56
R
egio
nal G
DP
con
tribu
ted
by p
rimar
y in
dust
ries
N
o da
ta a
vaila
ble
yet –
indi
cato
r und
er
deve
lopm
ent
Reg
iona
l onl
y pl
anne
d N
/A
5.3
.6.1
5.3
.6.2
57
Nig
hts
in c
omm
erci
al a
ccom
mod
atio
n
Reg
ions
vis
ited
by in
tern
atio
nal v
isito
rs a
nd
nigh
ts s
pent
Mar
ch 2
006
Dec
embe
r 200
5
Loca
l
Reg
iona
l
Not
ava
ilabl
e
N/A
5.3
.6.3
58
In
com
e fro
m to
uris
m (i
nter
natio
nal a
nd d
omes
tic)
2004
R
egio
nal T
ouris
m O
rgan
isat
ion
area
s on
ly (W
aika
to, C
orom
ande
l
and
Lake
Tau
po)
N/A
5.3
.6.4
59
E
mpl
oym
ent i
n th
e to
uris
m in
dust
ry
2004
N
atio
nal
Not
ava
ilabl
e
5.3
.7.1
60
To
tal r
esea
rch
fund
ing
20
04
Nat
iona
l N
/A
5.3
.7.2
61
E
nrol
men
ts a
t ter
tiary
edu
catio
n in
stitu
tes
(by
type
of s
tudy
)
July
200
4 N
atio
nal
Reg
iona
l – m
ajor
inst
itutio
ns o
nly
Yes
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Page
20
Doc
#10
8409
0
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
Cul
ture
and
Iden
tity
5.4
.1.1
62
Res
iden
t's ra
ting
of th
eir s
ense
of p
ride
in th
e
way
thei
r city
/tow
n lo
oks
and
feel
s
2004
R
egio
nal f
rom
200
6
Ham
ilton
City
Yes
5.4
.1.2
63
N
umbe
r of M
aori
spea
kers
(in
Mao
ri an
d in
tota
l
popu
latio
n)
2001
R
egio
nal
Loca
l
Yes
5.4
.1.3
64
P
ropo
rtion
of p
opul
atio
n th
at s
peak
the
‘firs
t
lang
uage
’ of t
heir
ethn
ic g
roup
2001
N
atio
nal
Reg
iona
l and
loca
l pos
sibl
y fo
r fee
N/A
(Rep
ort
excl
udes
Mao
ri)
5.4
.2.1
65
N
umbe
r of b
uild
ings
and
pla
ces
liste
d on
His
toric
Pla
ces
Trus
t reg
iste
r
May
200
6 Lo
cal
N/A
5.4
.2.2
66
N
umbe
r and
pro
porti
on o
f her
itage
bui
ldin
gs
dem
olis
hed
or re
mov
ed fr
om h
erita
ge re
cord
s
May
200
6 Lo
cal
N/A
5.4
.2.3
67
D
esig
n of
new
dev
elop
men
ts
No
data
ava
ilabl
e ye
t R
egio
nal f
rom
200
6
Loca
l fro
m 2
006
To b
e co
nfirm
ed
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
21
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
5.4
.3.1
68
R
esid
ent’s
sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith c
ultu
ral f
acili
ties
prov
ided
No
data
sou
rce
iden
tifie
d -
-
5.
4.3.
2 69
P
artic
ipat
ion
in c
ultu
ral a
nd a
rts a
ctiv
ities
20
03
Nat
iona
l
Reg
iona
l fro
m 2
006
(QoL
)
Ham
ilton
City
from
200
6 (Q
oL)
Yes
Yes
Yes
5.
4.3.
3 70
P
ropo
rtion
of c
ounc
il's s
pend
ing
on c
ultu
ral
activ
ities
and
eve
nts
No
data
sou
rce
iden
tifie
d -
-
5.
4.4.
1 71
P
eopl
e em
ploy
ed in
cul
tura
l sec
tor
2001
N
atio
nal
Reg
iona
l and
loca
l pos
sibl
y
avai
labl
e by
requ
est f
or a
fee
To b
e co
nfirm
ed
Part
icip
atio
n
and
Equi
ty
5.
5.1.
1
72
Per
cent
age
of v
oter
turn
out a
t loc
al a
nd g
ener
al
elec
tions
2004
R
egio
nal
Loca
l
Not
ava
ilabl
e
Page
22
Doc
#10
8409
0
Out
com
e
Them
e
# In
dica
tor
Mos
t Rec
ent D
ata
Ava
ilabl
e C
over
age
(Nat
iona
l/Reg
iona
l/Loc
al)
Ethn
icity
(Mao
ri / N
on-M
aori)
5.
5.1.
2 73
D
egre
e of
repr
esen
tatio
n by
Tan
gata
Whe
nua
and
min
ority
gro
ups
on g
over
nanc
e an
d
deci
sion
-mak
ing
bodi
es
2004
2001
Loca
l (w
omen
)
Loca
l (M
aori)
Not
ava
ilabl
e
N/A
5.
5.1.
3 74
R
esid
ents
sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith C
ounc
il's p
rovi
sion
of
oppo
rtuni
ties
for c
omm
unity
invo
lvem
ent i
n
deci
sion
s
2004
R
egio
nal f
rom
200
6
Ham
ilton
City
Yes
5.
5.2.
1 75
P
erce
ntag
e of
resi
dent
s pe
rcei
ving
that
cul
tura
l
dive
rsity
mak
es th
eir r
egio
n/ c
ity/to
wn
a be
tter
plac
e to
live
2004
R
egio
nal f
rom
200
6
Ham
ilton
City
Yes
Not
e:
The
abov
e ta
ble
does
not
incl
ude
Mao
ri/Iw
i ind
icat
ors.
The
se a
re c
urre
ntly
bei
ng d
evel
oped
by
Tai R
anga
Whe
nua
(EW
) an
d Ko
wha
i Con
sulti
ng L
td.
for
the
Out
com
e Th
emes
of:
Mao
ri H
erita
ge, R
egio
nal I
dent
ity a
nd P
ride,
Bic
ultu
ral P
artn
ersh
ips,
Tik
anga
Mao
ri, T
reat
y of
Wai
tang
i, U
niqu
e St
atus
of T
anga
ta W
henu
a,
Mao
ri H
ousi
ng, M
aori
Soci
al W
ell-b
eing
, M
aori
Econ
omic
Pro
sper
ity a
nd A
ir, L
and
and
Wat
er Q
ualit
y.
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
23
Not
e th
at T
able
1 d
iffer
s sl
ight
ly fr
om M
AR
CO
’s o
rigin
al fi
nal c
ore
indi
cato
r lis
t as
a re
sult
of r
efin
emen
ts m
ade
durin
g th
e m
etad
ata
colle
ctio
n pr
oces
s.
Som
e m
ore
com
plex
indi
cato
rs h
ave
been
spl
it in
to tw
o se
para
te in
dica
tors
, whi
le fo
r oth
ers,
the
wor
ding
of t
he in
dica
tor h
as b
een
refin
ed to
bet
ter r
efle
ct
eith
er th
e da
ta s
ourc
e or
rem
ove
ambi
guity
. Th
e ch
ange
s m
ade
to th
e or
igin
al li
st a
re s
umm
aris
ed a
s fo
llow
s:
#3
‘Lak
es w
ater
qua
lity’
div
ided
into
two
indi
cato
rs –
one
eac
h fo
r eco
logi
cal h
ealth
and
con
tact
recr
eatio
n
#4 ‘L
and
cove
r and
land
use
’ cha
nged
to ju
st ‘L
and
use’
(mor
e ac
cura
te re
flect
ion
of d
ata
and
avoi
ds o
verla
p w
ith ‘e
xten
t of n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion)
#7 ‘W
ater
ava
ilabi
lity
and
use’
div
ided
into
two
indi
cato
rs –
one
eac
h fo
r gro
undw
ater
and
sur
face
wat
er
#2
1 ‘L
ife e
xpec
tanc
y/he
alth
exp
ecta
ncy’
refin
ed to
‘Life
exp
ecta
ncy
at b
irth’
#24
‘Sen
se o
f em
otio
nal w
ell-b
eing
’ ref
ined
to ‘O
vera
ll qu
ality
of l
ife” b
ased
on
Qua
lity
of L
ife s
urve
y in
dica
tor n
ame
#3
0 ‘M
edia
n w
eekl
y re
nt (b
y in
com
e)’ c
hang
ed to
Sta
tistic
s N
Z ‘R
ent t
o in
com
e ra
tio’ a
s a
sim
pler
mor
e co
ncis
e in
dica
tor
#3
7 ‘In
jury
rate
s’ re
fined
to re
fer t
o ‘R
oad
traffi
c in
jury
rate
s’
#3
8 ‘E
mpl
oym
ent/u
nem
ploy
men
t rat
e’ re
fined
to ‘U
nem
ploy
men
t rat
e’
#4
2 ‘P
erce
ptio
ns o
f acc
ess
to a
dequ
ate
fam
ily s
ervi
ces
and
supp
ort n
etw
orks
’ cha
nged
to ‘P
artic
ipat
ion
in s
ocia
l net
wor
ks a
nd g
roup
s’ b
ased
on
rece
nt
chan
ges
to Q
ualit
y of
Life
sur
veys
#55
‘Vis
itor n
umbe
rs a
nd n
ight
s in
com
mer
cial
acc
omm
odat
ion’
refin
ed to
two
indi
cato
rs ‘N
ight
s in
com
mer
cial
acc
omm
odat
ion’
and
‘Reg
ions
vis
ited
by
inte
rnat
iona
l vis
itors
and
nig
hts
spen
t’
#56
‘Tou
rism
Wai
kato
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs’ i
dent
ified
incl
ude
‘Inco
me
from
tou
rism
(in
tern
atio
nal a
nd d
omes
tic)’
and
‘em
ploy
men
t in
the
tou
rism
in
dust
ry’
#6
0 ‘P
ropo
rtion
of M
aori
spea
kers
(in
Mao
ri an
d to
tal p
opul
atio
n)’ r
efin
ed to
‘Num
ber’
rath
er th
an ‘P
ropo
rtion
,’ as
no
offic
ial d
ata
on p
ropo
rtion
ava
ilabl
e (a
lthou
gh c
ould
be
calc
ulat
ed b
y M
AR
CO
if re
quire
d).
Page 24 Doc #1084090
5 Benchmark Indicator Results This section presents simple metadata and the most recent data available for each of the core indicators, grouped by the five community outcome themes and 38 individual community outcomes.
5.1 Sustainable Environment Theme The Waikato Region values and protects its diverse, interconnected natural environments.
5.1.1 Air, land, water quality and biodiversity outcome (a) The iconic landscapes and natural features of our environment define and
sustain us. We respect and celebrate them as Taonga.2(b) Our natural environment is protected and respected. Its ecological balance is
restored, its air, soil and water quality is improved, and its native biodiversity is enhanced.
(d) The traditional role of Iwi and Hapu as Kaitiaki is acknowledged, respected and enabled.3(f) Our region’s waterways have consistently high water quality.
5.1.1.1 #1 – River water quality for ecological health
What does ‘River water quality for ecological health’ mean? This indicator shows how suitable our water quality is for aquatic plants and animals to live there. Environment Waikato describes the average ‘pass rate’ for seven water quality measures: dissolved oxygen pH turbidity ammonia temperature nitrogen phosphorus.
Why is ‘River water quality for ecological health’ important? Environment Waikato monitors a representative cross-section of rivers and streams across the region to assess the suitability of water quality for native water plants and animals.
ResultsAt each monitoring site, the proportions of all samples collected during 2000 – 2004 for a given water quality variable which met the standard for excellent water quality were determined. Similarly, the proportions which met the standard for satisfactory and unsatisfactory water quality were determined. This process was undertaken for all seven variables.
At each site, the average value of the proportions found to be ‘excellent’ for each of the seven variables was calculated. Average proportions for the ‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ categories were also calculated.
2 This outcome is not covered by the indicators in this report but will be addressed by associated Maori indicators which
are being developed in a parallel process. 3 This outcome is not covered by the indicators in this report but will be addressed by associated Maori indicators which
are being developed in a parallel process.
Doc # 1093619 Page 25
The results for the individual sites were then aggregated according to site location. Results from the five Waikato River sites upstream of Lake Karapiro were aggregated into an ‘Upper River’ result, while the other sites were aggregated into a ‘Lower River’ result. The results for the other 100 sites were aggregated into seven ‘water zones’.
Table 2: Proportion of all samples collected during 2000-2004 which met the ‘excellent’, ‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ standards for ecological water quality in Waikato rivers and streams
Zone Proportion which met ‘excellent’ standard
Proportion which met ‘satisfactory’ standard
Proportion which met‘unsatisfactory’ standard
Upper Waikato River 65.1 28.5 6.4
Lower Waikato River 43.7 24.1 32.2
Taupo tributaries 68.2 23.5 8.2
Coromandel 62.3 28 9.7
West Coast 50.7 26.4 23
Waipa River 45.7 24.7 29.5
Hauraki 43.1 21.5 35.3
Upland Waikato 44.6 19.4 36
Lowland Waikato 34.5 24.3 41.2Source:www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/inlandwater/riversandstreams/riv1/data.htm
Note that data from 2005 will be available from Environment Waikato by around end July 2006.
Gaps and limitations The indicator created by Environment Waikato is summarised by Upper and Lower Waikato River, and seven other regional/catchment areas. No summary statistics exist for territorial authority areas. If this is required, Environment Waikato will have to supply raw data for all 110 sites and further analysis will be needed.
More information Environment Waikato – River Water Quality
www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/inlandwater/riversandstreams/riv1/keypoints.htm
Environment Waikato - How Healthy are our Rivers? www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/water/healthyrivers/index.htm
Ministry for the Environment Environmental Performance Indicators – Freshwater www.mfe.govt.nz
5.1.1.2 #2 – River water quality for recreation
What does ‘River water quality for recreation’ mean? This indicator measures the numbers of faecal bacteria and the water clarity in our rivers and streams. It is measured as an average 'pass rate' for two water quality measures:
water clarity at baseflow Escherichia coli (E.coli) – single sample.
Page 26 Doc #1084090
Why is ‘River water quality for recreation’ important? Environment Waikato monitors a representative sample of rivers and streams across the region to determine how good the water quality is for contact recreation (such as swimming and water skiing).
ResultsAt each monitoring site, Environment Waikato determined the proportions of all samples collected during 2000 - 2004 for a given water quality variable which met the standard for excellent water quality. Similarly, Environment Waikato determined the proportions that met the standard for satisfactory and unsatisfactory water quality. This process was undertaken for both water clarity and E.coli.
At each site, Environment Waikato calculated the average value of the proportions found to be ‘excellent’ for both of the variables. Environment Waikato also calculated the average proportions for the ‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ categories.
Environment Waikato then aggregated the results for the individual sites according to site location. Environment Waikato also aggregated the results from the five Waikato River sites upstream of Lake Karapiro into an upper River result, and the other sites into a lower River result. The results for the other 100 sites were aggregated into seven water zones.
Table 3: Proportion of all samples collected during 2000-2004 which met the ‘excellent’, ‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ standards for recreation in Waikato rivers and streams
Zone Proportion which met ‘excellent’ standard
Proportion which met ‘satisfactory’ standard
Proportion which met‘unsatisfactory’ standard
Upper Waikato River 63.9 32.4 3.7
Lower Waikato River 18.8 32 49.2
Taupo tributaries 52.6 39.2 8.2
Coromandel 28.8 58.2 13
West Coast 15.6 45.4 39
Waipa River 11.6 41.7 46.6
Hauraki 11.4 41.7 46.9
Upland Waikato 4.9 43.7 51.5
Lowland Waikato 0.7 37.4 62Source:www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/inlandwater/riversandstreams/riv2/datafiles/data.csv
Note that data from 2005 will be available from Environment Waikato by around end July 2006.
Gaps and limitations The indicator created by Environment Waikato is summarised by Upper and Lower Waikato River, and seven other regional/catchment areas. No summary statistics exist for territorial authority areas. If this is required, Environment Waikato will have to supply raw data for all 110 sites and further analysis will be needed.
Doc # 1093619 Page 27
More information Quality of Life – Beach and Stream/Lake water quality
www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Beach_water_quality.pdf
Environment Waikato - How Healthy are our Rivers? www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/water/healthyrivers/index.htm
Ministry for the Environment Environmental Performance Indicators - Freshwater www.mfe.govt.nz
Ministry for the Environment – Recreational Water Quality Guidelines www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/microbiological-quality-jun03/index.html
5.1.1.3 #3 – Lakes water quality for ecological health
What does ‘Lakes water quality for ecological health’ mean? Lakes water quality is monitored to determine a lakes trophic state – the ability for a shallow lake to support freshwater plants and animals. Monitoring over time will tell us if a shallow lakes trophic level has improved, deteriorated or remained unchanged.
Why is ‘Lakes water quality for ecological health’ important? Lakes are valued for their unique genetic diversity, cultural and spiritual importance, scientific interest, recreational use and intrinsic values. Many of the shallow lakes in the Waikato Region are valuable refuges for unique plant and animal species. Lake Taupo is nationally recognised as a symbol of near-pristine environmental conditions.
ResultsShallow Peat LakesThis indicator presents regional information on whether these lakes are currently nutrient enriched and how their condition is changing over time.
Table 4: Nutrient enrichment of nine shallow lakes in the Waikato region (1993-2001)
High Very high Extremely high
Nutrientenrichment
2 2 5
Improving No change Worsening
Trend in nutrientenrichment
2 3 4
Source: http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/inlandwater/lakes/lake4/data.htm
Lake TaupoThis indicator presents information on the proportion of water quality samples taken from the deep water site in Lake Taupo (every 2-4 weeks) which met different standards for ecological health between 2000 and 2004.
Page 28 Doc #1084090
Table 5: Proportion of all samples collected during 2000-2004 which met the ‘excellent’, ‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ standards for ecological health in Lake Taupo
Proportion which met ‘excellent’standard
Proportionwhich met ‘satisfactory’ standard
Proportionwhich met ‘unsatisfactory’ standard
Ecological Health 34.6 55.5 9.9 Source: http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/inlandwater/lakes/lake9/data.htm
Gaps and limitations The nutrient enrichment indicator is only available at the regional level. However, detailed data is available from Environment Waikato for individual lakes if required.
Not all lakes in the Waikato Region are monitored. Of significance are hydro lakes on the Waikato River.
Data from the shallow lakes monitored since 2001 have not been included in Environment Waikato’s indicator analysis.
More information Environment Waikato – Riverine Lakeswww.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/water/lakes/shallowlakes/riverinelakes/index.htm
Environment Waikato – Peat Lakeswww.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/water/lakes/shallowlakes/peatlakes/index.htm
5.1.1.4 #4 – Lakes water quality for contact recreation
What does ‘Lakes water quality for contact recreation’ mean? This indicator measures the numbers of faecal bacteria and the water clarity in Lake Taupo and shallow lakes in the Waikato Region commonly used for contact recreation.
Why is ‘Lakes water quality for contact recreation’ important? We monitor lake water quality to determine how good the water quality is for contact recreation (such as swimming and water skiing). High levels of bacteria can directly impact on the health and well-being of individuals, as they indicate the presence of pathogens (illness-causing bugs). A key factor in the quality of lakes water for contact recreation is the quality of an urban area’s stormwater and sewerage systems, and agricultural runoff.
ResultsLake TaupoThis indicator presents information on the proportion of water quality samples taken from 18 bathing beach sites around Lake Taupo which met different standards for contact recreation during the summer of 2005 to 2006. Sites were visited at weekly intervals up to 12 times during the summer (December – February).
Doc # 1093619 Page 29
Table 6: Proportion of all samples collected during summer 2005-2006 which met the ‘excellent’, ‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ standards for contact recreation in Lake Taupo
Proportion which met ‘excellent’standard
Proportionwhich met ‘satisfactory’ standard
Proportionwhich met ‘unsatisfactory’ standard
Contact Recreation 68.2 22.3 9.6 Source: http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/inlandwater/lakes/lake9/data.htm
Gaps and limitations There are no specific measurements taken to monitor shallow lakes (peat lakes) water quality for recreation.
More information Environment Waikato website map of Lake Taupo monitoring locations
www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/water/lakes/laketaupo/waterquality/taupomap/index.htm
Environment Waikato indicator: Lake Taupo’s water quality www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/inlandwater/lakes/lake9/keypoints.htm
5.1.1.5 # 5 – Land use (under development)
What does ‘Land use’ mean? This indicator will measure the area of different types of land use by region across New Zealand.
Why is ‘Land use’ important? We monitor land use to get information on where development pressures are likely to be the greatest on soil, water and indigenous vegetation resources.
Changing land use can be compared with indicators of water and air quality, and the changing extent of land cover as a contributor to these changes.
Measuring land cover goes a long way to determining land use. However, land use is a more accurate indicator of the pressures being placed on soil, water and indigenous vegetation resources. Some land covers have singular corresponding land uses e.g. exotic forest land cover = plantation forest land use, indigenous land cover = low impact recreational/conservation land use. Other land covers have multiple land uses. For example, pastoral land cover could be dairy farming, sheep farming, deer farming or beef farming (or another type of farming). Each has different types of impact on soil and water resources.
ResultsNo data currently available, as this indicator is under development.
Gaps and limitations A land use indicator is currently under development as part of the Linked Indicators Project. The intention is that the indicator will be available annually from 2007.
More information EW Land Use Indicator
Page 30 Doc #1084090
www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/land/use/land1/keypoints.htm
MARCO indicator – Extent of native vegetation
Statistics New Zealand contact person is Abby Thornley - email: [email protected]
5.1.1.6 #6 – Air quality (particulate matter, PM10)
What does ‘Air quality (particulate matter)’ mean? This indicator measures the levels of fine particles in the air. These are referred to as PM10 particles, which are particles smaller than 10 microns (there are 1000 microns in 1 millimetre).
Why is ‘Air quality (particulate matter)’ important? PM10 can cause respiratory problems, especially for asthmatics, small children and the elderly and can result in hospital admissions and premature mortality in sensitive people. PM10 also affects air by reducing visibility. Less visibility reduces safety, reduces views and could affect tourism.
ResultsEnvironment Waikato uses a scale of Good, Acceptable, Alert or Action to compare PM10 24 hour averages against regional guidelines. The regional guideline for PM10levels is 50 µg/m3 for a 24 hour period. The ranges for the scale are: Good: value between 0 and 16.5 µg/m3 for a 24 hour period Acceptable: value between 16.5 and 33 µg/m3 for a 24 hour period Alert: value between 33 and 50 µg/m3 for a 24 hour period Action: value about 50 µg/m3 for a 24 hour period
Results are summarised by year as percentage of time each site was within each of the four ranges defined above. The data were collected from: May 31, 1998 to December 31, 2004 in Hamilton November 3, 2000 to December 31, 2004 in Taupo April 23, 1998 to November 5, 1998 and May 14, 2003 to December 31, 2004 in
Te Kuiti February 17, 1999 to August 18, 1999 and March 29, 2001 to December 31, 2004
in Tokoroa.
Doc # 1093619 Page 31
Table 7: Percentage of air samples meeting “good”, “acceptable” or “alert” PM10 levels relative to guidelines, Waikato urban areas – 1998 to 2004
“Good”
0-33% of guideline
“Acceptable”
33-66% of guideline
“Alert”
66- 100% of guideline
Above guideline
Hamilton 1998 57 42 1 0
Hamilton 1999 67 31 3 0
Hamilton 2000 70 30 1 0
Hamilton 2001 77 21 2 1
Hamilton 2002 61 38 1 0
Hamilton 2003 67 29 3 1
Hamilton 2004 67 29 3 1
Taupo 2001 43 36 18 2
Taupo 2002 59 33 7 1
Taupo 2003 52 32 12 4
Taupo 2004 55 30 10 2
Te Kuiti 1998 61 35 4 0
Te Kuiti 2003 48 32 17 2
Te Kuiti 2004 51 40 8 1
Tokoroa 2001 12 64 17 8
Tokoroa 2002 15 71 10 4
Tokoroa 2004 12 54 23 12Source: www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/air/quality/air1/data.htm
Gaps and limitations Air quality is measured only in four urban centres within the Waikato Region: Hamilton Taupo Tokoroa Te Kuiti.
More information Emission Inventories have also been carried out by Ministry for the Environment.
During 1997 emissions from home heating and vehicles were carried out and emissions from industry as a separate inventory. An assessment of emissions from home heating was carried out for the areas of Huntly, Matamata and Putaruru during 2000. In Taupo, both domestic heating and motor vehicle emissions were assessed for 2000. Industry information from 1997 was used to estimate the industry contribution to PM10 emissions in Taupo. In 2001, emissions from domestic heating were reassessed for Hamilton, Tokoroa and Te Kuiti and also for motor vehicles in Hamilton. The latter data were combined with 1997 industrial emission estimates to provide an assessment of the relative contribution of domestic heating, motor vehicles and industry to PM10 emissions in Hamilton.
The Quality of Life survey also has some information about air quality in Hamilton.
Ministry of Social Development Social Report Indicator
Page 32 Doc #1084090
www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/physical-environment/air-quality.html
EW PM10 Indicator www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/air/quality/air1/keypoints.htm
MfE guidelines on National Environmental Standards www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/nes-infosheet-oct05/nes-infosheet-oct05.html
MfE Monitoring of PM10 in New Zealand www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/air/air-quality-tech-report-40/html/index.html
MfE Health Effects of PM10 www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/air/air-quality-tech-report-39/html/index.html
MfE Inventory of PM10 Emission www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/air/air-quality-tech-report-38-aug03/html/index.html
NIWA – Protecting New Zealand’s Clean Air www.niwascience.co.nz/ncces/air_quality/
Quality of Life Air Quality Indicator www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Air_quality.pdf
5.1.1.7 #7 – Groundwater availability and use
What does ‘Groundwater availability and use’ mean? Groundwater makes up about 90 percent of our Region’s freshwater resource, and is used for drinking, industry, agriculture and horticulture. This indicator measures the amount of groundwater that’s available for use in the Waikato Region. It monitors the amount of ‘stress’ groundwater resources are under in different areas of our Region.
Why is ‘Groundwater availability and use’ important? Groundwater makes up about 90 percent of our Region’s freshwater resource, and is used for drinking, industry, agriculture and horticulture. Environment Waikato monitors groundwater availability to help protect our Region’s groundwater supplies and ensure we use them sustainably.
When too much groundwater is taken: Groundwater levels are lowered. There may not be enough water for everyone to use, resulting in competition for
water. Less groundwater can flow into streams, reducing stream flow and affecting
stream-life such as fish and invertebrates. Land may subside. In coastal areas salt water may flow into coastal aquifers and contaminate
groundwater as the water table drops.
ResultsAn aquifer’s volume of ‘available’ groundwater is compared with the amount used (consented and permitted takes). From this, the level of stress on groundwater resources is estimated into one of three categories: Low stress areas have less than 10 percent of available groundwater allocated for
use. Medium stress areas have between 10 and 30 percent of available groundwater
allocated for use. High stress areas have more than 30 percent of available groundwater allocated
for use.
Doc # 1093619 Page 33
This provides a guideline to identify potential problem areas which may need more intensive monitoring. Most of the monitored groundwater areas in the Waikato Region are under low to medium stress.
Table 8: Percentage of investigated areas with low, medium or high groundwater use in the Waikato Region
Area Low (<10%) Medium (10%-30%) High (>30%) Waikato Region 76.85% 19.83% 3.31%
Source:http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/inlandwater/groundwater/flow5a/datafiles/data.csv
Table 9: Percentage of investigated areas with low, medium or high groundwater use – areas within the Waikato Region
Main areas investigated
Smaller sub-areasinvestigated
Low (<10%)
Medium(10%-30%)
High(>30%)
Area km2
Western Region 15.07% 4302.6
Taupo 12.07% 3445
Taupo Township 0.04% 12.55
Northern Bays 0.37% 107
Waipa 10.61% 3030
North Waipa 1.40% 400
Hauraki Plains 11.56% 3300
South Waikato 15.20% 4340
Reporoa 0.10% 28.7
Tokoroa 0.55% 157.5
Putaruru 0.07% 21
Lower Waikato 10.56% 3015
South of Taupiri 4.20% 1198
North of Taupiri
6.36% 1816
Pukekohe/Pukekawa** 1.22% 348.1
Pukekohe Basalt/Kaawa** 0.30% 85.8
Waiuku** 0.51% 147
Pukekawa 0.26% 73.2
Onewhero 0.14% 41.1
Coromandel 8.83% 2520
Waihi Basin 0.48% 136
Whiritoa* <0.01% 0.93
Whangamata Moana Point* 0.01% 3.09
Hahei* 0.01% 4
Cooks Beach* <0.01% 0.88
Whangapoua* <0.01% 0.4
Page 34 Doc #1084090
Main areas investigated
Smaller sub-areasinvestigated
Low (<10%)
Medium(10%-30%)
High(>30%)
Area km2
Kuaotunu West* <0.01% 0.2
Thames <0.001% 2.48
Whangamata Township <0.001% 2.49
Pauanui <0.001% 2.34
Matarangi 0.01% 3.35
Whitianga <0.001% 1.94
Total 76.85% 19.83% 3.31% 28546.65* accounts for seasonal aspect of holiday population **accounts for seasonal aspect of irrigation Source:http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/inlandwater/groundwater/flow5a/datafiles/data.csv
Gaps and limitations This indicator is based on maximum potential use (consented and permitted), not
actual usage. Estimates of aquifer recharge are approximate, as there are few accurate water-
balance studies available. The extent of an aquifer is not easily defined. We tend to use a conservative size. We assume that the groundwater wells intercept groundwater from a single,
vertically uniform aquifer. There are currently no plans to update this indicator on a regular basis.
More information Environment Waikato Groundwater Availability Indicator Technical Information Pagewww.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/inlandwater/groundwater/flow5a/techinfo.htm
Environment Waikato – Groundwater http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/water/groundwater/index.htm
5.1.1.8 #8 – Surface water availability and useThis indicator is currently under development by Environment Waikato but due to poor data availability it is unclear when it may be published in the future. For more information, contact the Hydrogeologist, Resource Information Group at Environment Waikato (currently Dr Ed Brown). Note that a metadata sheet has been completed for this indicator based on the current draft indicator but no data is officially available.
5.1.1.9 #9 – Protection of natural heritage and landscapesNo data source has been identified for this indicator on a regional and territorial authority level.
5.1.1.10 #10 – Extent of native vegetation
What does ‘Extent of native vegetation’ mean? This indicator measures the extent of different land cover in the Waikato region, including native (indigenous) vegetation. Six primary land cover types are measured. These are:
1. Primarily pasture
Doc # 1093619 Page 35
2. Plantation forests 3. Indigenous vegetation 4. Horticulture and Cropping 5. Urban 6. Other land covers (including coastal dunes, bare rock, mines and quarries)
Why is ‘Extent of native vegetation’ important? We monitor the land cover of the Waikato region to measure the extent of indigenous vegetation and to monitor areas of pressure on the environment, such as urban, pastoral and horticultural areas.
This information can be used, over time, to monitor and report on the changes to the state of our environment and provide the basis for better resource management decisions, more efficient use of natural resources and improved environmental management.
Results
Table 10: Extent of key land cover types in Waikato Region and territorial authorities, including indigenous vegetation
Area Land use type (% of territorial authority and regional area)
Pastoral farming
Plantationforestry
Indigenousvegetation
Other**
Franklin* 80% 2% 17% 0.37%
Hamilton City 36% 0% 3% 60.02%
Hauraki 67% 1% 30% 1.17%
Matamata-Piako 84% 1% 14% 1.00%
Otorohanga 67% 2% 31% 0.04%
Rotorua* 72% 17% 11% 0.00%
South Waikato 37% 52% 10% 1.00%
Taupo* 29% 30% 37% 4.00%
Thames-Coromandel
23% 11% 65% 1.06%
Waikato 79% 2% 17% 2.05%
Waipa 90% 0% 8% 1.05%
Waitomo* 61% 1% 37% 0%
Region 58% 12% 28% 2.05%*Note only part of Franklin, Rotorua, Taupo and Waitomo districts fall within the Waikato Region. Analysis of this indicator is limited to the Waikato Region. Therefore, this indicator's information may not be representative of the whole district. **Note, this column includes the categories of “horticulture and cropping” and “urban”, which often occur at too small a scale to be accurately measured by satellite imagery.Source: http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/land/use/land1/data.htm
Gaps and limitations The Ministry for the Environment has undertaken two surveys of national land cover. The first, the Land Cover Database 1, was produced in 1997 using satellite imagery from 1996 and 1994. The second, the Land Cover Database 2, was produced in 2002
Page 36 Doc #1084090
using satellite imagery from 2001 and 2002. Analysis has only been completed for the Land Cover Database 1. These are the figures currently available from Environment Waikato.
More information Environment Waikato indicator – Extent of native vegetation
www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/land/biodiversity/veg1/keypoints.htm
Environment Waikato indicator – Forest fragmentation www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/land/biodiversity/veg3/keypoints.htm
MARCO indicator – Land use
The Ministry for the Environment Land Cover Database website www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/land/land-cover-dbase/
Terralink International Land Cover Database website www.terralink.co.nz/products_services/satellite/land_cover_database_of_new_zealand/index.htm
5.1.1.11 #11 – Protected native vegetation areas (under development)
What does ‘Protected native vegetation areas’ mean? This indicator refers to the extent and legal protection of indigenous vegetation cover.
Why are ‘Protected native vegetation areas’ important? The native flora of New Zealand is unique, having evolved in isolation for millions of years. Many of our trees, ferns and flowering plants are endemic. It is important to know how much of this native flora is protected in order to maintain it in a sustainable manner.
ResultsNo data available – indicator under development.
Gaps and limitations This indicator is currently under development as part of the Government’s Linked Indicators Project. The intention is that it will be available in the future from Ministry for the Environment.
Environment Waikato is also developing a regional indicator.
More information Linked Indicators Project, Environmental Indicators –
http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/linked-indicators/environmental-indicators.htm
Contact Environment Waikato’s Terrestrial Ecologist for more information about indicator development at the regional level.
5.1.2 Environmental attitudes and behaviours outcome (c) We are aware of what we need to do to look after our environment. Our region is renowned for linking environmental awareness with community action.
Doc # 1093619 Page 37
5.1.2.1 #12 – People’s environmental attitudes
What does ‘People’s environmental attitudes’ mean? This indicator monitors people’s attitudes towards the environment at the regional, district council, urban and rural levels.
Why are ‘People’s environmental attitudes’ important? It is important to understand how positive or negative people’s attitudes are towards protecting the environment. It is also useful to know if people are aware of how their actions can affect aspects of the environment. This will help councils find out how much support people have for proposed actions, policies and rules that protect the environment. This will guide councils and other organisations in setting goals and planning targeted information provision and environmental education programmes to fill information gaps.
ResultsAn adapted version of the ‘New Environmental Paradigm Scale’ (NEP) was used for this indicator. The NEP was developed and tested by Dunlap and van Liere, sociologists at Washington State University in 1978. Further testing was done by other researchers using rural and urban communities in the United States. The NEP scale has also been used in Finland, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
The “New Environmental Paradigm” scale questions comprise six statements with which respondents can strongly agree, agree, neither disagree or agree, disagree or strongly disagree. A points scale of 5 to 1 is applied respectively. “Don’t knows” are scored as 3. The total score out of 30 is used to apply one of three categories:
Pro ecological (25-30) Mid ecological (19-24) Anti ecological (6-18)
Regional results are given as the percent of people giving each score, grouped into one of the three environmental attitude categories.
Table 11: Environmental attitudes in the Waikato Region 2004
Environmental attitude Percentage of respondents Pro-ecological 28.59
Mid-ecological 48.67
Anti-ecological 22.7Source: NEP Survey 2004 –www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/communities/p2c/data.htm
For each district council area, the same process is used (percent giving each score and then the mean of the total).
Table 12: Environmental attitudes in the Waikato Region 2004 by territorial authority
Area Percentage of respondents
Pro-ecological Mid-ecological
Anti-ecological
Franklin District 4.2 62.6 33.5
Hauraki District 9.9 50 40
Page 38 Doc #1084090
Area Percentage of respondents
Pro-ecological Mid-ecological
Anti-ecological
Hamilton City 18.8 65 16.3
Otorohanga District 15.4 69.3 15.4
Rotorua District 22.2 55.5 22.2
South Waikato District 24.3 63.7 12.1
Taupo District 30.1 54.6 15.1
Matamata-Piako District 26.2 57.1 16.7
Thames-Coromandel District 34.4 54.3 11.5
Waikato District 21.1 56.1 22.9
Waipa District 6.8 43 49.9
Waitomo District 7.1 57.1 35.6 Source: NEP Survey 2004 (calculated by Andy Haigh using data in http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/communities/p2c/data.htm)
Gaps and limitations There are two limitations to using telephone questionnaires to assess people’s environmental perceptions:
Telephone questionnaires are biased towards people owning landline telephones, and therefore may miss some people in the community.
Many factors influence people’s attitudes to their local environment, including where and how people live, what news media items they have recently seen and who they are. These influences are not measured by quantitative questionnaires.
It should also be noted that people’s responses may be affected by what they are doing at the time they received the survey telephone call – i.e. whether they are distracted or busy.
More information EW Environmental Attitudes Indicator
www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/communities/p2c/keypoints.htm
5.1.2.2 #13 – People’s personal environmental actions
What does ‘People’s personal environmental actions’ mean? This indicator monitors:
People’s personal actions towards protecting the environment (types and frequency of activities).
People’s reasons for not making personal efforts to protect the environment.
Why are ‘People’s personal environmental actions’ important? It is important to understand what types of actions people undertake in their daily lives to protect the environment, and how often they carry out these actions. Councils and other organisations also need to know what prevents people carrying out these actions. This guides them in setting goals and assist in planning environmental education programmes to fill information gaps.
Doc # 1093619 Page 39
Results
Table 13: Most common named actions people have taken to protect the environment – Waikato Region, 1998 and 2003
Most Common of Named Actions 1998 2003
% % Avoiding putting oil and detergent in gutters and stormwater drains
0 2
Car tuned regularly 0 2
Compost kitchen/garden waste 11 12
Recycle bottles/cans/plastic/paper 30.2 42
Reducing water consumption 8.8 4
Buy products that claim to be better for the environment 5.7 4
Use buses, bikes or walking to reduce car use 6.6 7
Planting trees 16 15
Saved electricity 7 8
Killed Weeds 8 6
Saved water 9 3
Fenced off native bush/rivers/streams 0 5
Killed animal pests 4.4 4 Source:www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/communities/p2f/datafiles/data.csv
Table 14: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Franklin District 2003
Actions Franklin District %
Waikato Region %
Recycled plastic 37 38
Recycled glass 34 35
Recycled tin/cans 34 28
Recycled paper 28 35
Planted trees/plants 21 15Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Table 15: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Hamilton City 2003
Actions Hamilton City %
Waikato Region %
Recycled plastic 58 38
Recycled paper 52 35
Recycled glass 51 35
Recycled tin/cans 37 28
Used car less often 14 7Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Page 40 Doc #1084090
Hamilton City residents were significantly more likely than residents in other parts of the Waikato Region to mention recycling plastic, paper, glass, tin/cans, composting garden waste and using the car less often as actions taken to protect the environment.
Table 16: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Hauraki District 2003
Actions Hauraki District %
Waikato Region %
Recycled plastic 27 38
Recycled paper 26 35
Recycled glass 25 35
Planted trees/plants 20 15
Recycled tins/cans 17 28Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Table 17: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Matamata-Piako District 2003
Actions Matamata-PiakoDistrict
%
Waikato Region %
Recycled plastic 37 38
Recycled glass 32 35
Recycled paper 30 35
Recycled tin/cans 29 28
No action 14 14 Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Table 18: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Otorohanga District 2003
Actions OtorohangaDistrict
%
Waikato Region %
Recycled plastic 28 38
Recycled glass 25 35
Recycled paper 23 35
Planted trees/plants 21 15
Recycled tins/cans 20 28 Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Otorohanga District residents were significantly more likely than residents in other parts of the Waikato Region to fence off areas of native bush/stream and rivers as an action to protect the environment.
Doc # 1093619 Page 41
Table 19: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Rotorua District 2003
Actions Rotorua District %
Waikato Region %
Planted trees/plants 20 15
Recycled plastic 19 38
Recycled glass 17 35
Recycled paper 17 35
Recycled tins/cans 15 28Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Rotorua District residents were significantly less likely than residents in other parts of the Waikato Region to recycle plastic, glass and paper as actions taken to protect environment.
Table 20: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – South Waikato District 2003
Actions South Waikato District
%
Waikato Region %
Recycled plastic 43 38
Recycled paper 40 35
Recycled glass 35 35
Recycled tins/cans 34 28
Planted trees/plants 16 15
Disposed rubbish/waste properly 15 12Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Table 21: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Taupo District 2003
Actions Taupo District %
Waikato Region %
Recycled plastic 49 38
Recycled glass 48 35
Recycled paper 46 35
Recycled tins/cans 40 28Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Taupo District residents were significantly more likely than residents in other parts of the Waikato Region to recycle plastic and tins/cans and sign a petition as actions taken to protect environment.
Page 42 Doc #1084090
Table 22: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Thames-Coromandel District 2003
Actions Thames-Coromandel
District%
Waikato Region %
Recycled plastic 32 38
Recycled glass 29 35
Recycled tin/cans 28 28
Recycled paper 28 35
No action 12 14Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Table 23: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Waikato District 2003
Actions Waikato District %
Waikato Region %
Recycled paper 33 35
Recycled plastic 33 38
Recycled glass 32 35
Recycled tins/cans 21 28
Planted trees/plants 17 15Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Table 24: Top five actions people have taken to protect the environment – Waipa District 2003
Actions Waipa District %
Waikato Region %
Recycled plastic 33 38
Recycled paper 32 35
Recycled glass 30 35
Recycled tins/cans 22 28
Planted trees/plants 16 15Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Table 25: Top six actions people have taken to protect the environment – Waitomo District 2003
Actions Waitomo District %
Waikato Region %
Planted trees/plants 35 15
Recycled plastic 30 38
Recycled paper 28 35
Recycled glass 24 35
Recycled tins/cans 19 28
Doc # 1093619 Page 43
Fenced off native bush/rivers/streams 18 5Source: Environment Waikato document # 1079929
Waitomo District residents were significantly more likely than residents in other parts of the Waikato Region to plant trees/plants, reduce use or become more aware of fertiliser use, and fence off native bush/rivers/stream as actions taken to protect environment.
Gaps and limitations There are two limitations to using telephone questionnaires to assess people’s environmental perceptions:
Telephone questionnaires are biased towards people owning telephones, and therefore may miss some people in the community.
Many factors influence people’s personal environmental actions, including where and how people live, what news media items they have recently seen and who they are. These influences are not measured by quantitative questionnaires.
In addition it is difficult to compare the different surveys because of the different survey techniques used.
More information Environment Waikato Environmental Actions Indicator
www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/communities/p2f/keypoints.htm
5.1.3 Coastal environment outcome (e) Our coastal and waterway environments are restored and preserved, and access to them is maintained.
5.1.3.1 #14 – Coastal water quality for recreation
What does ‘Coastal water quality for recreation’ mean? This indicator measures water quality of coasts in terms of enterococci (faecal bacteria) levels.
Why is ‘Coastal water quality for recreation’ important? Environment Waikato monitors a representative sample of swimming beaches around the Waikato Region to determine how good the water quality is for contact recreation such as swimming and surfing.
ResultsCoastal water quality monitoring occurred in 10 sites on the West Coast (Port Waikato: Maraetai Bay, Sunset Beach Surf Club, Sunset Beach South; Raglan: Manu Bay, Ngarunui Beach, Putoetoe Point; Aotea; Kawhia: Kawhia Wharf, Karewa Beach, Ocean Beach), 6 sites in the Hauraki Gulf (Te Mata, Te Puru, Thornton Bay, Wyuna Bay, Long Bay, Oamaru Bay) and 10 sites on the Coromandel Peninsula (Buffalo Beach, Cooks Beach West, Cooks Beach East, Hahei, Hot Water Beach, Pepe Stream, Whangamata Estuary, Whangamata Surf Club, Whangamata South and Whiritoa).
At each monitoring site, we determined the proportion of samples collected during the most recent summer survey (2005 for West Coast beaches, 2006 for Coromandel Peninsula beaches) which met our guidelines for excellent water quality. Similarly the proportions which met our guidelines for satisfactory and unsatisfactory water quality were determined.
Page 44 Doc #1084090
The results for the individual sites were then compiled according to site location. Results from the 10 West Coast sites were amalgamated into a West Coast result; and those for the 6 Hauraki Gulf and 10 Coromandel East Coast sites were amalgamated into Hauraki Gulf and East Coast results, respectively.
Table 26: Proportion of samples collected during 2005 (West Coast) and 2006 (East Coast and Hauraki Gulf) which met the ‘excellent’, ‘satisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ standards for contact recreation on the coast – Waikato Region
Zone Proportion which met ‘excellent’standard
Proportionwhich met ‘satisfactory’ standard
Proportionwhich met ‘unsatisfactory’ standard
West Coast 97.5 0.8 1.7
Hauraki Gulf 62.5 31.9 5.6
East Coast 81.7 12.5 5.8Source:www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/coasts/waterquality/co10/datafiles/data.csv
While data results are not available grouped by territorial authority, detailed results for individual sites sampled are available from www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/coasts/waterquality/co10/datafiles/data.csv
Gaps and limitations All the coastal water quality data from different sites within a zone have been amalgamated. This obscures any differences between the sites in that zone.
The national guidelines recommend using 20 samples collected at weekly intervals. Environment Waikato collects 12 samples. Therefore, the median value is less precise.
Sampling only occurs 12 times over the summer months. Events contributing to higher levels of Enterococci (such as storms) will not be accounted for.
Sampling and results are not grouped by territorial authority.
More information EW Coastal Water Quality for Contact Recreation indicator
www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/coasts/waterquality/co10/keypoints.htm
Waikato Coastal Database www.waikatocoastaldatabase.co.nz
5.1.3.2 #15 – Public access to coast (or Coastline ownership)No data source has been identified for the indicator “Public access to coast”. However, the indicator “Coastline ownership” is used here as a proxy.
What does “Coastline ownership” mean? This indicator measures accessibility to the coastline for the public in terms of coastline ownership. The results are split into three main areas of Waikato regional coastline:
1. West Coast 2. West Coromandel 3. East Coromandel
Results are presented as privately owned, publicly owned or road edge (where public access is likely to be available).
Doc # 1093619 Page 45
Why is “Coastline ownership” important? The coast is widely perceived as a public open space, which should be accessible to everyone. Public access is highlighted as a matter of national importance in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS). Environment Waikato’s Regional Coastal Plan (RCP) emphasises that public access within the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) - along the foreshore and across the water - should not be unduly restricted. Access within the CMA is dependent largely on access to the coast being available. In New Zealand, no common law of right of access exists over privately occupied land. Public access to the coast (and other areas) therefore relies on the provision of public areas such as access strips, walkways, reserves and conservation areas, or agreements with landowners.
Results
Table 27: Length and ownership of Waikato Region coastal margin property by coastal area – 2002
Ownership type
TotalLength (m)
% of total
Harbour(m)
% Open coast (m)
%
West Coast Ambiguous 17836 3 15359 4 2476 1
Private 406431 72 258982 73 147449 70
Public 109642 19 50472 14 59169 28
Road 28741 5 28007 8 734 0
Sub-total 562650 352821 209829
West Coast Coromandel Ambiguous 249 0 0 249 0
Private 105749 52 38068 77 67680 44
Public 44355 22 5838 12 38517 25
Road 53601 26 5846 12 47755 31
Sub-total 203953 49752 154201
East Coast Coromandel Ambiguous 3491 1 598 0 2893 1
Private 117417 29 49496 33 67920 26
Public 264443 65 88331 59 176112 68
Road 23299 6 12194 8 11105 4
Sub-total 408650 150620 258030
TotalsAmbiguous 21575 2 15958 3 5618 1
Private 629596 54 346547 63 283050 46
Public 418439 36 144641 26 273798 44
Road 105641 9 46047 8 59594 10
Total 1175252 553192 622060
Page 46 Doc #1084090
Source: www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/coasts/biodiversity/co4/data.htm
Gaps and limitations Natural shoreline change at soft coastlines such as sandy beaches will affect the accuracy of the data. For example, where coastal reserves marked on the CRS have been eroded by natural processes, there may be no public land remaining between the CMA and private properties (for example, this has occurred at Buffalo Beach in the Coromandel). Similarly, natural shoreline accretion may increase the extent of public land fronting private properties close to the sea.
Using the CRS database does not capture public access ways created across private land.
Coastal topography is not considered in this indicator. For example coastal cliffs in public coastal land will prevent access to the coastline.
This indicator does not divide lengths of private and public ownership into territorial authorities, rather it splits by topographic regions.
More information Environment Waikato’s Coastal Ownership Indicator
www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/coasts/biodiversity/co4/keypoints.htm
Environment Waikato’s Regional Coastal Plan www.ew.govt.nz/policyandplans/rcpintro/index.htm
Environment Waikato’s map of regional coastline www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/coasts/coastsmap/index.htm
5.1.4 Rural environment outcome (g) We use land management practices that protect and sustain our soil and land.
5.1.4.1 #16 – Rural subdivision
What does ‘Rural subdivision’ mean? This indicator monitors the amount and type of low density (less than 1 house per 4 hectares) that has been subdivided into smaller blocks, possibly for intensive agriculture or horticulture uses, or urban use.
Why is ‘Rural subdivision’ important? Monitoring rural subdivision provides information that is used by territorial authorities, land developers and the community about increasing land pressures.
This information can indicate: the area and productive capability of land removed from large-scale agricultural
enterprises increased pressure on the environment from subdivision, for example potential
water requirements, soil erosion and loss of soil structure, fertiliser leaching and pesticide use
where traffic volumes may increase, with corresponding increases in pollution, energy use and greenhouse gas generation
any increase in impervious surfaces leading to increased pressure on stormwater and flood management
areas where an increased demand for infrastructure and services is expected.
Doc # 1093619 Page 47
ResultsPrevious studies have indicated that the average property size after subdivision is 4.4 ha (from a study undertaken in the Western Bay of Plenty). This indicator analyses the areas of meshblocks divided by the number of dwellings to assess the average size of property available to each dwelling. A comparison is made between the 1991 census and the 1996 census, and again between the 1996 census and the 2001 census to see how many meshblocks changed from less than one dwelling per 4ha to more than one dwelling per 4ha.
Table 28: Summary of rural land subdivided between March 5 1991- March 5 1996, and March 6 1996 – March 6 2001, Waikato Region
Land use capability classification Time period measured
Class I land (hectares)
Class II land (hectares)
Class III land (hectares)
Class IV land (hectares)
Classes V-VIII land (hectares)
Total (hectares)
Rural land available in the Waikato Region as at March 5, 1991 (baseline)
45130 249215 275404 336939 1433527 2340215
Summary of rural land subdivided between March 5, 1991 and March 6, 2001
532 820 205 505 1133 3196
Rural land subdivided between March 6, 1996 and March 6, 2001
151 396 111 151 522 1332
Rural land subdivided between March 5, 1991 and March 5, 1996
381 424 94 354 610 1864
Source: www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/land/use/P5a/datafiles/data.csv
Table 29: Summary of intensified rural land in the Waikato Region between March 5 1991 - March 5 1996, by territorial authority
Land use capability classification Territorial Authority
Class I land (hectares)
Class II land (hectares)
Class III land (hectares)
Class IV land (hectares)
Classes V-VIII land (hectares)
Total (hectares)
Franklin District 0 42.06 25.4115 39.4167 2.01327 109
Hamilton City 3.15396 129.89 0 87.8115 0 221
Hauraki District 0 0.331853 5.71096 0 0 6
Matamata-Piako District 0 0 0 0 92.4426 92
Otorohanga District 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rotorua District 0 0 0 0 0 0
South Waikato District 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taupo District 0 0 19.5148 100.322 57.62569 177
Thames-Coromandel District
0 27.1245 11.5031 117.424 289.5391 446
Waikato District 282.801 92.7635 0 9.32585 147.7733 533
Waipa District 95.2611 131.673 32.1255 0 20.7909 280
Waitomo District 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 381 424 94 354 610 1864
Source: www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/land/use/P5a/datafiles/data.csv
Page 48 Doc #1084090
Table 30: Summary of intensified rural land in the Waikato Region between March 6 1996 - March 6 2001, by territorial authority
Land use capability classification Territorial Authority
Class I land (hectares)
Class II land (hectares)
Class III land (hectares)
Class IV land (hectares)
Classes V-VIII land (hectares)
Total (hectares)
Franklin District 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hamilton City 0 271.426 0 48.9398 2.07584 322
Hauraki District 0 0 0 0 0 0
Matamata-Piako District 25.8585 90.3142 24.3697 0 0 141
Otorohanga District 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rotorua District 0 0 0 0 0 0
South Waikato District 0 0 0.608937 0 0 1
Taupo District 0 0 6.18176 73.4842 64.4537 144
Thames-Coromandel District
0 0 0 20.7087 446.4769 467
Waikato District 125.125 34.7389 80.0266 0 9.33052 249
Waipa District 0 0 0.014385 7.61652 0 8
Waitomo District 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 151 396 111 151 522 1332
Source: www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/land/use/P5a/datafiles/data.csv
Note that the Land Use Capability (LUC) is a measure of the land’s capacity for sustained productive use, taking into account physical limitations, soil conservation needs and management requirements. This is a national database administered by Landcare Research Limited, and should not be confused with recommended land use or present land use.
The LUC classification includes eight classes of productive capability ranging from Class I – ‘the most versatile multiple use land with virtually no limitations to use’ through to Class VIII – ‘land with very severe to extreme limitations or hazards which make it unsuitable for arable, pastoral or production forestry’ (NWASCO, 1979). In this indicator, we report subdivision on LUC classes I through IV (flat to strongly rolling slopes – 0 to 20 degree slopes). These classes are reported because they represent land with a high productive capability that is well suited to agricultural or horticultural use but also land that would appeal for urban and lifestyle block development.
Gaps and limitations To produce this indicator, Environment Waikato has used the Census meshblocks to indicate rural subdivision rather than examining information on individual properties. This means that we cannot identify exactly which properties have been subdivided.
More information EW Rural Subdivision indicator
www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/land/use/P5a/keypoints.htm
5.1.4.2 #17 – Stock density
What does ‘Stock density’ mean? Stock density is a standard way of measuring the amount of stock on an area of land. Environment Waikato calculates stock density by converting the type of stock (for example, sheep, deer or dairy cattle) to common stock units (ewe equivalents). They
Doc # 1093619 Page 49
then divide stock units by the area of land that the stock graze on, to provide stock units per hectare.
Why is ‘Stock density’ important? Environment Waikato uses stock density to indicate where there are current and possible future pressures on the environment from livestock farming. High stock densities can lead to effects on local water quality, stream banks and soil.
Environment Waikato calculates stock density in the seven major water catchment zones in the Waikato Region. This helps them determine how stock pressure is affecting water quality in different parts of the Region, particularly in areas where waterways are not fenced from stock or protected by riparian planting. This information can then be used in conjunction with other indicators based on catchment areas, such as river water quality.
ResultsThis indicator shows stock density, grouped into four classes, for each of the seven major water catchment zones in the Waikato Region.
Table 31: Stock density in seven major water catchment zones in the Waikato Region, January 2001
Percentage of farms in each class for each catchment Stock Unit Density (Stock Units/ha) Coromandel Hauraki Lower
WaikatoTaupo Upper
WaikatoWaipa West
Coast
<10.5 38 16 29 62 36 27 57
10.5 to 17.5 36 36 37 27 46 40 31
17.5 to 24.5 15 35 21 4 12 22 7
>24.5 10 13 13 6 5 12 5
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Source: www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/land/use/riv9/datafiles/data.csv
Gaps and limitations AgriBase data cannot be used to calculate stock densities for all properties, as not all properties in the region are linked to an AgriBase record. The AgriBase data purchased by Environment Waikato does not discriminate between the age classes of the animals.The equation used to calculate total stock units is a generalised one that uses typical stock classes on farms.
This indicator is not broken down by territorial authority.
This indicator uses data from the 2000 AgriBase and LCDB1. These are not the latest datasets, so the indicator could be updated with later versions. Environment Waikato states that the indicator will be updated every five years but it is not clear when the next update is due.
More information Environment Waikato Stock density indicator
www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/land/use/riv9/keypoints.htm
AgriQuality Agribase database information www.agriquality.co.nz/page.cfm?s=178,232,368,100000275
Page 50 Doc #1084090
5.1.5 Energy outcome (h) We reduce our reliance on non-renewable energy. (i) Waste reduction, recycling, energy conservation and energy efficiency are promoted and are part of how we all live.
5.1.5.1 #18 – Total energy consumption
What does ‘Total energy consumption’ mean? This indicator measures the amount of energy consumed in the Waikato Region, and compares what sources of energy were used.
Why is ‘Total energy consumption’ important? Energy consumption is part of our everyday lives and is vital to industry and the economy of the country. Energy production can be from renewable or non-renewable sources. Inefficiency in energy production or consumption can mean that non-renewable sources are used quicker than required and pollution problems can occur.
Results
Table 32: Annual energy consumption 2003 – Waikato Region and Hamilton City
Area Transport (TJ/ year)
Domestic (TJ/ year)
Industry/commercial (TJ/ year)
Total (TJ/ year)
WaikatoRegion
22863 6817 79363 109043
Hamilton City 4573 2251 1351 8175Source:www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/economyandresourceuse/energy1/data.htm (based on data from the Regional Energy Survey)
Table 33: Source of energy consumed in 2003 – Waikato Region and Hamilton City
Area Electricity (TJ/ year)
Wood (TJ/ year)
Coal (TJ/ year)
Gas (TJ/ year)
Other oil products (TJ/ year)
Other (TJ/ year)
Total (TJ/year)
WaikatoRegion
9796 6918 26371 42489 22871 599 109043
HamiltonCity
3260 199 117 40 4559 0 8175
Source:www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/economyandresourceuse/energy1/data.htm (based on data from the Regional Energy Survey)
Gaps and limitations 2003 was the first year this data was collected and forms the baseline data. No trends in energy consumption can yet be determined.
Data has not been collated for any territorial authorities except for Hamilton City.
This indicator depends on industry, electricity line companies, fuel suppliers, fuel transporters and local authorities providing energy use data. Data were not provided by some sources, due to commercial sensitivities, and other less accurate methods of estimating fuel use were used. For example, Aviation fuel consumption data and Rockgas gas use data were unable to be provided for commercial reasons. The
Doc # 1093619 Page 51
methods used to estimate fuel use from these sources are likely to be less accurate than total fuel consumption data from retailers.
Petrol tax data were provided for Hamilton, South Waikato, Hauraki, Matamata-Piako, Thames-Coromandel, Waikato and Waipa Districts. These areas contain about 75 percent of the total number of dwellings in the Waikato Region. Petrol tax data from these areas were used to estimate fuel use for the rest of the Region.
No fuel tax data were available for Hamilton alone. Hamilton data were based on estimates of fuel use for Hamilton from road network modelling, carried out by Gabites Porter for the 2001 air emissions inventory. This was extrapolated to 2003 based on projected population growth. These methods provide less accurate estimates than if petrol tax data had been obtained specifically for the whole study area and if the Hamilton use data were able to be segregated on the basis of fuel use.
More information EW Total energy consumption indicator
www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/economyandresourceuse/energy1/keypoints.htm
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority Energy End Use Database www.eeca.govt.nz/enduse/index.aspx
5.1.5.2 #19 – Greenhouse gas emissions
What does ‘Greenhouse gas emissions’ mean? The Inventory of New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Emissions – 2001 is a database of greenhouse gases emissions for all Territorial Local Authorities (TLA) in New Zealand.
Why are ‘Greenhouse gas emissions’ important? Greenhouse gases present in the Earth's atmosphere trap the warmth from the sun, keeping temperatures stable and preventing all the Earth's warmth from radiating away into space. Without these gases, Earth would be too cold to support life as we know it. We call these gases, primarily water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), greenhouse gases because they act like the glass in a greenhouse. Until recently the greenhouse has existed in a state of natural balance, with the heat gained from the sun being matched by the heat lost by radiation back out to space. While there have been climatic changes in the past, there have been no significant climatic changes since the start of human civilization 10,000 years ago. Earlier changes have been either gradual, occurring over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or when not gradual (when caused for example by major meteorite impacts) have extinguished much of the life on Earth. In the last 50 to 100 years, human activity has changed markedly and rapidly. These changes have impacted significantly on the atmosphere. Worldwide there have been developments in transportation, agriculture and industry. These activities produce greenhouse gases, and as a consequence the concentration of these gases in Earth's atmosphere has increased. The greenhouse balance has been upset and more heat has been trapped. The Earth has begun to warm and the climate to change. There is evidence of climate change effects, including raised temperatures and sea levels and the increased frequency of extreme weather events. The occurrence of these changes is projected to be more pronounced, and the rate of change more rapid.
ResultsThis indicator presents data on the six greenhouse gases as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996) – Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Methane (CH4), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6). The inventory is divided into five distinct activity
Page 52 Doc #1084090
sectors: Agriculture, Area, Industry, Natural and Transport. Data is also available for sub-sectors within these activity sectors but is not presented here. The emissions are calculated using Territorial Local Authority (TLA) boundaries and using the 2001 census as base year.
Table 34: Estimated total agricultural emissions of six greenhouse gases by territorial authority, 2001 (estimates are reported in units of CO2 equivalents using Global Warming Potentials published in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)
Territorial authority CO2 (t/yr) CH4 (t/yr) N2O (t/yr) HFC's (t/yr)
PFC's(t/yr)
SF6(t/yr)
Franklin District 11,100 590,717 254,109 0 0 0
Thames-Coromandel District
4,614 98,387 42,342 0 0 0
Hauraki District 5,743 310,774 133,682 0 0 0
Waikato District 16,242 852,062 366,521 0 0 0
Matamata-Piako District 11,512 626,931 269,677 0 0 0
Hamilton City 439 23,981 10,354 0 0 0
Waipa District 8,726 476,683 205,053 0 0 0
Otorohanga District 6,737 349,439 150,312 0 0 0
South Waikato District 14,209 305,440 131,431 0 0 0
Waitomo District 8,502 413,555 177,893 0 0 0
Taupo District 30,532 624,105 268,555 0 0 0
Rotorua District 12,462 411,274 184,159 0 0 0
Source: http://niwa.cri.nz/ncces/ghge/agricultural#agricultural.jpg
Table 35: Estimated total area emissions of six greenhouse gases by territorial authority, 2001 (estimates are reported in units of CO2equivalents using Global Warming Potentials published in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)
Territorial authority CO2 (t/yr) CH4 (t/yr) N2O (t/yr) HFC's (t/yr)
PFC's(t/yr)
SF6(t/yr)
Franklin District 31,478 37,655 1,622 2,059 0 0
Thames-Coromandel District
20,916 18,908 1,122 1,003 0 0
Hauraki District 10,596 12,256 536 668 0 0
Waikato District 24,280 29,046 1,251 1,588 0 0
Matamata-Piako District 17,955 21,479 925 1,174 0 0
Hamilton City 70,012 83,752 3,607 4,579 0 0
Waipa District 24,547 29,365 1,264 1,605 0 0
Otorohanga District 5,655 6,765 291 370 0 0
South Waikato District 14,300 17,106 737 935 0 0
Waitomo District 12,173 7,535 467 377 0 0
Taupo District 44,392 25,500 3,072 1,256 0 0
Rotorua District 39,278 46,987 2,023 2,569 0 0
Source: http://niwa.cri.nz/ncces/ghge/area.xls
Doc # 1093619 Page 53
Table 36: Estimated total industrial emissions of six greenhouse gases by territorial authority, 2001 (estimates are reported in units of CO2equivalents using Global Warming Potentials published in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)
Territorial authority CO2 (t/yr) CH4 (t/yr) N2O (t/yr) HFC's (t/yr)
PFC's(t/yr)
SF6(t/yr)
Franklin District 1,762,047 6,802 1,261 7,231 0 761
Thames-Coromandel District
41,498 3,315 614 502 0 53
Hauraki District 27,632 2,207 409 334 0 35
Waikato District 2,972,878 128,998 5,201 6,996 0 736
Matamata-Piako District 48,579 3,880 719 587 0 62
Hamilton City 189,425 15,130 2,804 2,289 0 241
Waipa District 66,415 5,305 983 803 0 84
Otorohanga District 119,000 1,222 226 6,387 0 672
South Waikato District 1,138,896 6,736 13,967 468 0 49
Waitomo District 15,586 1,245 231 188 0 20
Taupo District 212,756 37,270 769 6,830 0 719
Rotorua District 106,271 8,488 1,573 1,284 0 135
Source: http://niwa.cri.nz/ncces/ghge/industrial.xls
Table 37: Estimated total natural emissions of six greenhouse gases by territorial authority, 2001 (estimates are reported in units of CO2equivalents using Global Warming Potentials published in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)
Territorial authority CO2 (t/yr) CH4 (t/yr) N2O (t/yr) HFC's (t/yr)
PFC's(t/yr)
SF6(t/yr)
Franklin District 23 885 117,597 0 0 0
Thames-Coromandel District
1 2,474 666,824 0 0 0
Hauraki District 31 359 59,809 0 0 0
Waikato District 64 835 204,293 0 0 0
Matamata-Piako District 27 72 42,096 0 0 0
Hamilton City 1 1 442 0 0 0
Waipa District 3 4 24,205 0 0 0
Otorohanga District 1 276 178,307 0 0 0
South Waikato District 6 8 1,563,290 0 0 0
Waitomo District 1 963 397,748 0 0 0
Taupo District 10,193 255 3,752,401 0 0 0
Rotorua District 100,065 138,082 807,462 0 0 0
Source: http://niwa.cri.nz/ncces/ghge/natural.xls
Page 54 Doc #1084090
Table 38: Estimated total transport emissions of six greenhouse gases by territorial authority, 2001 (estimates are reported in units of CO2equivalents using Global Warming Potentials published in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)
Territorial authority CO2 (t/yr) CH4 (t/yr) N2O (t/yr) HFC's (t/yr)
PFC's(t/yr)
SF6(t/yr)
Franklin District 177689 920 1429 0 0 0
Thames-Coromandel District
86623 448 696 0 0 0
Hauraki District 58240 299 468 0 0 0
Waikato District 139504 714 1120 0 0 0
Matamata-Piako District 104470 530 838 0 0 0
Hamilton City 389431 2037 3134 0 0 0
Waipa District 143736 728 1167 0 0 0
Otorohanga District 34671 170 277 0 0 0
South Waikato District 82549 421 663 0 0 0
Waitomo District 36127 223 500 0 0 0
Taupo District 106355 558 856 0 0 0
Rotorua District 222705 1151 1802 0 0 0
Source: http://niwa.cri.nz/ncces/ghge/transport.xls
Gaps and limitations It is not clear if this inventory will be repeated on a regular basis. Data is not available at regional level, although territorial authority data could possibly be aggregated to give a regional picture. Ministry for the Environment and Climate Change Office may provide regional information in the future – see metadata document #1068783 for more information.
More information http://niwa.cri.nz/ncces/ghge/ - National Centre for Climate-Energy Solutions Inventory of NZ Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2001
EcoLink database provides carbon dioxide emissions estimates on a regional and territorial authority level but there may be a cost for this information and it is not clear what the information is based on.
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/resources/reports/nir-apr05/index.html - link to New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2003. Includes national estimates only. However, the Climate Change Office and MfE may move into regional breakdowns in the 2006/07 financial year – contact [email protected](National Inventory Coordinator) for more information in the future.
5.1.5.3 #20 – Energy efficiency (or Energy use relative to economic growth)Because the indicator “Energy efficiency” is not available, the proxy “Energy use relative to economic growth” has been used.
What does 'Energy use relative to economic growth' mean? This indicator measures energy use in different sectors of society relative to economic growth (as represented by GDP). A lower ratio of energy consumption to GDP suggests a higher level of energy consumption.
Doc # 1093619 Page 55
Energy efficiency in terms of transport, residential, commercial and industrial use of energy is sometimes referred to as energy conservation.
Why is ‘Energy use relative to economic growth' important? We monitor energy efficiency because the way that energy is used has impacts on an areas economic, environmental and social well being. The need to increase the available supply of energy (for example, through the creation of new power plants, or by the importation of more energy) is lessened if societal demand for energy can be reduced, or if growth in demand can be slowed through energy efficiency and conservation. Encouraging energy efficiency among consumers is often advocated as a cheaper or more environmentally sensitive alternative to increased energy production.
ResultsEnergy use involves the consumption of electricity and fuels such as natural gas, petrol, diesel, coal, wood and other oil products. Around 109,043 terajoules (TJ)1 of energy were used in the Region in 2003.
The table below shows energy use relative to the Regional economy by ANZSIC industry sector. It is calculated in megajoules (MJ)1 used per dollar contributed to the GDP. The manufacturing sector includes forestry related activities such as wood and paper product manufacturing and sawmilling and timber dressing. It also includes activities relating to dairy product manufacturing. Energy use for transport purposes is included in Transport and Storage. Energy use for domestic heating and appliances is included in Property and Business services.
The greatest amount of energy use relative to GDP contribution occurred within the electricity, gas and water supply sector (203 MJ of energy per dollar contributed). However, much of this energy was used to generate further power. Agriculture, forestry and fishing was the non-electricity generating sector with the most energy consumption (14 MJ per dollar contributed).
Table 39: Energy use and contribution to GDP in the Waikato Region by economic sector 2003
Sector % Contributed to GDP
$ Contributed to GDP
TJ/year MJ/$ Contributed to GDP
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
11.20% 901,044,144 12370 13.7
Mining 3.20% 257,441,184 1147 4.5
Manufacturing 16.40% 1,319,386,068 10874 8.2
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply
3.00% 241,351,110 49091 203.4
Construction 4.80% 386,161,776 40 0.1
Wholesale Trade 6.20% 498,792,294 40 0.1
Retail Trade 6.10% 490,747,257 40 0.1
Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants
1.50% 120,675,555 40 0.3
Transport and Storage 3.80% 305,711,406 22863 74.8
Communication Services 3.80% 305,711,406 40 0.1
Finance and Insurance 3.50% 281,576,295 40 0.1
Property and Business Services
10.10% 812,548,737 6817 8.4
Government Administration and Defence
3.00% 241,351,110 40 0.2
Page 56 Doc #1084090
Sector % Contributed to GDP
$ Contributed to GDP
TJ/year MJ/$ Contributed to GDP
Education 3.90% 313,756,443 40 0.1
Health and Community Services
6.00% 482,702,220 45 0.1
Cultural and Recreational 1.80% 144,810,666 40 0.3
Personal and Other Services 1.00% 80,450,370 40 0.5
Source:www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/sustainability/energy2/keypoints.htm
Gaps and limitations This indicator depends on industry, electricity line companies, fuel suppliers, fuel transporters and local authorities providing energy use data. Data were not provided by some sources, due to commercial sensitivities, and other less accurate methods of estimating fuel use were used. For example, aviation fuel consumption data and Rockgas gas use data were unable to be provided for commercial reasons. The methods used to estimate fuel use from these sources are likely to be less accurate than total fuel consumption data from retailers.
Petrol tax data were provided for Hamilton, South Waikato, Hauraki, Matamata-Piako, Thames-Coromandel, Waikato and Waipa Districts. These areas contain about 75 percent of the total number of dwellings in the Waikato Region. Petrol tax data from these areas were used to estimate fuel use for the rest of the Region.
The Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority (EECA) has a large database of energy use by territorial and regional authority by sector. This database was most recently updated in 2002. This data has not been used in compiling this indicator, but could be used in the future.
This indicator measures energy use against GDP as a measure of energy efficiency. A better measure of energy efficiency could be to compare energy use against a Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). However, GPI values for New Zealand are still in the development process and are not yet available.
More information Wikipedia definition of energy conservation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conservation
Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority (EECA) www.eeca.govt.nz
Emprove (part of EECA) www.emprove.org.nz
Energy Wise (part of EECA) www.energywise.org.nz
The Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority has a large amount of information including a database of energy use by sector, fuel and geographic area. www.eeca.govt.nz/enduse/index.aspx
The Environment Waikato indicator - Energy Use Relative to Economic Growth www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/sustainability/energy2/keypoints.htm
MARCO Indicator – Total energy consumption
Doc # 1093619 Page 57
5.1.6 Solid waste outcome (i) Waste reduction, recycling, energy conservation and energy efficiency are promoted and are part of how we all live.
5.1.6.1 #21 – Waste to landfills
What does “Waste to landfills” mean? This indicator measures the volume of waste disposed at landfills for selected territorial authorities in the Waikato Region.
Why is “Waste to landfills” important? In a recent community perceptions survey (2000), waste disposal was the second most mentioned environmental issue in the Waikato Region (water pollution was the most mentioned). People are concerned about waste facilities, methods of waste disposal, and the cost of rubbish disposal.
In our Region, the amount of solid waste for disposal is increasing. Also, wastes from areas outside our Region (such as Auckland and Tauranga) are likely to be increasingly brought into the Waikato Region for disposal.
At the same time we are becoming more aware of the potential effects of solid waste disposal. Poorly built and maintained landfills near waterways can leak contaminants into the water. Recently many unsatisfactory disposal sites have been closed or upgraded. Modern landfills are better managed with greater emphasis on avoiding environmental effects. But landfill space is becoming scarce as older sites are closed and suitable new sites are harder to find.
Page 58 Doc #1084090
Results
Table 40: Landfill disposal data for selected territorial authorities in the Waikato Region – 2005
Hamilton
City
Hauraki
District
Matamata-
Piako
District
South
Waikato
District
Taupo
District
NZ
Average
Population 114921 16764 29469 23472 31521 3800000
Households 40962 6219 10692 8013 11262 1440000
Number landfills
in district
1 1 0 2 1
Volume to
landfill (tonnes)
83600 7920 17000 16240 40110 3001000
Volume to
landfill per
resident (kg)
727 472 577 692 1272 790
Volume to
landfill per
household (kg)
2041 1274 1590 2027 3562 2084
Landfill
price/tonne
$95.90 $85 $85 $80 $48 $67.22
Source: Responsible Resource Recovery Ltd (“Regional Recycling and Recovery Infrastructural Review”), 2005.
Gaps and limitations This indicator covers only some of the territorial authorities in the Waikato Region and does not provide a comprehensive regional figure. It is based on a one-off report, prepared for Environment Waikato by Responsible Resource Recovery Ltd (“Regional Recycling and Recovery Infrastructural Review”) in 2005.
Data used for this indicator came from multiple sources, some of which were inconsistent. There are a number of reasons for the poor waste data held by District Councils. Problems are encountered when services are contracted out to private companies who are sensitive about divulging commercial information. This is even more the case when service providers operate in a market environment, with no contract obligations to councils. Councils that contract service providers often include
Doc # 1093619 Page 59
data reporting requirements in the contract conditions. Despite this, required reporting often does not take place. Poor data reporting by service providers means that there is an incomplete picture of waste management in the districts and region.
Staff involved in waste issues at Environment Waikato are currently considering options for more integrated waste management directions across the region, including data collection. For more information, contact either Felicity Fahy or Rob Brodnax at Environment Waikato.
More information Environment Waikato web page about type and estimated amount of waste generated across the Waikato Region http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/waste/whatwethrowaway.htm#Heading1
5.1.6.2 #22 – Proportion of recycling
What does “Proportion of recycling” mean? This indicator measures the volume of waste diverted from landfills to recycling facilities, as a percentage of the estimated amount of waste disposed at landfills for selected territorial authorities in the Waikato Region.
Why is “Proportion of recycling” important? As industrial activities expand and our population increases we are using more resources and generating more waste. However, much of our waste could be: reused - for example, taking old books and toys to your local kindergarten recycled - for example, cans, paper and some plastics composted - if organic, for example, hedge and lawn clippings.
Waste disposal is expensive and can cause environmental problems. The less waste we produce, the less we need to dispose of, and the more we use our resources sustainably.
Page 60 Doc #1084090
Results
Table 41: Waste diverted from landfill (recycled) for selected territorial authorities in the Waikato Region – 2005
Hamilton City Hauraki
District
Matamata-
Piako District
Souh Waikato
District
Taupo
District
2001 population 114921 16764 29469 23472 31521
2001 households 40962 6219 10692 8013 11262
Volume diverted 8158 n/a 3135 1500 15952
% diverted 8.9 15.6 8.5 28.5
Resource
recovery centres
3 2 3 2 7
Population per RR
centre
38307 8382 9823 11736 4503
Source: Responsible Resource Recovery Ltd (“Regional Recycling and Recovery Infrastructural Review”), 2005.
Gaps and limitations This indicator covers only some of the territorial authorities in the Waikato Region and does not provide a comprehensive regional figure. It is based on a one-off report, prepared for Environment Waikato by Responsible Resource Recovery Ltd (“Regional Recycling and Recovery Infrastructural Review”) in 2005.
Data used for this indicator came from multiple sources, some of which were inconsistent. There are a number of reasons for the poor waste data held by District Councils. Problems are encountered when services are contracted out to private companies who are sensitive about divulging commercial information. This is even more the case when service providers operate in a market environment, with no contract obligations to councils. Councils that contract service providers often include data reporting requirements in the contract conditions. Despite this, required reporting often does not take place. Poor data reporting by service providers means that there is an incomplete picture of waste management in the districts and region.
Staff involved in waste issues at Environment Waikato are currently considering options for more integrated waste management directions across the region, including data collection. For more information, contact either Felicity Fahy or Rob Brodnax at Environment Waikato.
More information Environment Waikato web page about reducing waste
http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/waste/reducingwaste/index.htm
Doc # 1093619 Page 61
5.2 Quality of Life Outcome Theme The Waikato region is a great place to live, providing the services and opportunities we need to love well.
5.2.1 Health outcome (a) We are healthy with active lifestyles and we enjoy a total sense of well-being. Everyone has access to affordable quality health services throughout the Waikato region.(c) Maori enjoy the same quality of health, education, housing, employment and economic outcomes as non-Maori.4
5.2.1.1 #23 – Life expectancy at birth
What does ‘Life expectancy’ mean? A life table represents the mortality experience of a population during a given period. It comprises a range of measures, including probabilities of death, probabilities of survival and life expectancies at various ages. Statistics NZ derives life tables, which commence with a hypothetical cohort of new-born babies and assumes that they would experience the observed mortality rates of a given period throughout their life. The derived life expectancies give an indication of the average longevity of the whole population but do not necessarily reflect the longevity of an individual.
Why is ‘Life expectancy’ important? Life expectancy is a key indicator of the general health of the population. Improvements in overall life expectancy reflect improvements in social and economic conditions, lifestyle, access to health services, and medical advances.
ResultsIn the Waikato Region, life expectancy data is only available for some territorial authorities, because death and population numbers in the others are too small to construct reliable life tables. Note also that life expectancy data for 1990-92 are not directly comparable with 1995-97 and 2000-02 because of differences in methodology.
Table 42: Life expectancy from birth for Waikato Region and selected territorial authorities, 1990-92, 1995-97, 2000-02
Area 1990-1992 1995-1997 2000-2002
Male Female F-M Male Female F-M Male Female F-M
Waikato Region 72.5 78.5 6.0 74.3 80.0 5.7 75.9 81.0 5.1
Thames- Coromandel District
- - - 74.5 80.9 6.4 77.0 82.9 5.9
Hamilton City - - - 74.7 80.2 5.5 76.7 81.9 5.2
Waipa District - - - 74.1 78.9 4.8 76.1 80.4 4.3
Source: http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/BB78167E-45B3-442A-9858-E29E03E802A7/0/Part4Table1.gif
Gaps and limitations For most sub-national areas, death and population numbers are too small to construct reliable complete life tables. However, abridged life tables, which involve death and population data by age groups (0, 1–4, 5–9, ... 80–84, 85+ years), have been constructed for sub-national areas. Nevertheless, even the abridged life tables must
4 This outcome is not addressed comprehensively by the indicators included in this report and will be addressed further
by associated Maori indicators being developed in a parallel process.
Page 62 Doc #1084090
be interpreted with caution. Death and population numbers can fluctuate from year to year. In addition, the stated residence of the deceased may not reflect the geographic area(s) where that person spent most of their life.
For many sub-national areas, death and population numbers are also too small to construct reliable abridged life tables. For the Waikato Region, life expectancy data is available freely on the Statistics NZ website for the Region, Thames-Coromandel District, Waipa District and Hamilton City only. It is not available for any of the other territorial authorities in the Waikato Region (Hauraki, Waikato, Matamata-Piako, Otorohanga, South Waikato, Waitomo, Taupo), even on request, because death and population numbers are too small to construct reliable life tables.
Life expectancy data for 1990-92 are not directly comparable with 1995-97 and 2000-02 because of differences in methodology.
No ethnic life tables have been derived at sub-national level. For most areas and ethnicities, death and population numbers would be too small for constructing reliable life tables.
Standardised mortality rates are available for all territorial authorities and could possibly be substituted for life expectancy where that is not available.
More information New Zealand Life Tables (2000-2002) – www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/nz-life-tables-2000-2002/default.htm - link to the NZ Life Tables 2000-2002, which provide the most recent data for the Waikato Region and territorial authorities.
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/r-councils/life-expectancy.html -Social Report page reporting life expectancy at birth at regional level for 2000-02
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/t-authorities/life-expectancy.html -Social Report page reporting life expectancy at birth at territorial authority level for 2000-02
5.2.1.2 #24 – Social deprivation index
What does the ‘Social deprivation index’ mean? The New Zealand Index of Deprivation (NZDep) is a measure of socio-economic status calculated for small geographic areas. It shows the percentage of the population in a given area who live in each deprivation index decile. The Index combines a range of key socio-economic factors from the 2001 Census and estimates a score of material and social deprivation for a particular area, on a scale of 1 (least deprived) to 10 (most deprived). Deprivation scores generally reflect the ability of households to achieve positive outcomes in areas such as health, income, education and employment.
Why is the ‘Social deprivation index’ important? The economic and social circumstances of people impact significantly on their ability to provide for their everyday needs and to participate fully as members of their communities.
ResultsNote, in the graphs presented below, the x axis represents the index of deprivation with 1 being least deprived and 10 being most deprived.
Doc # 1093619 Page 63
Figure 1: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Franklin District usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Figure 2: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Waikato District usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Figure 3: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Hamilton City usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Page 64 Doc #1084090
Figure 4: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Thames-Coromandel District usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Figure 5: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Hauraki District usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Figure 6: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Matamata-Piako District usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Doc # 1093619 Page 65
Figure 7: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Waipa District usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Figure 8: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Otorohanga District usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Figure 9: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Waitomo District usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Page 66 Doc #1084090
Figure 10: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for South Waikato District usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Figure 11: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Taupo District usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Figure 12: NZDep2001 deprivation profile for Rotorua District usually resident population 2001
Source: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference (2nd Edition), 2004.
Doc # 1093619 Page 67
Gaps and limitations The deprivation index applies to areas rather than individuals who live in those areas. Data is not easily available at the regional level but could be aggregrated using meshblock data. However, the indicator was designed as a small area measure and aggregation to regional level may be inaccurate. Data on ethnicity is not readily available at the territorial authority level in the 2004 Atlas because this index relates to areas rather than individuals. The more recently developed NZ Index of Social Deprivation for Individuals may be more useful in terms of ethnicity (see bullet point below for more information).
More information New Zealand Index of Social Deprivation for Individuals (NZiDep) has been
developed to provide a more accurate picture for individuals and households – refer to a PDF of the report “A New Zealand Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation for Individuals”, which outlines how the Index was developed at http://www.wnmeds.ac.nz/academic/dph/staff/Report%20NZiDep%2018%20March%2020051.pdf
http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Social_deprivation.pdf - Quality of Life report section on Social Deprivation
Regional data for 2001 is reported on the Statistics NZ website under standard of living at http://www.stats.govt.nz/urban-rural-profiles/independent-urban-area/standard-living.htm
http://www.moh.govt.nz/phi/publications#DeprivationIndex – Ministry of Health research reports on 2001 Deprivation Index.
5.2.1.3 #25 – Avoidable mortality and hospitalisation rates
What do ‘Avoidable mortality and hospitalisation rates’ mean? The concept of avoidable mortality includes deaths that are potentially preventable through population-based interventions (e.g. health promotion), as well as those responsive to preventative and curative interventions at an individual level. Almost 80% of all avoidable deaths occur in those aged 45 -74 years, dominated by the emergence of chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and smoking-related cancers.
Avoidable hospitalisations are hospitalisations which result from diseases and conditions sensitive to interventions delivered through primary health care, and which could therefore be potentially avoided.
Why are ‘Avoidable mortality and hospitalisation rates’ important? Monitoring levels of mortality and hospitalisation and levels of avoidable mortality and hospitalisation is an important part of the ongoing process of identifying priority areas and themes in a District Health Boards’ Health Needs Assessment process, and contributes to identifying continuing priorities and developing strategies to improve the health of society.
Mortality/hospitalisation rates (and those that are avoidable) can act as a measure in understanding the broader and more complex multi-layered general health of society.
The avoidable hospitalisation rate partly reflects effectiveness and access to primary health care.
ResultsNote that the results presented below are not for the Waikato Region but are for the area covered by the Waikato District Health Board. This area does not include parts of
Page 68 Doc #1084090
Rotorua and Taupo Districts (part of Lakes DBH) or Franklin District (Counties-Manukau DHB). It does however include a large proportion of Ruapehu District (part of the Manawatu Region).
Table 43: Avoidable mortality rate – Waikato District Health Board compared to New Zealand, 2000
Area Count Age-standardised rate per 100,000 Waikato DHB 811 233.1
New Zealand 8444 205.0 Source: Waikato District Health Board Health Needs Assessment and Analysis 2005 http://www.waikatodhb.govt.nz/media/docs/hna/hna_final.pdf
Table 44: Avoidable hospitalisations - Waikato District Health Board compared to New Zealand, 2002
Area Count Age-standardised rate per 100,000 Waikato DHB 8770 2852.1
New Zealand 104259 2897.8 Source: Waikato District Health Board Health Needs Assessment and Analysis http://www.waikatodhb.govt.nz/media/docs/hna/hna_final.pdf
Table 45: Avoidable mortality by territorial authority in the Waikato DHB area 1998-2001 by population estimate (2001)
Territorial authority 2001 population
Avoidable mortality 1998-2001
% of population
Hamilton City 119500 2825 2.36
Hauraki 17200 619 3.6
Matamata-Piako 30300 945 3.12
Otorohanga 9600 208 2.17
South Waikato 24200 605 2.5
Thames-Coromandel 25800 1029 3.99
Waikato 41300 1089 2.64
Waipa 41400 1356 3.28
Waitomo 9800 310 3.16 Source: Waikato District Health Board Health Needs Assessment and Analysis http://www.waikatodhb.govt.nz/media/docs/hna/hna_final.pdf
Doc # 1093619 Page 69
Table 46: Avoidable hospitalisations by territorial authority in the Waikato DHB area 2000-2003 by population estimate (2001)
Territorial authority 2001 population
Avoidablehospitalisations2000-03
% of population
Hamilton City 119500 22394 18.74
Hauraki 17200 3417 19.87
Matamata-Piako 30300 4505 14.87
Otorohanga 9600 1220 12.71
South Waikato 24200 3913 16.17
Thames-Coromandel 25800 5621 21.79
Waikato 41300 6736 16.31
Waipa 41400 7054 17.04
Waitomo 9800 2589 26.42 Source: Waikato District Health Board Health Needs Assessment and Analysis http://www.waikatodhb.govt.nz/media/docs/hna/hna_final.pdf
Gaps and limitations The Waikato District Health Board does not include areas of Rotorua and Taupo Districts (part of Lakes DBH) or Franklin District (Counties-Manukau DHB). It does however include a large proportion of Ruapehu District (part of the Manawatu Region).
More information Waikato District Health Board – Avoidable Hospitalisation Factsheet
www.waikatodhb.govt.nz/Media/docs/HNA/Fact%20Sheets%20a_d/AH%20-%20Avoidable%20Hospitalisation.pdf
Waikato District Health Board – Avoidable Mortality Factsheet www.waikatodhb.govt.nz/Media/docs/HNA/Fact%20Sheets%20a_d/M%20-%20Avoidable%20Mortality.pdf
Waikato District Health Board (DHB) 2005 Health Needs Assessment (HNA) www.waikatodhb.govt.nz/WDHB/default.asp?content=799
5.2.1.4 #26 – Overall quality of life
What does ‘Overall quality of life’ mean? This indicator measures residents’ perception of overall quality of life in selected cities in New Zealand.
Why is ‘Overall quality of life’ important? It is important to have some insight into how people feel about their overall quality of life in a given city or region.
Page 70 Doc #1084090
Results
Table 47: Respondents rating of overall quality of life – Hamilton City 2004
Percentage of respondents rating of overall quality of life
Extremely
good
Good Neutral Poor Extremely
poor
Total 22.5 66.8 8.8 1.7 0.2
Gender
Male 19.7 68.3 9.6 2.0 0.4
Female 25.0 65.5 8.1 1.5 -
Age
15-24 25.5 61.0 12.0 1.5 -
25-49 21.0 69.8 7.7 1.1 0.4
50-64 24.4 64.7 6.7 4.2 -
65+ 19.4 69.8 9.5 1.3 -
Ethnicity
NZ
European/New
Zealander
22.2 66.8 9.0 1.7 0.2
Maori 23.1 63.2 11.5 2.2 -
Pacific Island 17.3 76.5 6.2 - -
Asian/Indian 16.1 76.8 7.0 - -
Other 50.0 50.0 - - -Source: Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Twelve Largest Cities – Residents’ Survey 2004 – Data Tables for Hamilton City, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited.
Gaps and limitations Survey currently only includes Hamilton City – no current data for Waikato Region or other territorial authorities. However, data will be available for the Waikato Region from 2006 onwards.
Doc # 1093619 Page 71
More information http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/surveys.htm# - link to biannual residents’ Quality of Life surveys.
5.2.1.5 #27 – Barriers to accessing General Practitioners (GPs)
What does ‘Barriers to accessing General Practitioners’ mean? This indicator measures the percentage of people who felt unable to go to a doctor in the previous 12 months, although they wanted to.
Why is ‘Barriers to accessing General Practitioners’ important? General Practitioners (GPs) are part of the frontline of primary health care provision. Accessibility to a GP is an important issue in both treatment and prevention of poor health.
Results
Table 48: People who wanted to go to a GP in the last 12 months but felt unable to – Hamilton City 2004
Percentage of respondents who wanted
to go to a GP in last 12 months but felt
unable to
Total 25.0%
Gender
Male 20.4%
Female 28.4%
Age
15-24 30.9%
25-49 29.9%
50-64 17.7%
65+ 2.8%
Ethnicity
NZ European/New Zealander 24.1%
Maori 31.3%
Pacific Island 11.2%
Asian/Indian 26.5%
Page 72 Doc #1084090
Percentage of respondents who wanted
to go to a GP in last 12 months but felt
unable to
Other -Source: Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Twelve Largest Cities – Residents’ Survey 2004 – Data Tables for Hamilton City, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited.
Gaps and limitations Survey currently only includes Hamilton City – no data for Waikato Region or other territorial authorities. However, data will be available for the Waikato Region from 2006 onwards.
More information Quality of Life survey 2004 also recorded the main reasons people didn’t access their GPs – see section 4.3, page 28 of http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf2004/Quality_of_Life_2004_full_report.pdf
http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Access_to_GPs.pdf - Access to GPs indicator report page from Quality of Life Survey 2002.
5.2.2 Education outcome (b) Education provides opportunities so we can reach our full potential as individuals and contribute to the well-being of the whole region. (c) Maori enjoy the same quality of health, education, housing, employment and economic outcomes as non-Maori.5
5.2.2.1 #28 – School leavers with no formal qualification
What does ‘School leavers with no formal qualifications’ mean? This indicator measures the number of school leavers that have no formal school qualifications.
Why are ‘School leavers with no formal qualifications’ important? Each year up to 10,000 school leavers have no formal qualifications. School leavers with no formal qualifications are a concern to a NZ government aiming to develop a knowledge economy. The Statistics NZ website states “The extent to which a lack of school qualifications impedes the progress of young people in their transition from school to work must be of major concern to a nation focusing on developing an inclusive, innovative economy.”
Those who leave school early with few qualifications are at a much greater risk of unemployment or vulnerability in the labour force and of having low incomes. (MSD Social Report).
5 This outcome is not addressed comprehensively by the indicators included in this report and will be addressed further
by associated Maori indicators being developed in a parallel process.
Doc # 1093619 Page 73
Results
Table 49: Number of students leaving Secondary Schools in 2004 with little or no qualifications by gender – Waikato region and territorial authorities
Actual numbers As % of all school leaversArea
Male Female Male Female Waikato Region 11.5 14.7
Franklin District 48 38 16.3 14.5
Thames-Coromandel District 29 17 23.5 14.4
Hauraki District 23 15 13.8 9.0
Waikato District 17 21 20.8 23.5
Matamata-Piako District 45 35 23.4 18.0
Hamilton City 107 85 12.2 8.5
Waipa District 41 34 10.6 8.5
Otorohanga District 10 10 s s
South Waikato District 31 23 19.0 16.2
Waitomo District 5 5 11.1 x
Taupo District 12 14 12.4 11.6
Rotorua District 85 62 18.5 13.3x = for this category there were less than 5 school leavers with little or no formal attainment s = data not shown as there is only one school with students in Year 9 and above in the Territorial Local Authority area Source: Data Management and Analysis Section, Ministry of Education
Table 50: Number of students leaving Secondary Schools in 2004 with little or no qualifications by ethnicity – Waikato region and territorial authorities
% of all school leavers Area NZ European M ori Pasifika Asian Other Waikato Region 10.3 21.6 9.9 2.7 10.9
Franklin District 12.6 26.4 x 25.0 x
Thames-CoromandelDistrict
17.2 27.3 x x x
Hauraki District 9.6 17.4 x x x
Waikato District 17.0 26.0 x x x
Matamata-PiakoDistrict
16.8 34.3 x x x
Hamilton City 7.7 23.5 10.0 x 11.7
Waipa District 9.4 11.0 x x x
OtorohangaDistrict
s s s s s
South Waikato District
8.7 27.7 18.2 x x
Waitomo District x 10.7 x x x
Page 74 Doc #1084090
% of all school leavers Area NZ European M ori Pasifika Asian Other Taupo District 10.4 16.1 x x x
Rotorua District 7.6 24.5 x 27.8 xx = for this category there were less than 5 school leavers with little or no formal attainment s = data not shown as there is only one school with students in Year 9 and above in the Territorial Local Authority area Source: Data Management and Analysis Section, Ministry of Education
Gaps and limitations The Ministry of Education data can only be compared in terms of leavers with no qualification, as types of qualification obtained changed during the 2002 – 2004 period with the introduction of NCEA.
Territorial authority breakdowns are only supplied by Ministry of Education for 2003 and 2004 data. 2005 data are not available at all yet.
More information Ministry of Social Development Social Report Indicator
www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/knowledge-skills/school-leavers-higher-qualifications.html
Statistics New Zealand report on school leavers with no formal qualifications www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/school-leavers/default.htm
Ministry of Education: Education Counts – School leavers with no formal qualifications indicator http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/indicators/edachievmnt/dsau3.html
5.2.2.2 #29 – Educational attainment of the adult population
What does ‘Educational attainment of the adult population’ mean? The highest level of education or qualification attained for adults (aged 15 years or over). Changes in educational attainment provide information about access to education and the equity of the education system, and serve as a backdrop to current participation and completion rates.
Why is ‘Educational attainment of the adult population’’ important? Measuring the qualification levels of a city’s population aged 15 years and over helps to identify the job readiness of the future labour force. An educated population adds to the vibrancy and creativity of a city and is needed to remain competitive in the global economy.
Higher educational attainment, in terms of recognised qualifications, is associated with a range of positive outcomes, including better income, employment, and health. As the requirements for many jobs and the expectations of employers are rising, education that provides the necessary skills and knowledge has become essential for full participation in society and for a productive workforce. Education also contributes to an expansion of scientific and cultural knowledge, and a population’s educational levels are positively related to economic growth rates and to a country’s capacity to provide its citizens with a high standard of living.
Doc # 1093619 Page 75
ResultsThis indicator is presented by age in separate tables for territorial authorities and the Waikato Region for 2001 for both total population by gender and for the Maori ethnic group by gender.
Page
76
Doc
#10
8409
0
Tabl
e 51
: H
ighe
st q
ualif
icat
ion
by g
ende
r fo
r us
ually
res
iden
t po
pula
tion
aged
15
year
s an
d ov
er 2
001
– W
aika
to R
egio
n an
d te
rrito
rial a
utho
ritie
s
Are
a an
d Se
x H
ighe
st Q
ualif
icat
ion
N
o Q
ualif
icat
ion
Fifth
For
m
Qua
lific
atio
n
Sixt
h Fo
rm
Qua
lific
atio
n
Hig
her
Scho
ol
Qua
lific
atio
n
Oth
erSe
cond
ary
Scho
ol
Qua
lific
atio
n
Voca
tiona
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Bac
helo
r D
egre
e H
ighe
r D
egre
e N
otEl
sew
here
In
clud
ed(1
)
Tota
l
Wai
kato
Reg
ion
Mal
e 37
,530
17
,757
11
,385
6,
021
4,84
5 24
,807
6,
681
3,46
2 19
,035
13
1,52
0
Fem
ale
35,9
64
22,0
05
14,9
67
6,50
1 6,
159
23,2
71
7,80
9 2,
973
19,4
97
139,
152
Tota
l 73
,491
39
,765
26
,349
12
,525
11
,007
48
,078
14
,490
6,
435
38,5
35
270,
672
Fran
klin
Dis
trict
Mal
e 5,
190
2,
646
1,
557
69
9
804
3,
801
79
5
318
3,
207
19
,014
Fem
ale
4,83
6
3,35
7
2,19
0
663
97
5
3,16
8
831
27
6
3,18
0
19,4
79
Tota
l 10
,026
6,
003
3,
747
1,
365
1,
782
6,
969
1,
626
59
4
6,38
7
38,4
96
Tham
es-C
orom
ande
l D
istri
ct
Mal
e 2,
976
1,
347
82
2
291
37
5
1,80
3
366
18
3
1,68
6
9,84
9
Fem
ale
2,94
3
1,68
6
1,01
4
294
51
9
1,71
0
354
13
8
1,78
5
10,4
43
Tota
l 5,
916
3,
036
1,
839
58
5
891
3,
510
72
0
321
3,
471
20
,295
Hau
raki
Dis
trict
Mal
e 2,
220
91
2
456
15
9
180
1,
005
15
6
45
1,01
4
6,15
0
Fem
ale
2,13
3
1,09
5
633
19
2
240
89
7
147
51
96
9
6,35
7
Tota
l 4,
353
2,
004
1,
092
35
1
417
1,
902
30
3
99
1,98
0
12,5
07
Wai
kato
Dis
trict
Mal
e 4,
569
1,
908
1,
203
52
5
414
2,
532
63
6
333
2,
271
14
,397
Fem
ale
4,14
6
2,31
0
1,50
9
570
48
3
2,42
4
786
33
9
2,18
1
14,7
45
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
77
Are
a an
d Se
x H
ighe
st Q
ualif
icat
ion
N
o Q
ualif
icat
ion
Fifth
For
m
Qua
lific
atio
n
Sixt
h Fo
rm
Qua
lific
atio
n
Hig
her
Scho
ol
Qua
lific
atio
n
Oth
erSe
cond
ary
Scho
ol
Qua
lific
atio
n
Voca
tiona
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Bac
helo
r D
egre
e H
ighe
r D
egre
e N
otEl
sew
here
In
clud
ed(1
)
Tota
l
Tota
l 8,
715
4,
218
2,
715
1,
092
89
7
4,95
3
1,42
2
672
4,
452
29
,139
Mat
amat
a-P
iako
Dis
trict
Mal
e 3,
600
1,
716
87
3
339
36
3
1,94
1
390
96
1,
551
10
,866
Fem
ale
3,36
6
2,10
0
1,28
1
336
40
8
1,63
5
408
10
5
1,62
3
11,2
53
Tota
l 6,
963
3,
816
2,
148
67
5
771
3,
573
79
5
201
3,
171
22
,119
Ham
ilton
City
Mal
e 9,
306
4,
971
4,
059
3,
120
1,
923
8,
337
3,
372
2,
070
4,
683
41
,835
Fem
ale
10,1
07
6,42
6
5,17
5
3,42
6
2,45
7
8,33
7
4,02
6
1,68
0
5,48
1
47,1
12
Tota
l 19
,413
11
,397
9,
237
6,
543
4,
380
16
,671
7,
398
3,
747
10
,161
88
,947
Wai
pa D
istri
ct
Mal
e 4,
134
2,
142
1,
308
52
2
522
3,
099
73
5
333
1,
857
14
,658
Fem
ale
3,83
1
2,75
7
1,81
5
627
69
6
2,86
5
873
30
0
2,06
1
15,8
28
Tota
l 7,
965
4,
902
3,
120
1,
149
1,
218
5,
967
1,
608
63
3
3,91
8
30,4
86
Oto
roha
nga
Dis
trict
Mal
e 1,
374
57
3
276
11
1
72
504
78
27
76
8
3,78
0
Fem
ale
915
54
0
342
87
96
50
1
117
33
46
8
3,09
6
Tota
l 2,
289
1,
116
61
8
201
16
5
1,00
5
198
57
1,
236
6,
876
Sou
th W
aika
to D
istri
ct
Mal
e 2,
904
1,
044
56
4
219
28
8
1,50
6
213
75
1,
521
8,
325
Fem
ale
2,78
7
1,36
8
756
25
2
378
1,
167
25
2
69
1,36
5
8,39
1
Tota
l 5,
688
2,
415
1,
317
47
1
666
2,
670
46
2
141
2,
886
16
,719
Wai
tom
o D
istri
ct
Page
78
Doc
#10
8409
0
Are
a an
d Se
x H
ighe
st Q
ualif
icat
ion
N
o Q
ualif
icat
ion
Fifth
For
m
Qua
lific
atio
n
Sixt
h Fo
rm
Qua
lific
atio
n
Hig
her
Scho
ol
Qua
lific
atio
n
Oth
erSe
cond
ary
Scho
ol
Qua
lific
atio
n
Voca
tiona
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Bac
helo
r D
egre
e H
ighe
r D
egre
e N
otEl
sew
here
In
clud
ed(1
)
Tota
l
Mal
e 1,
335
51
3
270
11
7
33
501
99
30
57
9 3,
474
Fem
ale
1,13
7
561
31
2
111
81
58
8
123
30
54
3
3,48
6
Tota
l 2,
469
1,
074
57
9
231
11
4
1,08
6
222
57
1,
122
6,
960
Taup
o D
istri
ct
Mal
e 3,
225
1,
644
1,
029
39
6
420
2,
352
42
6
195
2,
067
11
,757
Fem
ale
3,04
2
1,98
9
1,36
5
402
55
2
2,04
6
456
14
1
2,07
0
12,0
63
Tota
l 6,
267
3,
633
2,
394
79
8
972
4,
398
88
2
336
4,
140
23
,820
(1
) Inc
lude
s H
ighe
st Q
ualif
icat
ion
Uni
dent
ifiab
le a
nd N
ot S
tate
d S
ourc
e:ht
tp://
ww
w2.
stat
s.go
vt.n
z/do
min
o/ex
tern
al/P
AS
Full/
PA
Sfu
ll.ns
f/0/4
c256
7ef0
0247
c6ac
c256
bca0
00d0
d49/
$FIL
E/T
able
%20
10.x
ls
Tabl
e 52
: Hig
hest
qua
lific
atio
n fo
r M
aori
ethn
ic g
roup
by
gend
er fo
r th
e us
ually
res
iden
t pop
ulat
ion
aged
15
year
s an
d ov
er, 2
001
– W
aika
to R
egio
n an
d te
rrito
rial a
utho
ritie
s
Are
a an
d Se
x H
ighe
st Q
ualif
icat
ion
N
o Q
ualif
icat
ion
Fifth
For
m
Qua
lific
atio
nSi
xth
Form
Q
ualif
icat
ion
Hig
her S
choo
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Oth
er N
Z Se
cond
ary
Scho
ol Q
ualif
icat
ion
Ove
rsea
s Se
cond
ary
Scho
ol Q
ualif
icat
ion
Bas
ic V
ocat
iona
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Wai
kato
Reg
ion
Mal
e 9,
114
2,
904
1,
632
90
0
27
42
876
Fem
ale
8,99
4
3,72
9
2,22
6
1,14
3
27
63
1,27
8
Tota
l 18
,105
6,
633
3,
861
2,
043
57
10
8
2,15
4
Fran
klin
Dis
trict
Mal
e 98
7 33
3 16
5 69
3
6 84
Fem
ale
1062
37
5 21
3 78
3
6 12
3
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
79
Are
a an
d Se
x H
ighe
st Q
ualif
icat
ion
N
o Q
ualif
icat
ion
Fifth
For
m
Qua
lific
atio
nSi
xth
Form
Q
ualif
icat
ion
Hig
her S
choo
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Oth
er N
Z Se
cond
ary
Scho
ol Q
ualif
icat
ion
Ove
rsea
s Se
cond
ary
Scho
ol Q
ualif
icat
ion
Bas
ic V
ocat
iona
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Tota
l 20
46
705
378
147
9 12
20
7
Tham
es- C
orom
ande
l D
istri
ct
Mal
e 46
8 17
1 93
33
0
6 36
Fem
ale
432
222
123
27
0 6
51
Tota
l 90
0 39
3 21
9 60
0
9 90
Hau
raki
Dis
trict
Mal
e
402
129
54
12
0 0
27
Fem
ale
408
159
75
33
0 3
54
Tota
l 80
7 28
8 12
9 45
0
3 81
Wai
kato
Dis
trict
Mal
e 13
68
363
210
105
3 6
105
Fem
ale
1425
47
7 28
2 12
9 6
9 15
3
Tota
l 27
93
843
489
234
9 12
25
8
Mat
amat
a-P
iako
Dis
trict
Mal
e 49
5 15
9 69
24
6
3 30
Fem
ale
513
192
102
33
3 0
57
Tota
l 10
08
351
171
60
9 3
87
Ham
ilton
City
Mal
e 23
01
810
591
474
6 15
30
3
Fem
ale
2304
99
3 76
2 58
8 3
27
456
Tota
l 46
02
1806
13
53
1062
9
39
759
Wai
pa D
istri
ct
Page
80
Doc
#10
8409
0
Are
a an
d Se
x H
ighe
st Q
ualif
icat
ion
N
o Q
ualif
icat
ion
Fifth
For
m
Qua
lific
atio
nSi
xth
Form
Q
ualif
icat
ion
Hig
her S
choo
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Oth
er N
Z Se
cond
ary
Scho
ol Q
ualif
icat
ion
Ove
rsea
s Se
cond
ary
Scho
ol Q
ualif
icat
ion
Bas
ic V
ocat
iona
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Mal
e 64
5 25
5 14
1 63
0
6 72
Fem
ale
660
339
204
84
3 3
102
Tota
l 13
05
594
348
150
0 9
174
Oto
roha
nga
Dis
trict
Mal
e 47
4 13
5 51
21
3
3 30
Fem
ale
294
114
48
6 3
3 39
Tota
l 77
1 24
6 99
27
6
3 72
Sou
th W
aika
to D
istri
ct
Mal
e 87
6 24
3 11
7 45
3
3 72
Fem
ale
930
372
180
87
6 3
96
Tota
l 18
09
615
297
132
9 6
168
Wai
tom
o D
istri
ct
Mal
e 56
1 11
7 57
24
0
0 36
Fem
ale
561
195
78
33
3 3
60
Tota
l 11
25
309
138
57
3 3
93
Taup
o D
istri
ct
Mal
e 11
19
375
183
66
0 6
132
Fem
ale
1059
49
5 27
9 96
3
6 15
6
Tota
l 21
75
873
459
159
6 9
288
Rot
orua
Dis
trict
Mal
e 24
12
933
504
258
3 21
31
5
Fem
ale
2469
11
28
738
321
6 18
50
1
Tota
l 48
81
2061
12
45
576
9 42
81
6
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
81
Sou
rce:
Sta
tistic
s N
Z Ta
ble
Bui
lder
- ht
tp://
xtab
s.st
ats.
govt
.nz/
eng/
Tabl
eVie
wer
/Wds
view
/dis
pvie
wp.
asp?
Rep
ortId
=145
– M
aori
ethn
ic in
form
atio
n on
ly
Tabl
e 53
: Hig
hest
qua
lific
atio
n fo
r M
aori
ethn
ic g
roup
by
gend
er fo
r th
e us
ually
res
iden
t pop
ulat
ion
aged
15
year
s an
d ov
er, 2
001
– W
aika
to R
egio
n (c
ontin
ued)
and
terr
itoria
l aut
horit
ies
Are
a an
d Se
x H
ighe
st Q
ualif
icat
ion
Sk
illed
Voc
atio
nal
Qua
lific
atio
nIn
term
edia
te
Voca
tiona
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Adv
ance
d Vo
catio
nal
Qua
lific
atio
n
Bac
helo
r Deg
ree
Hig
her D
egre
e N
ot
Else
whe
re
Incl
uded
(1)
Tota
l
Wai
kato
Reg
ion
Mal
e 89
4
360
54
9
516
20
4
3,61
8
21,6
33
Fem
ale
414
50
7
957
86
1
240
3,
336
23
,775
Tota
l 1,
305
86
7
1,50
3
1,37
7
441
6,
954
45
,405
Fran
klin
Dis
trict
Mal
e 10
8 39
42
36
9
411
Fem
ale
54
45
99
48
12
381
Tota
l 16
2 84
14
1 87
21
79
5
Tham
es- C
orom
ande
l D
istri
ct
Mal
e 54
18
18
21
3
177
Fem
ale
18
24
54
27
3 18
3
Tota
l 75
39
72
48
9
360
Hau
raki
Dis
trict
Mal
e
36
9 18
9
3 16
8
Fem
ale
18
21
30
15
3 15
9
Tota
l 51
30
45
27
3
327
Wai
kato
Dis
trict
Mal
e 10
8 45
60
57
18
51
3
Page
82
Doc
#10
8409
0
Are
a an
d Se
x H
ighe
st Q
ualif
icat
ion
Sk
illed
Voc
atio
nal
Qua
lific
atio
nIn
term
edia
te
Voca
tiona
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Adv
ance
d Vo
catio
nal
Qua
lific
atio
n
Bac
helo
r Deg
ree
Hig
her D
egre
e N
ot
Else
whe
re
Incl
uded
(1)
Tota
l
Fem
ale
45
48
111
114
42
525
Tota
l 15
3 93
17
1 17
1 60
10
35
Mat
amat
a-P
iako
Dis
trict
Mal
e 36
12
24
15
6
189
Fem
ale
12
12
42
27
9 18
3
Tota
l 48
24
66
42
12
37
5
Ham
ilton
City
Mal
e 24
9 12
9 23
1 28
8 12
0 80
7
Fem
ale
147
183
354
474
132
822
Tota
l 39
6 31
2 58
5 75
9 25
2 16
32
Wai
pa D
istri
ct
Mal
e 10
5 27
54
57
21
24
6
Fem
ale
45
51
105
81
21
231
Tota
l 15
0 78
16
2 13
8 42
47
7
Oto
roha
nga
Dis
trict
Mal
e 27
6
9 3
3 24
0
Fem
ale
6 12
30
9
3 11
7
Tota
l 33
15
42
12
6
357
Sou
th W
aika
to D
istri
ct
Mal
e 78
39
33
15
9
372
Fem
ale
33
57
45
30
6 29
7
Tota
l 11
1 93
78
45
18
66
6
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
83
Are
a an
d Se
x H
ighe
st Q
ualif
icat
ion
Sk
illed
Voc
atio
nal
Qua
lific
atio
nIn
term
edia
te
Voca
tiona
l Q
ualif
icat
ion
Adv
ance
d Vo
catio
nal
Qua
lific
atio
n
Bac
helo
r Deg
ree
Hig
her D
egre
e N
ot
Else
whe
re
Incl
uded
(1)
Tota
l
Wai
tom
o D
istri
ct
Mal
e 33
12
15
9
0 21
6
Fem
ale
15
33
33
18
3 19
2
Tota
l 48
45
45
27
3
405
Taup
o D
istri
ct
Mal
e 13
2 45
69
30
12
50
4
Fem
ale
45
51
117
51
12
474
Tota
l 17
7 99
18
6 81
24
97
8
Rot
orua
Dis
trict
Mal
e 28
5 16
5 18
9 13
2 54
10
95
Fem
ale
120
192
405
255
60
1029
Tota
l 40
2 35
7 59
7 38
7 11
7 21
27
(1
) Inc
lude
s H
ighe
st Q
ualif
icat
ion
Uni
dent
ifiab
le a
nd N
ot S
tate
d S
ourc
e: S
tatis
tics
NZ
Tabl
e B
uild
er -
http
://xt
abs.
stat
s.go
vt.n
z/en
g/Ta
bleV
iew
er/W
dsvi
ew/d
ispv
iew
p.as
p?R
epor
tId=1
45–
Mao
ri et
hnic
inf
orm
atio
n on
ly
Page 84 Doc #1084090
Gaps and limitations There are limitations on data obtained from the education questions in the 2001 Census due to relatively low response rates. Some 14.1 percent of the adult New Zealand resident population either did not answer the school or post-school level of attainment questions or did not answer them accurately enough to have their level of attainment classified. In addition, 18.2 percent of the adult New Zealand resident population did not answer the post-school qualification field of study question, or did not answer it accurately enough to have their field of study classified. Those who did not answer the post-school qualification questions tended to be in the younger and older age groups (i.e. the age groups that tend not to have post-school qualifications).
Changes to the form of the ethnicity questions used in the 1996 and 2001 Census of Population and Dwellings have resulted in some data that is not consistent between 1991 and 1996 or between 1996 and 2001. This applies particularly to the 'European' ethnic groups, including the 'New Zealand European' ethnic group, but also to the 'Mäori' ethnic group. Data between 1991 and 2001 may not be affected.
Care should be taken when comparing field of study data from 1996 with field of study data from 2001. The field of study classification changed between these two periods and although the 1996 data presented in this publication has been output using the same categories as the 2001 classification, some differences remain, including: In 1996 respondents were asked to provide information about their two highest
post-school qualifications. In this report the 1996 field of study data uses the first post-school qualification provided. In 2001, respondents were asked to provide their highest post-school qualification.
More information Age Standardised Qualification Rate (national only, age, gender and ethnicity
available) - http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/metadata/edachievmnt/simu11.html
Total Qualification Rate (national only, age, gender and ethnicity available) - http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/metadata/edachievmnt/simu11.html
http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2001-education/default - Statistics NZ 2001 Education Report (from 2001 Census) – Tables 3 and 3a provide data on highest qualification achieved by regional council area for males, females and total, and for the Maori ethnic group for 2001.
http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/PASFull/PASfull.nsf/0/4c2567ef00247c6acc256bca000d0d49/$FILE/Table%2010.xls – 2001 data tables at territorial authority and regional level.
http://xtabs.stats.govt.nz/eng/TableViewer/Wdsview/dispviewp.asp?ReportId=145– 2001 data tables at territorial authority and regional level by ethnic group.
5.2.2.3 #30 – Participation in early childhood education
What does ‘Participation in early childhood education’ mean? This indicator measures children’s participation in early childhood education.
Why is ‘Participation in early childhood education’ important? The aim of early childhood education is to promote children's learning and development. There is a diverse range of services available, many evolved from individual and community initiatives with a range of philosophies. They include kindergartens, playcentres, k hanga reo, home-based services, childcare centres and crèches.
Doc #1093619 Page 85
Evidence from New Zealand and international research shows that the early years of childhood are vital to a child’s development and future ability to learn. Quality early childhood programmes prepare young children socially, physically and academically for entry into primary education and can help narrow the achievement gap between children from low-income families and those from more advantaged families. (Ministry of Social Development: www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/knowledge-skills/participation-early-childhood-education.html)
Results
Table 54: Percent enrolments in Early Childhood Education services by age – Waikato Region 2005
AgeRegion
Under 1 1 2 3 4 5 Total 0-4
Waikato Region 18.2 41.8 63.0 97.3 100.3 4.1 64.0Source: Ministry of Education, Data Management Unit
Table 55: Number of Year 1 students who have had some Early Childhood Education (ECE), No ECE or unknown if had ECE, by territorial authority, 2005
Number Percentage of total Territorial Authority Total SomeECE
NoECE
Unknown Some ECE
NoECE
Unknown
Franklin District 1011 887 87 37 87.73 8.61 3.66
Hamilton City 1861 1732 84 45 93.07 4.51 2.42
Hauraki District 234 214 15 5 91.45 6.41 2.14
Matamata-PiakoDistrict
508 461 11 36 90.75 2.17 7.09
Otorohanga District 141 122 12 7 86.52 8.51 4.96
Rotorua District 1206 1076 88 42 89.22 7.3 3.48
South Waikato District 383 323 46 14 84.33 12.01 3.66
Taupo District 497 475 19 3 95.57 3.82 0.6
Thames-CoromandelDistrict
343 306 17 20 89.21 4.96 5.83
Waikato District 765 678 57 30 88.63 7.45 3.92
Waipa District 693 633 35 25 91.34 5.05 3.61
Waitomo District 173 137 21 15 79.19 12.14 8.67Source: Data collated from statistics supplied by Ministry of Education (see EWDOCS# 1081823)
Page 86 Doc #1084090
Table 56: Number of Year 1 students who have had some Early Childhood Education (ECE) by ethnicity and territorial authority, 2005
Numbers by ethnic group Percentage of total Year 1 students by ethnicity
Territorial Authority
NZ Euro Maori Pacific Other NZ Euro Maori Pacific Other
Franklin District 604 166 32 85 93.21 72.81 78.05 90.43
Hamilton City 870 555 66 241 98.19 86.72 89.19 92.34
Hauraki District 144 63 1 6 93.51 87.5 100 85.71
Matamata-PiakoDistrict
344 78 8 31 92.23 86.67 100 83.78
Otorohanga District 71 47 1 3 87.65 83.93 100 100
Rotorua District 460 548 23 45 94.65 85.76 74.19 90
South Waikato District 147 124 35 17 92.45 78.98 74.47 85
Taupo District 259 195 8 13 99.23 90.7 100 100
Thames-Coromandel District
217 74 2 13 93.53 82.22 100 68.42
Waikato District 391 251 9 27 93.1 83.39 81.82 81.82
Waipa District 465 130 7 31 94.32 85.53 87.5 77.5
Waitomo District 76 57 1 3 91.57 67.06 100 75
Source: Data collated from statistics supplied by Ministry of Education (see EWDOCS# 1081823)
Gaps and limitations While not a limitation, it should be noted that this indicator measures participation in early childhood education in Year 1 students. This has the advantage of removing double accounting (when pre-school children are enrolled in more than one early childhood education provider), but does not measure in detail the level of early childhood education each Year 1 student has received (such as number of early childhood attendance years).
More information Ministry of Education: Education Counts – Participation in early childhood education indicator http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/indicators/engagement/dsau11.html
Ministry of Social Development Social Report www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/knowledge-skills/participation-early-childhood-education.html
5.2.2.4 #31 – Adult and community education
What does ‘Adult and community education’ mean? This indicator measures the levels of adult and community education (ACE) in the community. ACE happens in a wide range of situations, both formal and informal. ACE does not include education obtained at compulsory education providers or universities and polytechnics, except where provided explicitly as continuing adult or community education.
Why is ‘Adult and community education’ important? ACE is an essential part of New Zealand's education system. It has an important role to play in the government's goal for a prosperous and confident knowledge society as outlined in the Tertiary Education Strategy 2002/07.
Doc #1093619 Page 87
ResultsNone available. This data will be collected in the future by the Tertiary Education Commission.
Gaps and limitations A single funding framework for ACE was only announced July 2005. A key part of the funding framework is “establishing equity and transparency in funding”. It is likely that any formal collection of participation rates in ACE will result from the need to justify funding more clearly.
A result of the funding framework is the funding model, released April 2006. The funding model bases part of funding on a rate ‘per learner hour’. In order to calculate this rate it is assumed that adult learner numbers will be collated. As this is very recent the data collation to meet these needs has yet to occur. In fact “In 2007 and 2008, to … allow providers sufficient time to adapt to the new learner hour rate … groups that deliver direct education activities will not be required to submit an estimate of the number of learner hours in order to receive funding.” Therefore, monitoring of this indicator might not occur until post 2009.
More information The Ministry of Education potentially has information about school based ACE.
Universities, Polytechnics and Private Training Establishments (PTE) may also be able to provide information directly.
Tertiary Education Commission Adult and Community Education website www.tec.govt.nz/education_and_training/ace/ace.htm
Tertiary Education Commission Adult and Community Education website – funding details www.tec.govt.nz/funding/training/ace/ace_idf.htm
Ministry of Education – Adult and Community Education reforms overview www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=10982&data=l
Statistics New Zealand – Post-compulsory education and training information www.stats.govt.nz/quick-facts/govt-services/post-compulsory-edu-and-train.htm
5.2.2.5 #32 – Work opportunities matching skills
What does ‘Work opportunities matching skills’ mean? This indicator measures the percentage of residents who “strongly agree” or “agree” that they are using their work skills, training and experience in their current jobs.
Why is ‘Work opportunities matching skills’ important? Matching the skills and experience of people in the labour force to what is needed by the labour market is crucial to run an efficient economy and make best use of available resources. Education and training are increasingly costly and this investment needs to be recovered by people using their skills and experience in their jobs.
Page 88 Doc #1084090
Results
Table 57: Respondents in paid employment who are using work skills, training and experience in their current jobs – Hamilton City 2004
Percentage of respondents using work skills, training and
experience in current jobs
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
Total 50.4 33.7 3.7 6.3 5.9
Gender
Male 52.6 30.5 2.2 6.3 8.4
Female 47.8 37.3 5.5 6.3 3.0
Age
15-24 28.3 43.7 4.7 9.8 13.4
25-49 55.7 29.5 3.7 6.3 4.8
50-64 61.2 32.8 3.1 1.4 1.7
65+ 18.2 63.9 - 17.9 -
Ethnicity
NZ
European/New
Zealander
50.8 33.5 3.5 5.5 6.8
Maori 53.1 31.8 4.8 6.9 3.4
Pacific Island 24.2 35.5 8.5 31.8 -
Asian/Indian 72.4 27.6 - - -
Other - 50.0 - - 50.0Source: Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Twelve Largest Cities – Residents’ Survey 2004 – Data Tables for Hamilton City, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited.
Doc #1093619 Page 89
Gaps and limitations Survey currently only includes Hamilton City – no data for Waikato Region or other territorial authorities. However, data will be available for the Waikato Region from 2006 onwards. This indicator was not included in the 2002 survey, so there is no historical record.
More information http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf2004/Quality_of_Life_2004_Work.pdf - link to the Work-related issues chapter of the report on the 2004 Quality of Life survey.
5.2.3 Housing outcome (c) Maori enjoy the same quality of health, education, housing, employment and economic outcomes as non-Maori.6(d) We have a choice of healthy and affordable housing that we are happy to live in and that is close to places for work, study and recreation. (e) Maori have the ability to live on ancestral land in quality, affordable housing.7
5.2.3.1 #33 – Rent to income ratio Note, this indicator was originally listed by MARCO as ‘median weekly rent by income.’ The author, in consultation with Beat Huser, decided ‘rent to income ratio’ was a simpler, less cumbersome indicator, which provided the same information in a better form. Refer to metadata document #1068464 for more information.
What does ‘Rent to income ratio’ mean? Rent-to-income ratio is calculated as the ratio of the median annual rent paid in each area to the median annual income for households paying rent in that area. Median annual income is derived from responses to the income related questions in the Census of Population and Dwellings.
Why is ‘Rent to income ratio’ important? The amount of rent paid by households for the dwelling they occupy is a significant component of housing affordability. However, high rents do not, in themselves, compromise affordability. Rents vary greatly according to many factors, including location, dwelling size, sector of landlord and source of income. Rent-to-income ratio is a more sophisticated indicator of how affordable rental properties are across New Zealand. As well as giving an insight into the financial burden of rent payments, this indicator explores the ability of the housing market to provide adequate rental properties for all sections of society, regardless of income.
Affordability is defined in Statistics New Zealand’s Housing Statistics as one of the six dimensions of housing adequacy.
Housing affordability relates to the ability of households to rent or purchase housing in a locality of choice at a reasonable price, the capacity of households to meet ongoing housing costs, and the degree that discretionary income is available to achieve an acceptable standard of living. Affordable housing should leave enough residual income to cover other basic living costs, as well as allowing households to save for irregular but unavoidable costs such as medical and dental care.
6 This outcome is not addressed comprehensively by the indicators included in this report and will be addressed further
by associated Maori indicators being developed in a parallel process. 7 This outcome is not addressed comprehensively by the indicators included in this report and will be addressed further
by associated Maori indicators being developed in a parallel process.
Page 90 Doc #1084090
Results
Table 58: Rent to Income Ratio (percentage) for households paying rent for the private dwellings they occupy 1991, 1996, 2001 - Waikato Region and territorial authorities
Source: http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/943E4A90-5CCC-4017-89CF-F79524DF80E6/0/14RentCosts.xls
Gaps and limitations None identified.
More information Weekly rent paid for households in rented private occupied dwellings – Census of Population and Dwellings. Can then be compared to household income using the Table Builder facility on the Statistics NZ website but is not presented as a ratio and involves large amounts of data to present different rent levels for each income band.
Median weekly rent level for 8 major NZ cities, including Hamilton - http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Housing_costs.pdf - available annually from 1998 to 2002 based on Housing NZ data and presented in the Quality of Life Survey.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/housing/housing-indicators/default.htm -Housing Indicators home page, refer to link to Indicator 14 for Rental Costs.
5.2.3.2 #34 – Housing affordability
What does ‘Housing affordability’ mean? This indicator provides information on households that spend 25 percent or more, 30 percent or more, and 40 percent or more of their net income on housing costs. Housing costs are those mandatory expenses such as mortgage/rent payments and local authority rates (insurance, utility and other costs are excluded).
Area Year
1991 1996 2001
Waikato Region 19.9 24.3 26.6
Franklin District 18.6 25.5 28.4
Thames-Coromandel District 23.0 28.0 30.6
Hauraki District 19.4 25.5 27.8
Waikato District 18.5 21.1 24.0
Matamata-Piako District 17.2 20.5 21.1
Hamilton City 24.7 30.2 33.0
Waipa District 18.8 23.9 26.0
Otorohanga District 11.0 14.9 18.2
South Waikato District 16.1 22.0 22.5
Waitomo District 13.8 18.0 17.7
Taupo District 21.0 23.7 25.0
Rotorua District 23.4 26.5 28.2
Doc #1093619 Page 91
Why is ‘Housing affordability’ important? Housing affordability relates to the ability of households to rent or purchase housing in a locality of choice at a reasonable price, the capacity of households to meet ongoing housing costs, and the degree that discretionary income is available to achieve an acceptable standard of living. Affordable housing should leave enough residual income to cover other basic living costs, as well as allowing households to save for irregular but unavoidable costs such as medical and dental care.
ResultsDue to atypical analysis undertaken on the 2001 census data, information is available at the regional level, as presented below. However, it will not be available in the future unless by special request, as survey numbers in the Household Economic Survey are generally too low.
Table 59: Households(1) with housing costs(2) that are at least 25%, 30% or 40% of total net income(3), as a percentage of all households 2000-2001 – Waikato Region and HES Regions
Area(4) Housing Costs(2)
as a Percentage of Total Net Income(3)
25% or more 30% or more 40% or more
Waikato Region 32.0 23.2 11.0
HES Regions(5)
Upper North Island 27.7 21.0 10.5
Auckland 41.4 32.2 22.8
Rest of North Island 31.7 23.9 12.4
South Island 28.7 21.4 12.1
Total, New Zealand 32.7 24.9 14.8
(1) Households living in permanent, private dwellings. Excludes visitor only households.
(2) Includes all rent/mortgage expenses, rates and other mandatory expenses. Excludes insurance, utility and other costs.
(3) Gross income less tax (such as PAYE).
(4) The Household Economic Survey is designed to provide information at a national level. Data is not available at sub-regional level due to large sample errors and/or confidentiality constraints.
(5) HES regions are the combinations of the following regional councils: Upper North Island = Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawkes Bay; Auckland = Auckland Regional Council; Rest of North Island = Taranaki, Manawatu/Wanganui, Wellington; South Island = Tasman, Nelson, Marlborough, West Coast, Canterbury, Otago, Southland.
Source: http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/E8D02A25-CE0F-4C2A-A885-658785D69B7E/0/13HousingCosts.xls
Gaps and limitations Data is not generally available at territorial authority or regional council level from the HES, because survey numbers are too small. It is only available for HES defined regions. While regional council level data has been produced for 2001, this is atypical
Page 92 Doc #1084090
and the footnote for this table (13.1) states, 'data from HES is not designed to be broken down to a regional level, so when using this data do so with caution'.
For several reasons, care is required in making comparisons of expenditure with income from the Household Economic Survey, as the method of surveying income and expenditure does not provide for consistency at an individual respondent level. For more information, refer to http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/omni/omni.nsf/outputs/household+economic+survey
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/housing/housing-indicators/indicator-13.htm - Statistics NZ Housing Indicator “Housing Costs”
http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Housing_costs.pdf - Quality of Life Report on Home Mortgage Affordability and Rental Affordability for regions.
Statistics on Housing Affordability http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/affordability-report/default.htm
Home Mortgage Affordability Index – assesses the relative affordability of buying a home at a point in time. The index incorporates national and regional average weekly earnings, regional median dwelling prices and average mortgage interest rates for new borrowers. The affordability of a home mortgage for a particular region is compared against the national average (represented by 100%); therefore a high percentage denotes less home mortgage affordability. Information presented in the Quality of Life Survey. Index is prepared by Massey University Real Estate Analysis Unit – data available quarterly from June 1998 for combined Waikato/Bay of Plenty/Gisborne region but not for Waikato Region alone or city or TA level. See http://property-group.massey.ac.nz/index.php?id=1077Does not include affordability of rental accommodation.
Percentage of weekly income spent on housing costs – Household Economic Survey, Statistics NZ – also presented by income quintiles. Available for Waikato Region for 2001 but not at TA level. Reported in Quality of Life survey at http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Housing_costs.pdf. This regional presentation is atypical and was probably generated in response to a specific request.
5.2.3.3 #35 – Home ownership rate
What does ‘Home ownership rate’ mean? This indicator reports the number of households living in owner occupied private dwellings, as a percentage of all households living in private occupied dwellings (Statistics NZ Housing Indicator 4).
Why is ‘Home ownership rate’ important? Household tenure is an important aspect of housing in New Zealand since it has implications for household security (both physical and financial), as well as for the national economy.
The highest form of tenure security for a household is ownership of the dwelling it occupies. Numerous benefits accompany dwelling ownership, including a degree of financial security and a reduced risk of disruption from frequent changes of dwelling.
Recent US research also indicates that home ownership encourages investment in local amenities and social capital, because ownership gives individuals an incentive to improve their community and creates barriers to mobility (DiPasquale and Glaeser – refer www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/WkngPprs_51-75/54.Glaeser.Home.pdf).
Doc #1093619 Page 93
Results
Table 60: Households in owner occupied private dwellings as a percentage of households in all private occupied dwellings, 1991, 1996 and 2001 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities
Area Census Year
1991 1996 2001
Waikato Region 71.4 67.9 67.4
Franklin District 74.9 73.6 74.0
Thames-Coromandel District 76.1 72.7 71.4
Hauraki District 73.9 70.8 72.9
Waikato District 70.3 68.3 70.3
Matamata-Piako District 69.9 67.5 71.5
Hamilton City 70.7 65.3 61.1
Waipa District 75.2 72.5 73.3
Otorohanga District 64.2 63.8 69.9
South Waikato District 73.3 68.6 68.8
Waitomo District 66.8 64.9 64.0
Taupo District 67.9 66.0 65.0
Rotorua District 73.6 68.7 66.1 Source: http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/94E8F5E5-3217-428B-BE39-53443BEC3ECE/0/4HhOOD.xls
Gaps and limitations Ethnic breakdowns by household are available for this indicator but ethnicity is an individual variable. Ethnic responses are grouped at the highest level of the classification and compiled for households with at least one usual resident aged 15 years and over, of European, Mäori, Asian, Pacific Peoples and/or 'Other' ethnicity. A person may specify more than one ethnicity, therefore totals may add to more than the total population that specified an ethnicity. A person (and therefore the household they usually reside in) can only be counted once within an ethnic group but may be counted more than once across the ethnic groups. Questions on ethnicity have changed between the 1991, 1996 and 2001 censuses. It may be possible to calculate this indicator for ethnicity by using ‘households with at least one person of a particular ethnic group’, e.g. Maori, Pacific Islander). To view data on ethnicity for this indicator, refer to http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/94E8F5E5-3217-428B-BE39-53443BEC3ECE/0/4HhOOD.xls, Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/housing/housing-indicators/indicator-4-households-living-owner-occupied-dwellings.htm - - Statistics NZ Housing Indicator “Households Living in Owner Occupied Dwellings”
Page 94 Doc #1084090
5.2.3.4 #36 – Household crowding (equivalised crowding index)
What does ‘Household crowding’ mean? The Equivalised Crowding Index is used to evaluate the extent of crowding in New Zealand household dwellings by assessing the equivalised number of people per bedroom in a private dwelling.
Why is ‘Household crowding’ important? Freedom from crowding is one of the six dimensions of housing adequacy, as defined in the Statistics New Zealand, Housing Statistics Strategy.
Crowding in dwellings relates to situations where the number of people residing in a household exceeds the ability of the household to provide adequate shelter and services to its members. (However, using this indicator, household crowding relates more to a lack of bedrooms rather than an ability of the household to provide adequate shelter and services to its members.
Crowding in dwellings may arise for a number of reasons including cultural preference, social cohesion and accepting high occupant density as a means of containing cost.
Results
Table 61: Number of bedrooms per household, number of people per bedroom and Equivalised Crowding Index, 1991, 1996, 2001 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities
Area Number of Bedrooms per Household
Number of People per Bedroom
Equivalised Crowding Index(2)
1991 1996 2001 1991 1996 2001 1991 1996 2001
Waikato Region 2.96 3.06 3.14 0.96 0.92 0.86 0.66 0.63 0.60
Franklin District 3.02 3.11 3.20 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.67 0.63 0.60
Thames-Coromandel District
2.75 2.89 2.99 0.89 0.83 0.77 0.59 0.55 0.52
Hauraki District 2.99 3.07 3.13 0.96 0.90 0.83 0.64 0.60 0.57
Waikato District 3.08 3.18 3.26 1.00 0.95 0.89 0.68 0.64 0.61
Matamata-Piako District 3.07 3.17 3.20 0.94 0.87 0.84 0.63 0.58 0.57
Hamilton City 2.85 2.94 3.05 0.97 0.95 0.89 0.69 0.67 0.64
Waipa District 3.03 3.17 3.20 0.95 0.89 0.85 0.65 0.60 0.58
Otorohanga District 3.13 3.24 3.29 0.95 0.91 0.86 0.64 0.60 0.58
South Waikato District 3.08 3.16 3.22 1.01 0.94 0.88 0.68 0.64 0.61
Waitomo District 3.08 3.17 3.22 0.95 0.90 0.86 0.64 0.61 0.59
Taupo District 2.94 3.02 3.11 0.96 0.91 0.85 0.65 0.62 0.58
Rotorua District 2.90 3.04 3.09 1.00 0.94 0.90 0.69 0.65 0.62
Source: http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C4F54B17-6568-4302-9666-9A77E70A3F8F/0/2aEquCrowdInd.xls
Gaps and limitations No current survey collects bedroom size, which would provide a better measure of crowding.
Doc #1093619 Page 95
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/housing/housing-indicators/indicator-2b-cCanadian-national-occupancy-standard.htm - Statistics NZ Housing Indicator 2b – Canadian National Occupancy Standard Note: The Canadian Crowding Index may be more informative. It reports the percentage of people who are affected by crowding.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/housing/housing-indicators/indicator-2c-american-crowding-index-people-per-room.htm - Statistics NZ Housing Indicator 2c – American Crowding Index People Per Room.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/housing/housing-indicators/indicator-2a-equivalised-crowding-index.htm - Equivalised Crowding Indicator, Statistics NZ Housing Indicators Project
http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/housing/Housing+Statistics+-+Crowding+Analytical+Report.htm – Crowding Report, Statistics NZ Housing Statistics Report 2001
5.2.3.5 #37 – Proximity to work, study and recreationNo data source has been identified for this indicator.
5.2.4 Community safety outcome (f) Our communities and government work together so that we are safe, feel safe and crime is reduced.
5.2.4.1 #38 – Criminal victimisation rates
What do ‘Criminal victimisation rates’ mean? The criminal victimisation rate provides a broad measure of personal safety and wellbeing.
Surveys of criminal victimisation generally provide a more comprehensive picture of victimisation than Police data, as not all offending is reported or recorded.
This indicator uses data collected in the 2001 New Zealand National Survey of Criminal Victims (NZNSCV).
Why are ‘Criminal victimisation rates’ important? Criminal activity has important social community implications. Individual personal safety and well-being are influenced by criminal activity. It is important to see where these criminal victimisation rates are the highest so that social support services for victims can be most appropriately targeted, as well as supporting the development of policy and process that seek to reduce victimisation rates in areas not otherwise reported.
Results
Table 62: Victimisation rates in 2000 per 100 people by sex and by type of personal victimisation – whole of New Zealand
Type of victimisation Women Men
Assaults 5.5 5.8
Sexual assault/interference 0.8 0.1
Page 96 Doc #1084090
Threats 6.1 4.9
Any violence 8.9 9.1
Other theft 3.2 3
Damage 6.3 5.7
Any individual property 12.2 10.7 Source: From www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2003/victims-survey/index.html
Table 63: Victimisation rates in 2000 per 100 participants by ethnicity and by type of personal victimisation – whole of New Zealand
Victimisation
NZEuropean/European
M ori Pacific Other
Sexual assault/
interference (women)
0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3
Sexual assault/
interference (men)
0.1 0 0 0
Assault 5.1 13.1 8.2 2.3
Threats 5.1 12.5 5.1 1
Any violence 8.4 19.5 11.3 2.6
Other theft 3.1 3 3.2 4.1
Damage 6.6 5.6 3.3 5.5
Any individual property
11.5 14.7 8.2 11.9
Source: From www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2003/victims-survey/index.html
Note that because this indicator is only available at the national level, results for the proxy indicator “Recorded offences and resolution rates” is also included below for the Waikato Police District (not aligned with Waikato Region). It is important to emphasise that the indicator below presents quite different information to victimisation rates, so the two should not be compared.
Table 64: Recorded offences and resolution rates for Waikato Police District 2004 and 2005
Location Waikato Police District
Year 2004 2005
Measures Recorded Resolved Recorded Resolved
Offence
Violence 2799 2297 3092 2579
Sexual 242 130 271 143
Drugs & Anti-social
4707 4418 4470 4220
Dishonesty 16746 4131 18590 4348
PropertyDamage
2647 908 2916 956
Property Abuse 1009 747 1112 785
Administrative 933 880 984 942
Total Offences 29083 13511 31435 13973
Doc #1093619 Page 97
Source: Statistics New Zealand (http://xtabs.stats.govt.nz/eng/TableViewer/Wdsview/dispviewp.asp?ReportName=Crime/Calendar/Waikato/Waikato%20District%20Recorded%20Offences%20for%20the%20latest%2024%20Calendar%20Months) sourced from NZ Police administrative data.
Gaps and limitations The data collected for the 1995 and 2001 NZNSCV has been collated to report national figures. No breakdown is available by region or territorial authority – the sample size of 5300, and distribution of the sample does not lend itself to regional analysis. It is possible that future surveys (including the 2006 survey) may be reported upon by Police districts (as the smallest reporting unit), but it is unlikely that there will be gender and ethnicity breakdowns.
More information Ministry of Social Development: 2005 Social Report – Criminal victimisation
www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/safety/criminal-victimisation.html
The New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2003/victims-survey/index.html
Statistics New Zealand – Recorded Crime Tables www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/table-builder/crime-tables/default.htm
5.2.4.2 #39 – Perceptions of safety
What does ‘Perceptions of safety’ mean? This indicator measures the percentage of residents who felt ‘very safe’ or ‘safe’ at home, in their neighbourhood, and in the city centre after dark. Also expressed as “sense of freedom from crime”.
Why are ‘Perceptions of safety’ important? Perceptions of safety impact on the health and well-being of the individual, family and the wider community. If people feel unsafe, they are less likely to talk to their neighbours, use public transport, go out in the evening, use public amenities and generally participate in their communities.
Page 98 Doc #1084090
Results
Table 65: Respondents who feel safe in their homes after dark – Hamilton City 2004
Percentage of respondents who feel safe in their homes after
dark
Very safe Safe Neutral Unsafe Very
unsafe
Total 32.8 54.5 7.2 3.9 1.6
Gender
Male 38.5 52.9 5.2 1.7 1.6
Female 27.8 55.9 9.0 5.7 1.5
Age
15-24 30.8 54.0 6.4 6.3 2.4
25-49 38.2 51.4 6.6 2.5 1.4
50-64 27.1 58.2 9.8 3.0 1.9
65+ 25.2 61.8 7.8 5.2 -
Ethnicity
NZ
European/New
Zealander
31.9 54.7 7.9 4.3 1.2
Maori 41.0 49.8 6.2 3.1 -
Pacific Island 29.0 48.0 - 11.2 11.8
Asian/Indian 24.4 68.7 2.4 - -
Other 50.0 50.0 - - -Source: Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Twelve Largest Cities – Residents’ Survey 2004 – Data Tables for Hamilton City, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited.
Doc #1093619 Page 99
Table 66: Respondents who feel safe in their local neighbourhood after dark – Hamilton City 2004
Percentage of respondents who feel safe in their local
neighbourhood after dark
Very safe Safe Neutral Unsafe Very
unsafe
Total 14.9 49.0 15.0 15.7 3.0
Gender
Male 18.0 56.2 12.9 9.3 1.9
Female 12.2 42.6 16.9 21.4 3.9
Age
15-24 11.8 47.2 17.2 22.3 1.4
25-49 17.6 50.9 15.1 12.8 2.9
50-64 15.2 46.8 14.9 17.2 4.9
65+ 10.6 48.3 10.5 12.0 3.8
Ethnicity
NZ
European/New
Zealander
14.2 46.2 15.7 17.3 3.5
Maori 18.2 53.4 14.3 13.2 1.0
Pacific Island - 88.8 - 11.2 -
Asian/Indian 17.2 64.1 9.5 9.2 -
Other 50.0 50.0 - - -Source: Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Twelve Largest Cities – Residents’ Survey 2004 – Data Tables for Hamilton City, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited.
Page 100 Doc #1084090
Table 67: Respondents who feel safe in their city centre after dark – Hamilton City 2004
Percentage of respondents who feel safe in their city centre
after dark
Very safe Safe Neutral Unsafe Very
unsafe
Total 2.7 34.3 23.3 25.5 8.3
Gender
Male 3.0 48.0 24.2 15.6 4.4
Female 2.4 22.1 22.5 34.3 11.8
Age
15-24 4.9 44.0 25.3 16.3 9.5
25-49 2.9 38.7 25.0 26.1 6.3
50-64 - 21.7 19.0 37.4 13.5
65+ 1.2 16.4 19.1 25.0 6.4
Ethnicity
NZ
European/New
Zealander
1.3 30.4 24.2 27.4 10.0
Maori 7.3 47.4 22.6 16.6 4.0
Pacific Island 5.2 62.5 4.9 27.3 -
Asian/Indian 8.2 52.6 18.2 16.2 -
Other - 50.0 50.0 - -Source: Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Twelve Largest Cities – Residents’ Survey 2004 – Data Tables for Hamilton City, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited.
Gaps and limitations Survey currently only includes Hamilton City – no data for Waikato Region or other territorial authorities. However, data will be available for the Waikato Region from 2006 onwards.
Doc #1093619 Page 101
More information Indicators of City Safety also included in Quality of Life survey – for more
information, refer to 2002 survey results at http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Perceptions_of_safety.pdf. These indicators include perceptions of issues such as rubbish and litter, car damage/theft, vandalism, dangerous driving, traffic risk, and behaviours and appearance. NB. 2004 survey is slightly different and includes perceptions about graffiti, vandalism, theft/damage to cars, dangerous driving, feeling unsafe around some people.
http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Perceptions_of_safety.pdf - 2002 Perceptions of Safety results
http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/surveys.htm# - link to biannual residents’ Quality of Life surveys.
5.2.4.3 #40 – Road traffic injury rates
What do ‘Road traffic injury rates’ mean? This indicator measures the number of injuries annually resulting from road traffic incidents.
Why are ‘Road traffic injury rates’ important? New Zealand is a country reliant on motor vehicles for transport and commerce. In 1951 there was an average of 224 vehicles per 1000 people. By 2000 that figure had risen to 678 vehicles per 1000 people (Statistics New Zealand), together with a significant increase in the overall population. The increasing number of cars on New Zealand roads brings a greater risk of injury from road traffic incidents. City areas are increasingly being designed around motor vehicle transport, increasing the risk of injury to pedestrians and cyclists. Measuring the number of road traffic injuries helps to assess this risk.
Injuries resulting from road traffic crashes can have large costs to individuals and communities. Some the costs that arise from road traffic injuries include:
Loss of quality of life Loss of economic output due to temporary incapacitation Medical costs Legal costs Property damage costs.
Page 102 Doc #1084090
Results
Table 68: Total number of road traffic crashes resulting in injury and total number of injuries in 2004 and 2005 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities
Fran
klin
Dis
trict
Hau
raki
Dis
trict
Wai
kato
Dis
trict
Mat
amat
a-P
iako
Dis
trict
Ham
ilton
City
Wai
pa D
istri
ct
Oto
roha
nga
Dis
trict
Sou
th W
aika
to D
istri
ct
Wai
tom
o D
istri
ct
Taup
o D
istri
ct
Rot
orua
Dis
trict
Tham
es-C
orom
ande
l Dis
trict
Wai
kato
Reg
ion
2004 No. crashes 186 88 202 86 275 30 29 23 18 100 36 59 1132No. injuries 260 137 281 112 350 65 58 41 41 169 59 85 1658
2005 No. crashes 181 79 186 90 268 35 36 23 19 121 39 84 1161No. injuries 255 127 259 131 319 54 52 48 34 171 79 116 1645
Year Area
Source: Data supplied by Environment Waikato (21 August 2006) as extracted from the Land Transport New Zealand Crash Analyst System Database
Gaps and limitations The law requires that all road traffic accidents that involve a motor vehicle and result in someone being injured be reported. However, not all road traffic injuries are reported to the police. Under-reporting is most evident amongst single vehicle crashes, motorcycle accidents and crashes involving alcohol. Those that are not reported will not be included in the summary of road traffic injuries in the Ministry of Transport annual statistical reports.
More information MARCO indicator – Road traffic crashes and casualties
Quality of Life Big Cities indicator – Road casualties www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Road_casualties.pdf
Ministry of Transport Motor Vehicle Crashes in New Zealand Annual Statistics http://mot.sites.silverstripe.com/motor-vehicle-crashes-in-new-zealand/
Statistics New Zealand – some info on injuries from car crashes www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/monitoring-progress/living-stds-health/health.htm
Ministry of Transport – The Social Cost of Road Crashes and Injuries www.transport.govt.nz/socialcost/
5.2.5 Community participation outcome (g) We can work and participate in the communities where we live, and there are quality work opportunities for people of all ages and skill levels.
5.2.5.1 #41 – Unpaid work
What does ‘Unpaid work’ mean? This indicator presents information on the number of people who performed unpaid work (specified by type of activity) in the four weeks prior to a census, where the work was either:
Doc #1093619 Page 103
for people living in the same household as the respondent, or for people outside the respondent's household for which the performance of
those activities is not paid.
Why is ‘Unpaid work’ important? Conventional economic statistics, such as the national accounts and employment measures, are largely designed to measure the market economy and exclude (in developed economies at least) most of the non-market productive activities occurring within the household. Yet it is clear that the goods and services resulting from these activities are a source of utility to the members of the household and contribute to their well-being.
Results
Table 69: Unpaid activities (total responses) and gender for census usually resident population aged 15 years and over 2001 – Waikato Region
Unpaid Activities (Total Responses) and Sex Waikato Region
No Activities
Male 16,155
Female 8,397
Total 24,549
Household Work, Cooking, Repairs, Gardening, etc, for Own Household
Male 97,569
Female 115,416
Total 212,982
Looking After a Child Who is a Member of Own Household
Male 33,978
Female 48,429
Total 82,407
Looking After a Member of Own Household Who is Ill or has a Disability
Male 8,055
Female 12,309
Total 20,361
Looking After a Child Who Does Not Live in Own Household
Male 14,100
Female 27,786
Total 41,889
Helping Someone Who is Ill or has a Disability Who Does Not Live in Own Household
Male 7,470
Female 14,139
Total 21,609
Page 104 Doc #1084090
Unpaid Activities (Total Responses) and Sex Waikato Region
Other Helping or Voluntary Work For or Through any Organisation, Group or Marae
Male 18,912
Female 25,656
Total 44,568
Attending or Studying for 20 Hours or More Per Week at School or Any Other Place
Male 8,694
Female 11,568
Total 20,262
Attending or Studying for Less Than 20 Hours Per Week at School or Any Other Place
Male 6,840
Female 10,626
Total 17,466
Total People
Male 119,853
Female 128,244
Total 248,094Source: http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/22DA47F2-7A60-4C4B-A6A5-F278B2DE54E0/0/TABLE46.xls (Table 46 in 2001 Census reference report: Work)
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
105
Tabl
e 70
: Unp
aid
activ
ities
(Tot
al r
espo
nses
) and
gen
der,
for
the
Cen
sus
usua
lly r
esid
ent p
opul
atio
n ag
ed 1
5 ye
ars
and
over
, 200
1,by
terr
itoria
l aut
horit
y
Unp
aid
Act
ivity
N
o A
ctiv
ities
H
ouse
hold
Wor
k, C
ooki
ng,
Rep
airs
, Gar
deni
ng, e
tc, f
or
Ow
n H
ouse
hold
Look
ing
Afte
r a C
hild
Who
is a
M
embe
r of O
wn
Hou
seho
ld
Look
ing
Afte
r a M
embe
r of
Ow
n H
ouse
hold
Who
is Il
l or
has
a D
isab
ility
Look
ing
Afte
r a C
hild
Who
D
oes
Not
Liv
e in
Ow
n H
ouse
hold
Sex
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Are
a
Fran
klin
Dis
trict
22
62
990
3252
13
704
1589
4 29
598
5067
70
08
1207
5 99
6 14
94
2493
18
48
3726
55
74
Tham
es-
Cor
oman
del D
istri
ct
1188
72
0 19
11
7239
84
24
1566
6 19
74
2850
48
27
555
891
1446
93
0 17
70
2703
Hau
raki
Dis
trict
85
2 48
6 13
38
4440
52
02
9642
15
48
2220
37
68
429
669
1098
63
9 11
97
1836
Wai
kato
Dis
trict
17
70
879
2649
10
509
1217
4 22
683
4029
56
82
9711
10
02
1524
25
26
1593
30
27
4623
Mat
amat
a-P
iako
Dis
trict
1545
75
6 23
01
7839
93
36
1717
8 28
20
3891
67
11
591
918
1509
11
13
2178
32
88
Ham
ilton
City
42
81
2781
70
62
3258
3 39
561
7214
7 10
620
1563
0 26
247
2583
38
79
6459
47
55
9435
14
190
Wai
pa D
istri
ct
1788
10
20
2808
11
157
1329
0 24
450
4113
55
98
9711
89
1 13
95
2289
15
60
3228
47
88
Oto
roha
nga
Dis
trict
80
4 17
1 97
5 23
25
2589
49
14
909
1212
21
24
213
300
513
345
684
1029
Sou
th W
aika
to
Dis
trict
1080
47
1 15
51
5994
68
73
1287
0 23
13
3312
56
25
579
894
1473
99
6 18
96
2892
Wai
tom
o D
istri
ct
528
204
732
2406
28
56
5262
91
8 13
35
2256
20
7 31
5 52
5 38
7 75
3 11
40
Taup
o D
istri
ct
1512
66
6 21
78
8400
97
53
1814
7 28
83
4143
70
23
654
1005
16
62
1152
23
25
3477
Rot
orua
Dis
trict
26
19
1512
41
28
1649
4 20
013
3650
7 62
04
9174
15
378
1413
22
83
3696
26
55
5085
77
40
Sou
rce:
Sta
tistic
s N
Z Ta
ble
Bui
lder
- ht
tp://
xtab
s.st
ats.
govt
.nz/
eng/
Tabl
eVie
wer
/Wds
view
/dis
pvie
wp.
asp?
Rep
ortId
=178
Page
106
D
oc #
1084
090
Tabl
e 71
: Unp
aid
activ
ities
(Tot
al r
espo
nses
) and
gen
der,
for
the
Cen
sus
usua
lly r
esid
ent p
opul
atio
n ag
ed 1
5 ye
ars
and
over
, 200
1,by
terr
itoria
l aut
horit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Unp
aid
Act
ivity
H
elpi
ng S
omeo
ne W
ho is
Ill
or h
as a
Dis
abili
ty W
ho D
oes
Not
Liv
e in
Ow
n H
ouse
hold
Oth
er H
elpi
ng o
r Vol
unta
ry
Wor
k Fo
r or T
hrou
gh a
ny
Org
anis
atio
n, G
roup
or
Mar
ae
Atte
ndin
g or
Stu
dyin
g fo
r 20
Hou
rs o
r Mor
e Pe
r Wee
k at
Sc
hool
or A
ny O
ther
Pla
ce
Atte
ndin
g or
Stu
dyin
g fo
r Le
ss th
an 2
0 H
ours
Per
W
eek
at S
choo
l or A
ny O
ther
Pl
ace
Tota
l Peo
ple
(Incl
udes
Pe
ople
Sta
ting
One
or M
ore
Unp
aid
Act
ivity
(s) a
nd N
o A
ctiv
ities
. Exc
lude
s Pe
ople
N
ot S
tatin
g a
Res
pons
e)
Sex
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Are
a
Fran
klin
Dis
trict
91
8 17
88
2706
23
19
3234
55
53
981
1242
22
23
804
1359
21
66
1678
5 17
442
3422
7
Tham
es-
Cor
oman
del
Dis
trict
624
1131
17
55
1581
20
55
3636
33
6 50
1 83
7 31
5 54
9 86
4 87
96
9366
18
159
Hau
raki
Dis
trict
37
8 70
2 10
80
948
1269
22
17
318
411
729
231
399
630
5604
58
86
1149
0
Wai
kato
Dis
trict
85
8 15
90
2448
22
08
2928
51
39
909
1176
20
85
654
1074
17
28
1296
9 13
521
2649
0
Mat
amat
a-P
iako
Dis
trict
534
1125
16
56
1575
20
94
3669
54
9 71
7 12
66
423
687
1113
99
30
1040
7 20
337
Ham
ilton
City
24
78
4656
71
37
5358
73
89
1274
7 41
37
5259
93
96
3048
45
09
7557
38
922
4411
8 83
043
Wai
pa D
istri
ct
846
1710
25
56
2115
29
94
5106
90
3 12
36
2136
69
0 12
12
1899
13
587
1476
9 28
359
Oto
roha
nga
Dis
trict
15
3 33
0 48
3 55
5 69
9 12
57
177
213
393
210
201
411
3336
28
41
6180
Sou
th W
aika
to
Dis
trict
498
867
1365
12
30
1674
29
07
411
615
1026
38
4 57
0 95
4 74
49
7602
15
054
Wai
tom
o D
istri
ct
198
354
552
660
831
1491
15
6 26
7 42
3 13
2 26
1 39
6 31
17
3162
62
79
Taup
o D
istri
ct
612
1092
17
04
1845
24
81
4329
50
7 74
1 12
48
501
726
1227
10
386
1077
9 21
165
Rot
orua
Dis
trict
12
66
2412
36
81
3147
43
89
7536
14
70
2136
36
03
1071
16
53
2721
20
142
2232
3 42
465
Sou
rce:
Sta
tistic
s N
Z Ta
ble
Bui
lder
- ht
tp://
xtab
s.st
ats.
govt
.nz/
eng/
Tabl
eVie
wer
/Wds
view
/dis
pvie
wp.
asp?
Rep
ortId
=178
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
107
Tabl
e 72
: Unp
aid
activ
ities
(Tot
al re
spon
ses)
and
gen
der f
or M
aori
ethn
ic g
roup
, fo
r the
Cen
sus
usua
lly re
side
nt p
opul
atio
n ag
ed 1
5 ye
ars
and
over
, 200
1, b
y te
rrito
rial a
utho
rity
Unp
aid
Act
ivity
N
o A
ctiv
ities
H
ouse
hold
Wor
k, C
ooki
ng,
Rep
airs
, Gar
deni
ng, e
tc, f
or
Ow
n H
ouse
hold
Look
ing
Afte
r a C
hild
Who
is a
M
embe
r of O
wn
Hou
seho
ld
Look
ing
Afte
r a M
embe
r of
Ow
n H
ouse
hold
Who
is Il
l or
has
a D
isab
ility
Look
ing
Afte
r a C
hild
Who
D
oes
Not
Liv
e in
Ow
n H
ouse
hold
Sex
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Are
a
Fran
klin
Dis
trict
31
2 14
4 45
616
4120
4936
9377
412
2419
9820
735
756
435
468
7 10
38
Tham
es-
Cor
oman
del D
istri
ct
144
75
222
828
972
1800
363
549
909
105
156
261
183
306
486
Hau
raki
Dis
trict
14
4 60
20
760
078
913
8929
145
073
899
186
285
129
276
408
Wai
kato
Dis
trict
35
1 21
9 57
321
3327
0948
4510
2917
1927
4531
256
487
652
589
1 14
16
Mat
amat
a-P
iako
Dis
trict
144
78
222
765
978
1746
348
591
939
102
183
282
168
345
513
Ham
ilton
City
71
7 38
7 11
0448
3061
9511
025
2169
3564
5733
618
1044
1662
1164
2214
33
81
Wai
pa D
istri
ct
213
129
342
1275
1599
2874
621
948
1569
168
291
462
273
582
855
Oto
roha
nga
Dis
trict
27
3 48
31
854
656
111
0725
533
058
596
129
222
117
210
330
Sou
th W
aika
to
Dis
trict
264
129
393
1377
1791
3174
705
1149
1848
186
342
525
324
633
960
Wai
tom
o D
istri
ct
165
75
240
735
999
1731
342
567
909
102
156
258
177
330
504
Taup
o D
istri
ct
423
180
600
1842
2322
4164
822
1404
2226
219
393
609
399
768
1164
Rot
orua
Dis
trict
80
1 45
9 12
6046
7760
4810
725
2274
3657
5928
591
987
1578
1116
2064
31
77
Sou
rce:
Sta
tistic
s N
Z Ta
ble
Bui
lder
- ht
tp://
xtab
s.st
ats.
govt
.nz/
eng/
Tabl
eVie
wer
/Wds
view
/dis
pvie
wp.
asp?
Rep
ortId
=158
– M
aori
ethn
ic g
roup
onl
y
Page
108
D
oc #
1084
090
Tabl
e 73
: Unp
aid
activ
ities
(Tot
al r
espo
nses
) and
gen
der
for
Mao
ri et
hnic
gro
up, f
or th
e C
ensu
s us
ually
res
iden
t pop
ulat
ion
aged
15
year
s an
d ov
er, 2
001,
by
terr
itoria
l aut
horit
y (c
ontin
ued)
Unp
aid
Act
ivity
H
elpi
ng S
omeo
ne W
ho is
Ill
or h
as a
Dis
abili
ty W
ho D
oes
Not
Liv
e in
Ow
n H
ouse
hold
Oth
er H
elpi
ng o
r Vol
unta
ry
Wor
k Fo
r or T
hrou
gh a
ny
Org
anis
atio
n, G
roup
or
Mar
ae
Atte
ndin
g or
Stu
dyin
g fo
r 20
Hou
rs o
r Mor
e Pe
r Wee
k at
Sc
hool
or A
ny O
ther
Pla
ce
Atte
ndin
g or
Stu
dyin
g fo
r Le
ss th
an 2
0 H
ours
Per
W
eek
at S
choo
l or A
ny O
ther
Pl
ace
Tota
l Peo
ple
(Incl
udes
Pe
ople
Sta
ting
One
or M
ore
Unp
aid
Act
ivity
(s) a
nd N
o A
ctiv
ities
. Exc
lude
s Pe
ople
N
ot S
tatin
g a
Res
pons
e)
Sex
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Mal
e Fe
mal
e To
tal
Are
a
Fran
klin
Dis
trict
16
831
5 48
339
957
997
814
724
339
012
618
030
620
9723
10
4404
Tham
es-
Cor
oman
del
Dis
trict
9016
8 25
819
527
947
469
126
195
5790
147
1014
1092
21
06
Hau
raki
Dis
trict
78
159
237
156
246
399
7512
620
148
7212
080
190
6 17
07
Wai
kato
Dis
trict
25
544
4 69
971
492
416
4125
840
566
617
728
846
226
7031
08
5778
Mat
amat
a-P
iako
Dis
trict
7516
5 24
020
428
548
969
123
192
6090
150
978
1104
20
82
Ham
ilton
City
54
091
5 14
5511
9416
2328
1484
913
1721
6351
081
613
2659
3169
27
1285
8
Wai
pa D
istri
ct
141
264
405
345
534
879
195
288
480
105
180
282
1575
1815
33
90
Oto
roha
nga
Dis
trict
57
114
171
189
201
390
5472
123
7563
138
885
633
1518
Sou
th W
aika
to
Dis
trict
138
279
417
294
486
780
144
228
372
9617
427
017
3720
04
3741
Wai
tom
o D
istri
ct
8115
9 24
025
832
157
954
141
195
5199
150
957
1131
20
88
Taup
o D
istri
ct
198
324
519
513
732
1245
171
300
471
144
240
387
2403
2622
50
22
Rot
orua
Dis
trict
45
988
5 13
4411
7915
5427
3363
398
116
1439
960
310
0258
6868
16
1268
4
Sou
rce:
Sta
tistic
s N
Z Ta
ble
Bui
lder
- ht
tp://
xtab
s.st
ats.
govt
.nz/
eng/
Tabl
eVie
wer
/Wds
view
/dis
pvie
wp.
asp?
Rep
ortId
=158
– M
aori
ethn
ic g
roup
onl
y
Doc # 1093619 Page 109
Gaps and limitations Census does not provide as comprehensive information on unpaid activities as the one-off Time Use Survey but should be detailed enough for MARCO’s needs at this point. Note: a further time use survey is intended to be carried out in 2008-9.
Due to many changes in the collection of this variable, time series work would need to be carried out very carefully. Excerpt from metadata Changes Over Time:
"The most significant change in concepts and definitions for the unpaid work variable occurred between the 1991 and 1996 censuses. In both 1986 and 1991, only voluntary unpaid work was used in output. (Voluntary work being work done that will benefit persons outside the household or family.) However, in the 1996 and 2001 censuses, unpaid work done both within and outside the respondent's household were output as unpaid activities (though the distinction can be made between both types of unpaid activities)."
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2001-census-statistics/2001-work/default
- NZ Census reference report on work 2001 (including unpaid work statistics)
http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/8AD45C07-9A77-4C42-AE41-57BBE95CC2B1/0/aroundtheclock.pdf - PDF of “Around the Clock – Findings from NZ Time Use Survey (1998-99)”.
The NZ Time Use Survey took place between July 1998 and June 1999 with a sample of about 8,500 people aged 12 and over. The survey included a household questionnaire which collected basic information about the household, a personal questionnaire which obtained detailed information on the respondent, and a diary in which people were asked to record their activities over a 48-hour period in 5 minute blocks. Interviewers then asked questions to elicit further information about the activities recorded in the diaries. These activities were coded into a three-level classification containing 11 activity groups, subclassified into 67 activities and further into 88 detailed activities. Responses were weighted to represent the total population and adjusted for probability of selection and non-response.
Unpaid work activities identified by the survey are classified into four categories including household work, caregiving for household members, purchasing goods or services for one's own household, and unpaid work for people outside the home. The latter includes formal unpaid work that is carried out through an organisation or group (such as voluntary work) and informal unpaid work which is carried out independently for people outside the respondent's own household (for instance, helping relations or friends).
This survey provides a detailed national baseline about time spent on unpaid work, broken down by activity type, gender, age and ethnicity but does not provide information at the regional or territorial authority level.
5.2.6 Sport and leisure outcome (h) We can participate in recreation and leisure activities that meet our diverse needs and we have the opportunity to enjoy the Waikato region’s natural places and open spaces in responsible ways.
Page 110 Doc #1084090
5.2.6.1 #42 – Participation in sport and active leisure
What does ‘Participation in sport and active leisure’ mean? The proportion of young people aged 5–17 years and adults aged 18 years and over engaging in at least 2.5 hours of sport and/or leisure-time physical activity in the preceding seven days.
Being "physically active" means being either "relatively active" or "highly active". "Relatively active" means the respondent took part in at least 2.5 hours but less than five hours of sport or leisure-time physical activity in the seven days before the interview. "Highly active" means the respondent took part in five hours or more of sport or leisure-time physical activity in the seven days before the interview.
Why is ‘Participation in sport and active leisure’ important? Participation in sport and active leisure is a source of enjoyment and entertainment. It can contribute to personal growth and development and is a good way to meet new people. It also has positive benefits for physical fitness and mental well-being.
ResultsWaikato young people
Since 1997, the proportion of young people in the Waikato area who participate in sport or active leisure has increased (although not significantly) from 92% to 95% in 2001, with small increases for both boys and girls over this time, and for both teenagers and pre-teenage young people.
However, participation in sports and activities during school hours has declined significantly overall, from 75% in 1997 to 60% in 2001, particularly among girls in the Waikato area, from 68% in 1997 to 47% in 2001, while boys have experienced a smaller drop from 82% to 73% over the same period.
There has also been a significant drop in the participation in sports/activities during school hours by teenage young people (aged 13-17 years) between 1997 and 2001, from 77% to 49%, and a smaller drop among pre-teenagers from 74% to 65%.
Participation at school outside school hours has been through a swing from 15% in 1997, to 25% in 1999 and down significantly again to 12% in 2001.
Conversely participation with a club declined between 1997 and 1999 (from 26% to 18%) but has increased significantly to 35% by 2001.
On the other hand, participation with family and friends has increased from 59% to 77%, and is significant for boys (from 53% to 78%) and under 13 year olds, from 59% to 79%, with teenagers (13-17 year olds) also increasing (from 60% to 73%).
Waikato adults Participation in sporting activities has remained fairly constant over time among
adults in the Waikato region overall, with no significant changes able to be determined for either gender or among age groups.
The most observable trend is among 18-24 year olds, where the participation in at least one sporting activity has increased from 92% in 1997 to 100% in 2001; older adults (aged 50 years or over) also increased their participation in sports activities, from 65% to 72% over this time.
Source: http://www.sparc.org.nz/filedownload?id=dc026fa8-05c3-462d-a177-f1f9f5b9a5ec
Gaps and limitations Data not available at territorial authority level.
Doc # 1093619 Page 111
Survey results are analysed so that they are representative of all people living in New Zealand. The Sport and Physical Activity Survey is a sample survey, and so the results are estimates that lie within a range, which is the margin of error, or sampling error. The primary method for gathering information on the activity levels of young people was to ask parents to report on the activity level of their children (although if present children could be involved). There are some limitations to this approach as it relies on parent’s knowledge of their children’s involvement in sport and active leisure. It should be noted however that this limitation is consistent across all three surveys so there is comparability in the results.
More information Quality of Life Survey 2006 may include two questions about participation in
physical activity, which will be comparable with SPARC survey questions.
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/leisure-recreation/participation-sport-active-leisure.html - Social Report page on indicator, national results.
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/r-councils/leisure.html - Social Report page on indicator, regional results.
http://www.sparc.org.nz/research-policy/research/sparc-facts-97-01/trends-in-participation - SPARC page on trends in participation in sport and leisure activities
http://www.sparc.org.nz/research-policy/participation-in-sport - SPARC page with links to regional summaries of type of activities people participated in for 2001 survey
5.2.7 Family and community cohesion outcome (i) Families are strong and our communities are supportive of them.
5.2.7.1 #43 – Participation in social networks and groups
What does ‘Participation in social networks and groups’ mean? This indicator measures respondents participation in social groups and networks, in particular whether the social group or network that matters to them most is made up of people who live in the same area or people who have the same interest, culture or beliefs. Note that the 2006 survey asks for a specific description of the type of social groups or networks that the respondent belongs to and about the nature of the group but doesn’t ask which one matters the most.
Why is ‘Participation in social networks and groups’ important? Being part of a social group or network generally has positive outcomes for the individual and society. The presence of formal and informal relationships between people facilitates participation in society, encourages a sense of belonging, and enables stable communities.
Page
112
D
oc #
1084
090
Res
ults
Tabl
e 74
: Gro
ups
or s
ocia
l net
wor
ks th
at m
atte
r the
mos
t to
resp
onde
nts
– H
amilt
on C
ity 2
004
Gro
up o
r soc
ial n
etw
ork
that
mat
ters
the
mos
t to
resp
onde
nts
Mos
tly m
ade
up o
f peo
ple
from
loca
l
neig
hbou
rhoo
d
Mos
tly m
ade
up o
f peo
ple
with
sam
e
inte
rest
s,
cultu
re o
r
belie
fs
No
part
icul
ar
grou
ps o
r
netw
orks
that
feel
par
t of
Oth
er
Don
’t kn
ow
Com
bina
tion
of
peop
le in
loca
l are
a
and
with
sam
e
inte
rest
s, c
ultu
re o
r
belie
fs
Smal
l net
wor
k of
mai
nly
fam
ily a
nd
frie
nds
(wor
k)
Peop
le fr
om w
ork
or
scho
ol w
ho d
on’t
nece
ssar
ily li
ve in
loca
l are
a
Tota
l 13
.9
60.4
20
.9
0.2
2.1
1.9
0.5
0.2
Gen
der
Mal
e 11
.0
56.7
26
.1
- 3.
1 2.
3 0.
8 -
Fem
ale
16.4
63
.8
16.2
0.
3 1.
2 1.
5 0.
3 0.
2
Age
15-2
4 7.
6 66
.0
18.1
-
4.1
4.3
- -
25-4
9 16
.3
59.2
21
.4
- 1.
2 1.
1 0.
4 0.
3
50-6
4 13
.0
60.7
22
.9
- 1.
2 1.
0 1.
1 -
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
113
Gro
up o
r soc
ial n
etw
ork
that
mat
ters
the
mos
t to
resp
onde
nts
Mos
tly m
ade
up o
f peo
ple
from
loca
l
neig
hbou
rhoo
d
Mos
tly m
ade
up o
f peo
ple
with
sam
e
inte
rest
s,
cultu
re o
r
belie
fs
No
part
icul
ar
grou
ps o
r
netw
orks
that
feel
par
t of
Oth
er
Don
’t kn
ow
Com
bina
tion
of
peop
le in
loca
l are
a
and
with
sam
e
inte
rest
s, c
ultu
re o
r
belie
fs
Smal
l net
wor
k of
mai
nly
fam
ily a
nd
frie
nds
(wor
k)
Peop
le fr
om w
ork
or
scho
ol w
ho d
on’t
nece
ssar
ily li
ve in
loca
l are
a
65+
18.3
53
.9
21.4
1.
3 2.
6 1.
3 1.
3 -
Ethn
icity
NZ
Euro
pean
/New
Zeal
ande
r
13.1
60
.8
21.2
0.
2 2.
0 1.
8 0.
7 0.
2
Mao
ri 16
.8
53.3
25
.6
- 1.
3 3.
0 -
-
Pac
ific
Isla
nd
17.4
82
.6
- -
- -
- -
Asi
an/In
dian
13
.6
55.8
23
.4
- 4.
7 2.
5 -
-
Oth
er
- 10
0.0
- -
- -
- -
Sou
rce:
Qua
lity
of L
ife in
New
Zea
land
’s T
wel
ve L
arge
st C
ities
– R
esid
ents
’ Sur
vey
2004
– D
ata
Tabl
es fo
r Ham
ilton
City
, Gra
vita
s R
esea
rch
and
Stra
tegy
Li
mite
d.
Page 114 Doc #1084090
Gaps and limitations Survey currently only includes Hamilton City – no data for Waikato Region or other territorial authorities. However, the Waikato Region will be included in the 2006 survey.
More information http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Community_strength.pdf - Quality of Life indicator Community Strength page, including results for indicator “social groups and networks that matter the most to respondents.”
5.2.7.2 #44 – Contact between young people and their parents
What does ‘Contact between young people and their parents’ mean? The proportion of secondary school students (aged 12–18 years) reporting that most weeks they spent enough time with their parents.
Why is ‘Contact between young people and their parents’ important? Healthy relationships are built through both the quantity and quality of time spent together. Young people having enough time with their parents is a proxy indicator of the extent to which those in need of care and nurturing receive appropriate support.
Results
Figure 13: Proportion of female secondary school students (aged 12–18 years) reporting that most weeks they spent enough time with their parents (Reference period 2001)
Waikato = 60.1%
Source: www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/r-councils/contact.html (from Adolescent Health Research Group, New Zealand Youth: A Profile of their Health and Wellbeing: Regional Reports University of Auckland, Auckland, June 2003.
Doc # 1093619 Page 115
Figure 14: Proportion of male secondary school students (age 12-18 years) reporting that most weeks they spent enough time with their parents (Reference period 2001)
Waikato = 64%
Source: www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/r-councils/contact.html (from Adolescent Health Research Group, New Zealand Youth: A Profile of their Health and Wellbeing: Regional Reports University of Auckland, Auckland, June 2003.)
Gaps and limitations Estimates from sample surveys are subject to error. The achieved sample size for the Youth2000 survey was 9,699 students, 4 percent of the total 2001 New Zealand secondary school roll.
No ethnic breakdown provided.
Not available at territorial authority level. However, when survey is repeated in 2007, options for dissemination of information at the regional level are being investigated.
More information http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/r-councils/contact.html - Social Report page reporting on indicator at regional level
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/social-connectedness/contact-young-people-parents.html - Social Report page reporting on indicator at national level.
http://www.youth2000.ac.nz/pdf/Waikato.pdf - report on Waikato findings from Youth2000 survey. Refer to results for “Home and Family.”
5.2.8 Youth and older people outcome (j) Older people are valued and children are valued and protected. Young people have work, education and leisure opportunities and are included in making decisions that will affect their future.
Page 116 Doc #1084090
5.2.8.1 #45 – Youth and older people’s engagement in decision-makingNo data source identified for this indicator.
5.3 Sustainable Economy Theme The Waikato region balances a thriving economy with looking after its people, places and environment.
5.3.1 Sustainable Development Outcome (a) Our region has economic growth and development that is well-planned and balanced with environmental, cultural and social needs and values.
5.3.1.1 #46 – Genuine Progress Indicator (or Ecological footprint)
What does the ‘Genuine Progress Indicator’ mean? This indicator measures the Genuine Progress (GPI) of areas. It is similar to the concept of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a means of measuring economic progress, but takes into account the “true” cost of economic progress by measuring things such as environmental and social costs. The difference between GDP and GPI is analogous to the difference between Gross Profit and Net profit of a company – in the long term the Net Profit determines the overall success of a company.
Why is the ‘Genuine Progress Indicator’ important? The GPI is an attempt to measure whether or not an area's growth, increased production of goods, and expanding services have actually resulted in the improvement of the welfare (or well-being) of the people in the area. GPI also reflects sustainability: whether a country's economic activity over a year has left the country with a better or worse future possibility of repeating at least the same level of economic activity in the long run.
We measure GPI to monitor the long term ‘health’ of an area by balancing the benefit of economic growth development with social and environmental costs and benefits associated with that growth.
ResultsA GPI for New Zealand has not yet been completed.
In the interim, results are included below for the proxy indicator “Ecological footprint.” The ‘ecological footprint’ measures how much productive land it takes to support the lifestyle of an individual, a city, region or country in today’s economy. This is calculated as the land use types (built up areas, crop and pastoral land, managed forest land and “energy” land (used to absorb carbon from burning of fossil fuels)) required for production and consumption of goods and services (food, housing, transport, consumer goods and services). Ecological footprints are usually expressed in hectares, or hectares per capita (per person), for a given year. The larger the ecological footprint, the more resources are needed to sustain an individual's or population’s current lifestyle.
Based on data from 1996-1999: The ecological footprint of an average Waikato person is 8.9 ha. The ecological footprint of an average New Zealander (9.6 ha) is seven percent
larger than that of an average Waikato person.
Doc # 1093619 Page 117
Compared to most other countries, New Zealanders have a large ecological footprint - 5-10 times larger than people living in India or China, and larger than Japanese and Europeans.
New Zealand’s ecological footprint is in the top 10 (including the United States of America and Australia) out of 150 nations surveyed in the ‘Living Planet Report 2000’.
Source:http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/sustainability/ecofoot/keypoints.htm
Gaps and limitations A GPI for New Zealand has not yet been completed – it is currently being undertaken by the NZCEE. It is not known whether this will include measuring GPI of Regions and Territorial Authorities.
Environment Waikato has measured Ecological Footprint (EF) in the Waikato Region. Whilst an EF indicator is not directly comparable to GPI it is based upon similar philosophies of measuring economic growth against social and environmental costs. This indicator can be used as a proxy for the Waikato Region until the national GPI report is released. Seewww.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/indicators/community/sustainability/ecofoot/keypoints.htm
More information Wikipedia description of Genuine Progress Indicators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Progress_Indicator
Constructing a Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for New Zealand (participation of Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment) www.pce.govt.nz/projects/2004167.shtml
New Zealand Centre for Environmental Economics (NZCEE) based at Massey University http://www.nzcee.org.nz/
5.3.2 Economic Prosperity Outcome (b) Our regional and local economies are robust and diverse, providing opportunities throughout the Waikato region. (e) The growth, wealth and uniqueness of the Maori economy is acknowledged and supported.8
5.3.2.1 #47 – Regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
What does ‘Regional GDP’ mean? Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is an internationally accepted measure of economic activity. When presented on a regional basis, it provides an indication of the size and structure of a regional economy and measures the changes taking place within it.
The Statistics NZ Regional GDP Feasibility Study is looking at generating an experimental measure of real annual regional GDP and its components, by industry for a limited time-period using the production based method.
8 This outcome is not addressed by the indicators included in this report but will be addressed further by associated
Maori indicators being developed in a parallel process.
Page 118 Doc #1084090
Why is ‘Regional GDP’ important? Economic statistics such as GDP provide a basis for monitoring and evaluating economic growth, and for making economic decisions. If the compilation of regional GDP proves feasible, this will provide another tool to help understand the economic structures of regions and the factors influencing regional economic growth. Improved regional economic data will support Government’s ability to identify and address region-specific issues more efficiently.
ResultsNone available yet – indicator under development.
Gaps and limitations Indicator not yet developed – Feasibility Study (due to be released in December 2006) will make recommendations about feasibility of implementing regional GDP on an ongoing basis.
More information Regional GDP Estimates from NZIER study for Ministry of Economic Development 2004 – refer to article below: http://www.nzier.org.nz/SITE_Default/SITE_Publications/x-files/11195.pdfThese estimates were generated as part of a study by NZIER by combining Statistics New Zealand data with other data selected from an earlier wide-ranging review of regional data sources. Nominal and real (net of inflation) GDP was estimated for each region according to industrial structure – essentially, allocating national GDP for each of 12 industry groups across regions according to how much employment in each region is in each of these industries. The GDP estimate for each region is therefore driven by the types of industries located in that region and how well these industries have performed nationally.A key limitation of this approach (and similar studies by BERL and Infometrics) is that it implicitly assumes constant labour productivity within each industry, which precludes the ability to draw comparisons between the performance of the same industry in different regions. SNZ’s regional GDP series allows for labour productivity variation.
Regional Economic Activity information from National Bank at www.nationalbank.co.nz/economics/regionalThe composite indices of regional economic activity are generated by calculating the average of 23 indicators, indicative of the underlying trends in economic performance, to provide a simple estimate of movements in regional economic activity across the regions. The 23 indicators include: business confidence; consumer confidence; retail sales; new motor vehicle registrations; regional exports; registered unemployment; building permits approved; real estate turnover; household labour force data; job ads; and accommodation survey data. All quarterly rates of change are calculated on seasonally and inflation adjusted data. Regional performance may be misrepresented due to its reliance on quarterly indicators and mis-weighting of industry indicators.
Regional Economic Indicator (REI) - a quarterly experimental series that integrates GST data with the Statistics New Zealand Business Frame to create a series that estimates economic activity at a regional level. SNZ considers the merits of the Regional Economic Indicator (REI) and other GST indicators as a proxy for regional GDP. The REI series is based on GST data. SNZ found both of these to be unsatisfactory due to various quality issues. One example of this is that exporting industries tend to be understated in both sources. This is thought to be due to the under-recording of zero-rated sales in GST data. Although in principle these sales are supposed to be recorded in the IRD data, in practice this is not
Doc # 1093619 Page 119
always the case. It is not a big issue for the IRD as long as sales liable for GST are recorded correctly.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/statistics-by-area/regional-statistics/regional-gdp-feasibility-project.htm - About the Regional GDP Feasibility Study
http://www.stats.govt.nz/statistics-by-area/regional-statistics/regional-gdp-frequently-asked-questions.htm - FAQs on the Regional GDP Feasibility Study.
5.3.2.2 #48 – Unemployment rate
What does the ‘Unemployment rate’ mean? The number of unemployed persons expressed as a percentage of the labour force.
Why is the ‘Unemployment rate’ important? Paid employment is a major factor determining personal income, which in turn determines the ability of households to purchase goods and services. It also affects health, housing, education and crime outcomes. People often define themselves by employment status and thus employment is also related to the ability of people to participate and have a sense of belonging in their community.
ResultsData is provided from both the Household Labour Force Survey at regional level and from the Census at the territorial authority level. Both sources are used here as they cover different geographic units at different time series.
Table 75: Total people employed, unemployed and unemployment rate for Waikato Region – March 2004 to March 2006
Labour force (000)
Time period (Quarter)
Employed Unemployed Total
Unemployment rate
%
2004 Mar 171.6 7.0 178.6 3.9
Jun 168.9 5.2 174.2 3.0
Sep 170.1 4.9 175.1 2.8
Dec 171.6 5.4 177.1 3.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2005 Mar 168.0 7.3 175.4 4.2
Jun 160.4 7.8 168.2 4.7
Sep 177.0 6.9 183.8 3.7
Dec 181.7 7.5 189.2 4.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2006 Mar 178.6 8.1 186.6 4.3
Source: Fromhttp://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/0/4c2567ef00247c6acc25716a0011ebea/$FILE/ATT124FK/alltab.xls(Household Labour Force Survey latest release on unemployment)
Table 76: Unemployment rate for territorial authorities by total population and Maori population, 2001
Territorial Authority Unemployment rate (total population) %
Unemployment rate (Maori) %
Franklin District 5.4 15.6
Page 120 Doc #1084090
Hamilton City 9.9 21.3
Hauraki District 9 21.1
Matamata-Piako District 5.2 16.8
Otorohanga District 5.5 14.8
Rotorua District 8.9 17.3
South Waikato District 10.3 19.5
Taupo District 7.7 16.2
Thames-CoromandelDistrict
7.3 15.1
Waikato District 8.6 22.8
Waipa District 5.1 14.4
Waitomo District 6.4 14.3 Source: Data extracted from Territorial Authority Census data leaflets listed at link: http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/c51cd880dd03b0f4cc256b1a0010f126/cb0278c971284818cc256b88007fb1b7?OpenDocument
Gaps and limitations Quarterly data only available at the regional level from HLFS. Breakdowns for region by ethnicity are not possible due to the high level of suppression and therefore confidentiality. However, breakdowns for age by region should be available on request, for a fee of $180 or more.
Data at territorial authority level only available every 5 years (Census). Unemployment rate by gender and age would be available on request, probably for a fee but again confidentiality may be an issue.
It is necessary to use a combination of the two data sources to meet the needs of the MARCO team, given the different geographic coverage and monitoring intervals.
More information http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/omni/omni.nsf/bf3c32a862ae07cd4c25656e000031c6/2d47f6ef1430f0c6cc2571140077e7a9?OpenDocument –Information about the Household Labour Force Survey
http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/web/Hot+Off+The+Press+Household+Labour+Force+Survey+March+2006+quarter?open – Household Labour Force Survey latest release on unemployment rate
http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/c51cd880dd03b0f4cc256b1a0010f126/cb0278c971284818cc256b88007fb1b7?OpenDocument – link to individual leaflets for all territorial authorities in New Zealand giving an overview of data from 2001 census, including total unemployment rate and unemployment rate for Maori
Other indicators and data sources include the Quarterly Employment Survey and the Labour Cost Index
5.3.2.3 #49 – Median weekly income
What does ‘Median weekly income’ mean? Median weekly income is a measure of the middle point of the distribution of weekly income. For example, if there were 99 people, the median weekly income would be the weekly income of the fiftieth person when people are ranked by weekly income.
Doc # 1093619 Page 121
Why is ‘Median weekly income’ important? People’s income is an important driver of the local economy. The disposable income, derived from weekly income minus fixed expenses, indicates what spending power people have. What people buy and consume with their income determines the health of the local economy.
Results
Table 77: Median weekly income for the Waikato Region by age group 2005
Age group Average weekly
income
Median weekly
income
Number of people
15-19 154 55 23800
20-24 432 447 20600
25-29 587 595 20600
30-34 626 630 22700
35-39 645 618 21700
40-44 780 635 24700
45-49 785 666 24000
50-54 728 660 17300
55-59 569 575 16800
60-64 628 480 15900
65 plus 373 301 40200Source: Extracted from Statistics New Zealand Income Tables - http://xtabs.stats.govt.nz/eng/TableViewer/Wdsview/dispviewp.asp?ReportName=Incomes/Income%20by%20region%20and%20age%20group
Table 78: Median weekly income for the Waikato Region by gender 2005
Gender Average weekly
income
Median weekly
income
Number of people
Male 708 640 123200
Female 420 337 125000
Page 122 Doc #1084090
Source: Extracted from Statistics New Zealand Income Tables - http://xtabs.stats.govt.nz/eng/TableViewer/Wdsview/dispviewp.asp?ReportName=Incomes/Income%20by%20region%20and%20sex
Table 79: Median weekly income for the Waikato Region by ethnicity 2005
Ethnicity Average weekly
income
Median weekly
income
Number of people
European/Pakeha 598 484 194800
Maori 431 390 34300
Pacific peoples 377 286 5300
Other ethnic groups 498 429 13800Source: Extracted from Statistics New Zealand Income Tables - http://xtabs.stats.govt.nz/eng/TableViewer/Wdsview/dispviewp.asp?ReportName=Incomes/Income%20by%20region%20and%20ethnic%20group
Gaps and limitations Data are not available at the territorial authority level without lodging a customised request which will incur a cost. Hamilton City is the only territorial authority in the Waikato Region large enough to meet the size criteria for provision of data at this level from this source. There were some forms of income that were not collected in the New Zealand Income Survey as part of the recent income component of the survey. Up until 2002 the largest of these is interest and investment income. It is important to note therefore that the income reported in the tables may not represent the entire income of an individual or a household.
High sampling errors are associated with small estimates - this makes many of the smaller estimates unreliable or unusable.
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/table-builder/table-builder-incomes.htm - income table builder
http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/omni/omni.nsf/outputs/new+zealand+income+survey – Information about the NZ Income Survey
Quarterly NZ Employment Survey – provides average earnings only, not median, and is not directly comparable with Income Survey data. For more information see http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/omni/omni.nsf/outputs/quarterly+employment+survey
5.3.2.4 #50 – Number of businesses and employees by industry
What does ‘Number of businesses and employees by industry’ mean? This indicator provides information on the number of business enterprises (see definition below), grouped by industry using the Australia and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) for each territorial authority area in the Waikato Region. For a firm that holds more than one business location in a region, this will be a distinct count of one enterprise. Note that farming is excluded from the Agriculture
Doc # 1093619 Page 123
category within this indicator but is available separately from Statistics New Zealand from 2004 on request.
The indicator also provides information on the employee count (a head-count of all salary and wage earners for the February reference month) for businesses in each industry type for each territorial authority area in the Waikato Region. However, this is for the purpose of estimating business size – it is not an official employment statistic.
Why is ‘Number of businesses and employees by industry’ important? The number of businesses and employees indicates the health of the economy. An increase in new businesses and associated employees reflects a growth in economic activity.
Page 124 Doc #1084090
Results
Table 80: Number of business enterprises, geographic units and employee counts by ANZSIC industry type – Waikato Region 2005
Business/Employ Enterprises Geographic Units
Employee Count
ANZSIC
Total Industry 30664 32795 142870
A Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing* 1724 1806 4050
B Mining 55 91 860
C Manufacturing 2078 2166 23060
D Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 27 61 900
E Construction 3988 4044 10850
F Wholesale Trade 1328 1507 7220
G Retail Trade 3626 3996 19990
H Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants 1182 1260 9760
I Transport and Storage 1045 1111 4800
J Communication Services 292 316 2030
K Finance and Insurance 649 785 2620
L Property and Business Services 10521 10702 16270
M Government Administration and Defence 43 204 4080
N Education 675 855 11810
O Health and Community Services 1280 1516 15260
P Cultural and Recreational Services 998 1067 3940
Q Personal and Other Services 1153 1308 5330* Excludes farming (see Limitations section below). Source:http://xtabs.stats.govt.nz/eng/TableViewer/Wdsview/dispviewp.asp?ReportName=Business%20Statistics/Detailed%20industry%20by%20area&IF_Language=ENG
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
125
Tabl
e 81
: Num
ber
of b
usin
ess
ente
rpris
es, g
eogr
aphi
c un
its a
nd e
mpl
oyee
cou
nts
by A
NZS
IC in
dust
ry ty
pe, b
y te
rrito
rial a
utho
rity
2005
Are
a Fr
ankl
in D
istr
ict
Tham
es-C
orom
ande
l Dis
tric
t H
aura
ki D
istr
ict
Wai
kato
Dis
tric
t
Bus
ines
s/Em
ploy
En
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
ntEn
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
nt
AN
ZSIC
Tota
l Ind
ustry
50
13
5135
14
000
2987
31
25
8980
12
43
1307
38
10
2871
29
67
9070
A A
gric
ultu
re,
Fore
stry
and
Fi
shin
g*
254
256
340
206
215
250
109
111
90
258
260
860
B M
inin
g 8
14
120
4 4
15
6 8
85
17
24
380
C M
anuf
actu
ring
385
384
2990
18
2 18
6 14
40
98
99
500
186
187
1270
D E
lect
ricity
, Gas
an
d W
ater
Sup
ply
6 6
140
3 1
3 1
4 9
4 3
240
E C
onst
ruct
ion
865
869
1320
50
3 51
3 72
0 15
6 16
0 39
0 41
0 41
3 81
0
F W
hole
sale
Tr
ade
288
294
1080
71
78
31
0 42
46
14
0 11
4 11
7 27
0
G R
etai
l Tra
de
513
524
2270
39
6 40
8 17
80
172
175
750
246
249
720
H Acc
omm
odat
ion,
Caf
es a
nd
Res
taur
ants
103
110
770
231
237
1090
58
59
24
0 71
75
55
0
I Tra
nspo
rt an
d St
orag
e21
5 22
2 49
0 73
84
49
0 54
54
13
0 10
2 10
6 58
0
J C
omm
unic
atio
n S
ervi
ces
37
37
40
21
23
80
16
17
30
21
23
35
K Fi
nanc
e an
d In
sura
nce
101
106
220
50
57
160
10
14
65
59
64
55
L P
rope
rty a
nd
Bus
ines
s S
ervi
ces
1693
17
08
1160
85
6 87
8 52
0 34
6 35
1 21
0 10
14
1025
11
70
M G
over
nmen
t Ad
min
istra
tion
and
Def
ence
6 8
270
11
18
290
7 13
12
0 7
17
280
Page
126
D
oc #
1084
090
Are
a Fr
ankl
in D
istr
ict
Tham
es-C
orom
ande
l Dis
tric
t H
aura
ki D
istr
ict
Wai
kato
Dis
tric
t
Bus
ines
s/Em
ploy
En
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
ntEn
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
nt
N E
duca
tion
83
103
1060
59
64
50
0 37
43
42
0 76
87
75
0
O H
ealth
and
C
omm
unity
S
ervi
ces
119
130
910
90
107
890
44
53
370
107
121
630
P C
ultu
ral a
nd
Rec
reat
iona
lS
ervi
ces
156
166
320
99
102
190
40
44
100
89
98
230
Q P
erso
nal a
nd
Oth
er S
ervi
ces
181
198
480
132
150
280
47
56
130
90
98
230
* E
xclu
des
farm
ing
(see
Lim
itatio
ns s
ectio
n be
low
) S
ourc
e:ht
tp://
xtab
s.st
ats.
govt
.nz/
eng/
Tabl
eVie
wer
/Wds
view
/dis
pvie
wp.
asp?
Rep
ortN
ame=
Bus
ines
s%20
Sta
tistic
s/D
etai
led%
20in
dust
ry%
20by
%20
area
&IF
_Lan
gua
ge=E
NG
Tabl
e 82
: Num
ber
of b
usin
ess
ente
rpris
es, g
eogr
aphi
c un
its a
nd e
mpl
oyee
cou
nts
by A
NZS
IC in
dust
ry ty
pe, b
y te
rrito
rial a
utho
rity
2005
(con
tinue
d)
Are
a M
atam
ata-
Piak
o D
istr
ict
Ham
ilton
City
W
aipa
Dis
tric
t O
toro
hang
a D
istr
ict
Bus
ines
s/Em
ploy
En
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
ntEn
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
nt
AN
ZSIC
Tota
l Ind
ustry
24
82
2602
10
090
1012
2 10
693
6919
0 39
00
4006
12
200
794
812
2330
A A
gric
ultu
re,
Fore
stry
and
Fi
shin
g*
185
186
210
67
67
180
200
201
400
99
101
110
B M
inin
g 9
11
100
3 4
3 4
8 25
3
4 12
C M
anuf
actu
ring
168
175
3360
74
8 74
2 90
40
283
285
1970
30
29
34
0
D E
lect
ricity
, Gas
an
d W
ater
Sup
ply
2 2
18
7 11
32
0 7
11
65
- 1
6
E C
onst
ruct
ion
246
249
800
1271
12
81
4990
50
0 50
1 10
20
69
68
150
F W
hole
sale
Tr
ade
89
98
510
633
691
4410
19
2 20
5 73
0 28
31
65
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
127
Are
a M
atam
ata-
Piak
o D
istr
ict
Ham
ilton
City
W
aipa
Dis
tric
t O
toro
hang
a D
istr
ict
Bus
ines
s/Em
ploy
En
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
ntEn
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
nt
G R
etai
l Tra
de
277
294
1590
13
89
1539
89
20
387
409
1850
82
81
33
0
H Acc
omm
odat
ion,
Caf
es a
nd
Res
taur
ants
66
68
270
292
328
3810
98
10
1 59
0 20
21
70
I Tra
nspo
rt an
d St
orag
e72
76
39
0 26
1 28
0 12
50
138
139
680
24
24
120
J C
omm
unic
atio
n S
ervi
ces
21
22
35
126
134
1690
28
29
50
7
7 0
K Fi
nanc
e an
d In
sura
nce
48
58
170
303
341
1650
90
97
21
0 15
16
25
L P
rope
rty a
nd
Bus
ines
s S
ervi
ces
967
978
620
3456
35
09
1066
0 14
46
1454
11
90
332
332
190
M G
over
nmen
t Ad
min
istra
tion
and
Def
ence
8 18
17
0 30
63
23
50
6 12
21
0 2
3 25
N E
duca
tion
54
67
620
216
263
5860
77
89
13
50
21
25
180
O H
ealth
and
C
omm
unity
S
ervi
ces
93
103
730
645
718
9710
14
7 16
0 10
40
21
22
140
P C
ultu
ral a
nd
Rec
reat
iona
lS
ervi
ces
100
107
280
258
273
1790
15
0 15
4 50
0 15
16
50
Q P
erso
nal a
nd
Oth
er S
ervi
ces
77
90
230
417
449
2550
14
7 15
1 36
0 26
31
51
0
* E
xclu
des
farm
ing
(see
Lim
itatio
ns s
ectio
n be
low
) S
ourc
e:ht
tp://
xtab
s.st
ats.
govt
.nz/
eng/
Tabl
eVie
wer
/Wds
view
/dis
pvie
wp.
asp?
Rep
ortN
ame=
Bus
ines
s%20
Sta
tistic
s/D
etai
led%
20in
dust
ry%
20by
%20
area
&IF
_Lan
gua
ge=E
NG
Page
128
D
oc #
1084
090
Tabl
e 83
: Num
ber
of b
usin
ess
ente
rpris
es, g
eogr
aphi
c un
its a
nd e
mpl
oyee
cou
nts
by A
NZS
IC in
dust
ry ty
pe, b
y te
rrito
rial a
utho
rity
2005
(con
tinue
d)
Are
a So
uth
Wai
kato
Dis
tric
t W
aito
mo
Dis
tric
t Ta
upo
Dis
tric
t R
otor
ua D
istr
ict
Bus
ines
s/Em
ploy
En
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
ntEn
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
nt
AN
ZSIC
Tota
l Ind
ustry
13
39
1431
77
8085
090
036
80
3189
3334
1275
052
9755
60
2801
0
A A
gric
ultu
re,
Fore
stry
and
Fi
shin
g*
133
142
830
151
158
280
180
204
590
287
310
1280
B M
inin
g 4
5 12
49
65
13
953
3 20
C M
anuf
actu
ring
108
113
2440
2824
880
203
199
1190
372
375
3930
D E
lect
ricity
, Gas
an
d W
ater
Sup
ply
1 5
502
370
11
1912
05
9 80
E C
onst
ruct
ion
117
117
400
5052
240
448
452
1000
572
578
1460
F W
hole
sale
Tr
ade
37
40
130
2430
95
105
112
380
228
254
1360
G R
etai
l Tra
de
201
218
1040
9710
044
0 39
140
923
1069
974
6 38
90
H Acc
omm
odat
ion,
Caf
es a
nd
Res
taur
ants
55
56
370
4141
300
238
244
2180
295
312
3070
I Tra
nspo
rt an
d St
orag
e79
81
28
028
3016
0 15
816
056
023
424
0 10
00
J C
omm
unic
atio
n S
ervi
ces
16
17
209
918
23
2365
5558
23
0
K Fi
nanc
e an
d In
sura
nce
25
29
6518
1945
69
7216
013
113
7 45
0
L P
rope
rty a
nd
Bus
ines
s S
ervi
ces
358
364
400
284
287
200
939
950
990
1571
1588
24
60
M G
over
nmen
t Ad
min
istra
tion
and
Def
ence
8 12
15
07
1410
0 10
3339
020
46
850
N E
duca
tion
46
59
740
3436
360
6073
690
137
166
2396
Doc
# 1
0936
19
Page
129
Are
a So
uth
Wai
kato
Dis
tric
t W
aito
mo
Dis
tric
t Ta
upo
Dis
tric
t R
otor
ua D
istr
ict
Bus
ines
s/Em
ploy
En
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
ntEn
terp
rises
G
eogr
aphi
c U
nits
Empl
oyee
C
ount
Ente
rpris
es
Geo
grap
hic
Uni
tsEm
ploy
ee
Cou
nt
O H
ealth
and
C
omm
unity
S
ervi
ces
58
64
540
2430
240
100
110
870
277
297
3200
P C
ultu
ral a
nd
Rec
reat
iona
lS
ervi
ces
32
39
120
2529
140
133
142
460
200
213
1430
Q P
erso
nal a
nd
Oth
er S
ervi
ces
61
70
210
2429
60
120
129
670
211
228
930
* E
xclu
des
farm
ing
(see
Lim
itatio
ns s
ectio
n be
low
) S
ourc
e:ht
tp://
xtab
s.st
ats.
govt
.nz/
eng/
Tabl
eVie
wer
/Wds
view
/dis
pvie
wp.
asp?
Rep
ortN
ame=
Bus
ines
s%20
Sta
tistic
s/D
etai
led%
20in
dust
ry%
20by
%20
area
&IF
_Lan
gua
ge=E
NG
Page 130 Doc #1084090
Gaps and limitations There are a number of limitations associated with business demography data. These limitations include:
non-coverage of 'small' enterprises that fall below the economic significance criteria (see definition below)
exclusion of enterprises involved in farming (Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) subdivision A01 Agriculture). However, data for the farming industry is available from 2004 on request; it was excluded from this release to allow for comparison of data produced for recent business demography releases (which excluded farming)
lags in recording businesses that have ceased trading or whose activity has dropped below the economic significance threshold
difficulties in maintaining industrial and business classifications for smaller firms (this is primarily maintained using administrative data)
data produced on the entry and exit of firms include administrative changes (such as company restructuring and changes of ownership) as well as genuine business start-ups and closures. When businesses register for GST and are added (or 'birthed') onto the Business Frame, they are given a new reference number. Company restructuring and changes of ownership can result in a new GST registration being filed, even though it relates to an existing business. Births and deaths of businesses can be identified in business demography statistics by matching the GST registration reference numbers for one year with those of the previous year. These counts of births and deaths therefore include administrative as well as genuine business start-ups and closures.
Note that an enterprise is “economically significant” if it meets any one of the following criteria in Business Demography:
Greater than $30,000 annual GST expenses or sales
More than 2 full-time equivalent paid employees
In a GST-exempt industry except residential property leasing and rental
Part of a group of enterprises
New GST registration that is compulsory, special or forced (this means the business is expected to exceed the $30,000 boundary)
Registered for GST and is involved in agriculture or forestry.It must also be trading and located in New Zealand.
With respect to Data Quality, especially at the meshblock level:
All care has been used in surveying, processing, analysing and extracting the data for Business Demographic Statistics. However, all data are subject to possible statistical uncertainty. These variations may result, for example, from uncertainty introduced during non-response imputation, or from reporting difficulties for respondents, or mistakes made during processing survey results. The department adopts procedures to detect and minimise avoidable variation and eliminate mistakes, but they may still occur and they are not quantifiable. At higher levels of aggregations, much of the individual variability often cancels out. The Business Demography data has been checked at an aggregate level by industry, institutional sector and region to identify any remaining detectable errors and uncertainty, and these are corrected or re-estimated, where possible. The statistics which you have
Doc # 1093619 Page 131
been supplied may be at a finer level of detail than these checking procedures apply to. Accordingly, such statistics are released with a caveat because they are of a lower standard than official statistics the Department releases. This data may be subject to revisions in the future.
More information Statistics New Zealand, in collaboration with Inland Revenue and the Department
of Labour, has been engaged in the development of Linked Employer-Employee Data (LEED) since 2002. The LEED project is an innovative new development aimed at successfully integrating existing employer and employee information to provide new insights into the operation of the labour market and its relationship to business performance. LEED draws on existing administrative data sourced from the taxation system, together with business data from Statistics New Zealand's Business Frame. The LEED data is created by linking a longitudinal employer series from the Business Frame to a longitudinal series of Employer Monthly Schedule payroll data drawn from Inland Revenue. Official release of the LEED data is scheduled for the end of February 2006.
The longitudinal employer series (or longitudinal Business Frame) attempts to identify births and deaths of enterprises due to administrative churn (such as company restructuring and changes of ownership). This allows genuine business start-ups and closures to be identified. A project looking into the feasibility of producing a new range of business population statistics from the longitudinal Business Frame is currently being undertaken by Statistics New Zealand. An experimental series is now expected to be produced in May 2006.
http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/omni/omni.nsf/outputs/Business+Demographic+Statistics – information about the Statistics NZ Business Demographics Statistics and Annual Business Frame Update Survey
http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/business-demog-stats/default.htm
http://xtabs.stats.govt.nz/eng/TableViewer/Wdsview/dispviewp.asp?ReportName=Business%20Statistics/Detailed%20industry%20by%20area&IF_Language=ENG– business table builder showing detail of different industries at TA level, including employee counts
5.3.2.5 #51 – Building consents
What does ‘Building consents’ mean? This indicator provides a monthly measure of the number and value of all building consents issued in a territorial authority area that have a value of $5,000 or higher.
Why are ‘Building consents’ important? The number of building consents issued is seen as a leading indicator of economic activity in an area.
ResultsResults are available free of charge from the Statistics NZ website for Hamilton City and the Franklin, Thames-Coromandel, Waipa and Taupo Districts – these are presented below. Data for the other territorial authorities is available for a fee from INFOS or directly from the territorial authorities themselves.
Page
132
D
oc #
1084
090
Tabl
e 84
: Num
ber o
f new
dw
ellin
g un
its a
utho
rised
– W
aika
to R
egio
n an
d se
lect
ed te
rrito
rial a
utho
ritie
s –
Apr
il 20
05 -2
006
Mon
th
2005
2006
Apr
M
ay
Jun
Jul
Aug
Se
p O
ct
Nov
D
ec
Jan
Feb
Mar
A
pr
Are
a
Num
ber o
f new
dw
ellin
g un
its a
utho
rised
Wai
kato
Reg
ion
258
239
257
271
293
312
253
267
244
313
221
302
194
Fran
klin
Dis
trict
30
48
22
31
42
52
45
59
50
34
50
54
38
Ham
ilton
City
79
76
94
12
0 10
8 92
11
5 65
78
69
46
74
32
Tham
es-
Cor
oman
del
Dis
trict
68
23
30
26
50
34
35
46
18
40
31
37
28
Wai
pa D
istri
ct
21
32
34
36
31
41
25
34
38
31
36
50
38
Taup
o D
istri
ct
28
23
30
24
13
50
11
37
31
20
22
23
11
Rot
orua
Dis
trict
23
19
32
23
15
36
49
46
32
14
40
33
21
Nor
th Is
land
1,
138
1,36
0 1,
573
1,52
1 1,
645
1,69
4 1,
373
1,57
3 1,
860
1,43
5 1,
669
1,66
3 1,
046
New
Zea
land
1,
617
1,
977
2,12
9 2,
005
2,30
1 2,
283
1,90
1
2,29
5
2,44
5 1,
900
2,
254
2,29
9 1,
558
Sou
rce:
Sta
tistic
s N
Z H
ot O
ff th
e P
ress
http
://w
ww
.sta
ts.g
ovt.n
z/N
R/rd
only
res/
9EE
4435
1-9E
CF-
41B
4-85
C0-
9A8A
DE
526D
9F/1
4556
/bci
apr0
6allt
able
s.xl
s
Doc # 1093619 Page 133
Gaps and limitations Data is only available free of charge for selected territorial authorities (Hamilton City and the Franklin, Thames-Coromandel, Waipa and Taupo Districts, in the case of the Waikato Region) but is available for the other territorial authorities on INFOS (Information Network For Official Statistics at http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/infos/default.htm – a fee is payable) and from the Information Consultancy Services division of Statistics New Zealand.
From September 1989, consents below $5,000 are excluded. Under the building regulations effective from 1 January 1993, building authorisations are applied for under the building consents system administered by territorial authorities. Prior to this date, applications were made under the building permits system. The building consents system has wider coverage than the building permits system. The additional coverage includes some government building (particularly work on education buildings), and on-site drainage and reticulation work.
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/info-releases/building-consents-issued.htm - Information about collection of building consent data
5.3.3 Transport, infrastructure and services outcome (c) We have reliable, efficient and well-planned infrastructure and services, including transport that is safe, interconnected and easy to get to and use.
5.3.3.1 #52 – Drinking water quality
What does ‘Drinking water quality’ mean? This indicator measures the public health grading of drinking water in community supplies. Community supplies are defined as supplies that provide drinking water to 25 people for more than 60 days of a year, and includes cities, towns, camping grounds, marae and schools.
The public health risk of drinking water is measured using a grading system developed by the Ministry of Health.
Why is ‘Drinking water quality’ important? In 2003 87% of New Zealand’s population was served by community drinking water supplies.
Maintaining good drinking water quality is critical for human health and quality of life outcomes. The health risk to consumers from water-borne disease in drinking water supplies comes from two main types of microorganisms: bacteria (such as faecal coliforms and E. coli) and parasites (such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium)(www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/physical-environment/drinking-water-quality.html).
Throughout the world (and New Zealand is no exception) by far the most common problems arise from microbiological contamination of the source waters. Animal, bird and even human effluent, introduced in one way or another upstream from a water supply, can make that water unfit for consumption. Bacteria have always been of major concern, while protozoa such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium are increasingly being highlighted as causing ill health through drinking-water (www.drinkingwater.org.nz).
Page 134 Doc #1084090
Results
Table 85: Public health grading for community water supplies for over 500 people, by territorial authority, as at May 2005
Territorial Authority Community Grade Hamilton City Hamilton City Aa
Hamilton City Templeview Au
Hauraki District Hauraki Plains East Uu
Hauraki District Hauraki Plains West Uu
Hauraki District Hauraki Plains, Kerepehi Uu
Hauraki District Ohinemuri Uu
Hauraki District Paeroa Uu
Hauraki District Waihi Uu
Matamata-Piako District Matamata Township Uu
Matamata-Piako District Matamata - Waharoa Uu
Matamata-Piako District Morrinsville Uu
Matamata-Piako District Te Aroha - Inghams Waitoa Uu
Matamata-Piako District Te Aroha Uu
Otorohanga District Kawhia Uu
Otorohanga District Otorohanga Uu
Otorohanga District Waikeria Uu
South Waikato District Athol/Kinleith Uu
South Waikato District Putaruru Uu
South Waikato District Tirau Uu
South Waikato District Tokoroa Uu
Thames-Coromandel District Coromandel Uu
Thames-Coromandel District Pauanui Uu
Thames-Coromandel District Tairua Uu
Thames-Coromandel District Thames Uu
Thames-Coromandel District Whangamata Uu
Thames-Coromandel District Whitianga Uu
Waikato District Huntly - Rotongaro Uu
Waikato District Huntly Uu
Waikato District Matangi Au
Waikato District Newstead Au
Waikato District Ngaruawahia Uu
Waikato District Raglan Uu
Waikato District Tamahere Au
Waikato District Taupiri Uu
Waikato District Taupiri - Hopu Hopu Uu
Waikato District Te Kauwhata/Rangiriri Uu
Doc # 1093619 Page 135
Territorial Authority Community Grade Waikato District Whangamarino Rural/Meremere Uu
Waipa District Cambridge Uu
Waipa District Kihikihi Uu
Waipa District Pukemiro Rural Uu
Waipa District Ohaupo Uu
Waipa District Te Awamutu Uu
Waipa District Pirongia Uu
Waitomo District Piopio Uu
Waitomo District Te Kuiti Uu
Waitomo District Waitomo Caves Uu
Rotorua District Reporoa Uu
Rotorua District Reporoa - Mihi Uu
Taupo District Acacia Bay Uu
Taupo District Kinloch Uu
Taupo District Mangakino Uu
Taupo District Motuoapa Uu
Taupo District Pukawa Uu
Taupo District Omori/Kuratau Uu
Taupo District Taupo - Lake Terrace Uu
Taupo District Taupo - Rainbow Point Uu
Taupo District Turangi Uu
Taupo District Tokaanu Uu
Taupo District Wairakei Resort Uu
Franklin District Buckland Uu
Franklin District Onewhero Golf Club Uu
Franklin District Pokeno Uu
Franklin District Tuakau North Uu
Franklin District Tuakau South Uu NB: Aa = completely satisfactory for distribution zone, source and plant; Au = completely satisfactory for distribution zone but ungraded for source and plant; Uu = not yet graded for distribution zone, source or plant. Source: Extracted from www.drinkingwater.org.nz/supplies/SuppliesHA.asp
Gaps and limitations Many drinking water community supplies are listed as having a Public Health Grading of “U”, or Ungraded. These are generally supplies that have less than 500 people connected, but will also include those supplies not graded since December 2005. As of January 2006 the new grading system (implemented 2003) has replaced all previous grading values. However, grading occurs “ad-hoc” and most (all but ~20) have not been graded since Jan 1st 2006. There is a push for grading to happen annually (driven by the Ministry of Health) but this has not yet occurred.
The Ministry of Health Annual Review of Drinking Water Quality lists the compliance grades of all drinking water supplies by territorial authority, but these are expressed in
Page 136 Doc #1084090
the old grading system (pre-2004). This is however the most recent annual report of this kind (published March 2005).
The website (www.drinkingwater.org.nz/supplies/supplies.asp) has current grading information for all community drinking water supplies.
The grading system depends on adequate monitoring. A lower grade might be applied due more to inadequate monitoring rather than poor water quality.
More information Ministry of Social Development Social Report Indicator
www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/physical-environment/drinking-water-quality.html
Drinking Water for New Zealand (a website run by Environmental Science & Research (ESR)) www.drinkingwater.org.nz/
Ministry of Health www.moh.govt.nz/water
Ministry of Health: Annual Review of drinking Water in New Zealand 2003 (ISBN 0-478-28325-3)http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/238fd5fb4fd051844c256669006aed57/22b879b83736ce10cc256fb6001202ca?OpenDocument – Appendix 1 lists all supplies and compliance grade, but these are in the old grading system.
Ministry for the Environment: New Zealand Drinking Water Standards www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/nz-drinking-water-standards-00.html
For a full description of the drinking water grading system see www.drinkingwater.org.nz/general/grading.asp
5.3.3.2 #53 – Road traffic crashes and casualties
What does ‘Road traffic crashes and casualties’ mean? This indicator monitors the number of road traffic crashes and the number of fatal and non-fatal casualties of road traffic crashes.
Why are ‘Road traffic crashes and casualties’ important? Deaths, injuries and disability resulting from motor vehicle crashes inflict considerable pain and suffering on individuals, families and communities, as well as on other road users, emergency service providers, health workers and others. Road deaths are a major cause of premature death, especially among young adults.
The increasing numbers of cars on our roads brings greater risk of injury and fatality from motor vehicle crashes.
Doc # 1093619 Page 137
Results
Table 86: Total number of road traffic crashes resulting in fatality or injury and total number of fatalities and injuries in 2004 and 2005 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities
Fran
klin
Dis
trict
Hau
raki
Dis
trict
Wai
kato
Dis
trict
Mat
amat
a-Pi
ako
Dis
trict
Ham
ilton
City
Wai
pa D
istri
ct
Oto
roha
nga
Dis
trict
Sout
h W
aika
to D
istri
ct
Wai
tom
o D
istri
ct
Taup
o D
istri
ct
Rot
orua
Dis
trict
Tham
es-C
orom
ande
l Dis
tric t
Wai
kato
Reg
ion
2004 No. crashes * 20 6 10 8 3 6 1 9 3 13 7 2 88No. fatalities 22 7 13 8 3 6 1 12 5 15 8 2 102No. crashes * 186 88 202 86 275 30 29 23 18 100 36 59 1132No. injuries 260 137 281 112 350 65 58 41 41 169 59 85 1658Total no. crashes 195 90 207 92 275 30 30 28 20 105 40 60 1172
2005 No. crashes * 10 8 15 4 10 7 2 8 5 8 4 5 86No. fatalities 13 9 18 12 12 8 3 9 6 11 4 5 110No. crashes * 181 79 186 90 268 35 36 23 19 121 39 84 1161No. injuries 255 127 259 131 319 54 52 48 34 171 79 116 1645Total no. crashes 185 81 193 92 275 36 37 24 21 126 41 88 1199
* “No. crashes” means the total number of crashes resulting in fatality or injury. For example one crash could result in two fatalities. Source: Data supplied by Environment Waikato (21 August 2006) as extracted from the Land Transport New Zealand Crash Analyst System Database
Gaps and limitations The law requires that all road traffic crashes that involve a motor vehicle and result in someone being injured to be reported. However, research indicates only about one half of such injury crashes are reported to Land Transport New Zealand. Under-reporting is evident amongst single vehicle crashes, motorcycle crashes and crashes involving alcohol (LTSA annual statistics 2001).
More information Ministry of Social Development Social Report – Road casualties indicator
www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/safety/road-casualities.html
Ministry of Transport Motor Vehicle Crashes – Annual Statistics www.transport.govt.nz/motor-vehicle-crashes-in-new-zealand/
Ministry of Transport – The Social Cost of Road Crashes and Injuries www.transport.govt.nz/socialcost/
Land Transport New Zealand summary of road safety issues for the Hamilton Region (www.landtransport.govt.nz/regions/2005/hamilton/index.html). Published July 2004 (based on 2004 data).
5.3.4 Regional planning outcome (d) We take a practical and coordinated approach to planning and providing servives, which works effectively across boundaries and sectors and responds to our communities’ needs.
Page 138 Doc #1084090
5.3.4.1 #54 – Residents’ confidence in councils’ decision-making
What does ‘Residents’ confidence in councils’ decision-making’ mean? This indicator measures residents’ rating of agreement that decisions made by their local council are in the best interests of the city.
Why is ‘Residents’ confidence in councils’ decision-making’ important? Residents’ confidence in council’s processes and decision-making is vital for a functioning democracy. Elected members have a responsibility to reflect their communities. The perception of resident’s confidence in council’s decision-making is a measure of this community representation and how close local government is to their community of interest.
Results
Table 87: Residents’ rating of agreement that decisions made by their local council are in the best interests of the city (Hamilton City 2004).
Percentage of respondents who agree that decisions made by local
council are in best interests of city
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
Total 2.8 38.5 24.5 25.0 7.6
Gender
Male 2.3 38.9 25.6 23.4 8.6
Female 3.2 38.1 23.5 26.5 6.7
Age
15-24 5.3 56.8 21.5 13.7 2.7
25-49 2.8 34.2 25.8 28.4 7.4
50-64 - 35.3 20.9 25.7 13.7
65+ 1.3 23.2 30.0 33.4 9.7
Ethnicity
NZ , European/NZ 2.4 34.6 26.3 27.3 7.9
Maori 3.6 39.5 25.9 24.6 5.5
Pacific Island 6.3 71.9 21.8 - -
Asian/Indian 4.4 66.5 10.7 4.4 9.5
Other - 50.0 50.0 - - Source: Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Twelve Largest Cities – Residents’ Survey 2004 – Data Tables for Hamilton City, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited.
Doc # 1093619 Page 139
Gaps and limitations Survey currently only includes Hamilton City – no data for Waikato Region or other territorial authorities. Data will be available from the 2006 survey for the Waikato Region.
More information Quality of Life indicator page on community involvement in council decision-
making, including 2002 results for this indicator for eight cities – http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Community_involvement.pdf
5.3.4.2 #55 – Residents’ satisfaction with councils’ approach to planning and providing servicesNo data source has been identified for this indicator.
5.3.5 Land-based industries outcome (f) Our economy is built on land-based industries and we encourage planning and practices that protect and sustain our productive resources.
5.3.5.1 #56 – Regional GDP contributed by primary industries
What does ‘Regional GDP contributed by primary industries’ mean? Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is an internationally accepted measure of economic activity. When presented on a regional basis, it provides an indication of the size and structure of a regional economy and measures the changes taking place within it.
The Statistics NZ Regional GDP Feasibility Study is looking at generating an experimental measure of current price annual regional GDP and its components, by industry, for a limited time-period using the production based method.
Why is ‘Regional GDP contributed by primary industries’ important? Economic statistics such as GDP provide a sound basis for monitoring and evaluating economic growth, and for making economic decisions. If the compilation of regional GDP proves feasible, this will provide another tool to help understand the economic structures of regions and the factors influencing regional economic growth. Improved regional economic data will support Government’s ability to identify and address region-specific issues more efficiently.
ResultsNone available yet – indicator under development.
Gaps and limitations Indicator not yet developed – Feasibility Study (due to be released in December 2006) will make recommendations about feasibility of implementing regional GDP on an ongoing basis.
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/statistics-by-area/regional-statistics/regional-gdp-
feasibility-project.htm
http://www.stats.govt.nz/statistics-by-area/regional-statistics/regional-gdp-feasibility-study.htm
Page 140 Doc #1084090
http://www.stats.govt.nz/statistics-by-area/regional-statistics/regional-gdp-frequently-asked-questions.htm
Regional GDP Estimates from NZIER study for Ministry of Economic Development 2004 – refer to article below: http://www.nzier.org.nz/SITE_Default/SITE_Publications/x-files/11195.pdfThese estimates were generated as part of a study by NZIER by combining Statistics New Zealand data with other data selected from an earlier wide-ranging review of regional data sources. Nominal and real (net of inflation) GDP was estimated for each region according to industrial structure – essentially, allocating national GDP for each of 12 industry groups across regions according to how much employment in each region is in each of these industries. The GDP estimate for each region is therefore driven by the types of industries located in that region and how well these industries have performed nationally.
5.3.6 Tourism outcome (g) We have a tourism industry that recognises the region’s cultural and environmental heritage and values, and supports economic growth.
5.3.6.1 #57a – Nights in commercial accommodation
What does ‘Nights in commercial accommodation’ mean? This indicator measures the number of guest nights spent in commercial accommodation for each territorial authority.
Why are ‘Nights in commercial accommodation’ important? To provide information on the demand for accommodation that will be used in policy planning at the regional and local level.
Results
Table 88: Guest nights by month for territorial authorities in the Waikato Region – October 2005 to May 2006
Territorial authority Oct 05 Nov 05 Dec 05 Jan 06 Feb 06 Mar 06 Apr 06 May 06 Franklin District 4,710 5,346 5,448 7,434 5,544 5,869 5,460 4,452
Hamilton City 49,489 47,196 41,722 47,346 45,872 58,098 48,870 40,416
Hauraki District 5,171 4,997 6,530 9,331 6,100 6,461 6,621 4,125
Matamata-Piako District 3,928 5,138 5,572 6,497 5,428 5,310 5,151 4,042
Otorohanga District 2,385 2,461 3,301 4,591 3,091 3,319 2,926 1,823
South Waikato District 2,999 4,237 4,126 5,008 4,796 4,704 4,548 3,146
Taupo District 82,619 85,487 102,841 130,528 106,174 105,138 92,860 54,949
Waikato District 6,210 6,778 7,639 12,614 9,785 9,939 8,438 5,167
Waipa District 11,341 10,077 10,775 18,971 13,238 16,370 12,608 8,826
Waitomo District 10,096 10,651 13,724 19,466 12,351 11,258 10,278 6,926
Thames-CoromandelDistrict
35,707 37,097 85,866 144,472 70,018 58,361 51,446 18,220
Rotorua District 150,383 161,155 172,790 220,009 185,828 176,110 172,378 110,093Source:http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/Surveys/Commercial+Accommodation+Monitor/Data+and+Analysis/Table-Territorial-Authority-Guest-Nights-by-Month.htm
Doc # 1093619 Page 141
Gaps and limitations The Regional Tourism Organisation boundaries are not the same as Regional Council boundaries. Due to the different boundaries there are some confidentiality issues when releasing data at the Regional Council level.
More information Occupancy rates by region, excluding camping grounds and caravan parks – available from Statistics NZ website monthly.
http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/omni/omni.nsf/outputs/accommodation+survey – information about the Accommodation Survey.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/info-releases/accom-survey.htm -monthly information releases reporting results from the Accommodation survey
http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/Surveys/Commercial+Accommodation+Monitor/Data+and+Analysis/Table-Territorial-Authority-Guest-Nights-by-Month.htm - easy to use table reporting results from Statistics NZ Accommodation Survey on Tourism Research Council website.
5.3.6.2 #57b – Regions visited by international visitors and nights spent
What does ‘Regions visited by international visitors and nights spent’ mean? This indicator measures the number of international visitors who visited the Waikato Region and the average number of nights they stayed in the Region.
Why are ‘Regions visited by international visitors and nights spent’ important? To provide information on the demand for accommodation that will be used in policy planning at the regional and local level.
Results
Table 89: Number of international visitors visiting Waikato Region and nights spent – December 2001 to December 2005
Year ending Measure
Dec 2001 Dec 2002 Dec 2003 Dec 2004 Dec 2005
Number of people 397935 416899 490332 525883 578186
Number of nights in area 2192083 2301064 3354315 3406110 3587289
Average number of
nights in area per person
5.5 5.5 6.8 6.5 6.2
Source:http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/Surveys/International+Visitor+Survey/Data+and+Analysis/Table-Regional-Councils-Visited-Nights-Spent.htm
Page 142 Doc #1084090
Gaps and limitations The International Visitor Survey draws on a sample of between 5,000 and 6,000 departing international visitors per year to represent the behaviour of all international visitors to NZ. This provides consistently reliable estimates at the national (NZ-wide) level, the purpose for which the survey is designed. Data reliability at the NZ regional level varies, for reasons outlined below.
It is important to note that because the sample is weighted (multiplied up) to reflect the total departing population in any given time period, one respondent may be taken to represent the behaviour of between 1 - 1000 visitors.
Reliability issues are encountered with Regional estimates as follows: To provide estimates of behaviour within a region, it is necessary to interview departing visitors who have been to a particular region in sufficient numbers to provide consistently reliable information over time. Given the reasonably common travel patterns of international visitors, many of the regions provide reliable information. For regions such as Auckland, Canterbury and the Bay of Plenty, to which the majority of visitors go, sample sizes are more than appropriate.
For less visited regions, there is a lesser chance of intercepting visitors to those regions at the collection point, hence the samples required to produce reliable estimates are more difficult to obtain. Frequently the data for these regions is based upon inappropriately small samples causing the data to be unreliable, and susceptible to change driven by single observations.
A simple rule of thumb is that if the data in any particular observation is based upon a group of people less than 5,000, the data should be considered unreliable, and caution used in interpreting statistics based upon these group sizes. A more detailed table of sample errors for the number of visitors, nights and spend is available via the following link: IVS sample errors (PDF14KB).
More information Information about the International Visitor Survey –
http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/Surveys/International+Visitor+Survey/
5.3.6.3 #58 – Income from tourism (international and domestic)
What does ‘Income from tourism’ mean? This indicator measures the income generated from international and domestic visitor expenditure.
Why is ‘Income from tourism’ important? Tourism plays a significant role in the New Zealand economy in terms of the production of goods and services and the creation of employment opportunities.
In 2004 international and domestic travellers spent a total of $849.8m in Waikato RTO. International overnight travellers accounted for $232.0m (27.3%) of this spend, domestic overnight travellers $247.3m (29.1%), international day travellers $19.9m (2.3%) and domestic day travellers $350.5m (41.2%).
In 2004 international and domestic travellers spent a total of $324.4m in Coromandel RTO. International overnight travellers accounted for $80.1m (24.7%) of this spend, domestic overnight travellers $185.8m (57.3%), international day travellers $3.7m (1.1%) and domestic day travellers $54.8m (16.9%).
In 2004 international and domestic travellers spent a total of $381.9m in Lake Taupo RTO. International overnight travellers accounted for $110.4m (28.9%) of this spend,
Doc # 1093619 Page 143
domestic overnight travellers $193.7m (50.7%), international day travellers $6.6m (1.7%) and domestic day travellers $71.2m (18.6%).
The ability to measure tourism trends and impacts at a local and regional level assists local government to better plan for tourism infrastructure and services.
Results
Table 90: International and domestic visitor expenditure – Waikato RTO
Year International (million $) Domestic (million $) Total (million $) 1999 124.4 546.7 671.1
2000 97.3 406.8 504.1
2001 154.1 533.2 687.3
2002 176.9 717.7 894.6
2003 205 649.1 854.1
2004 252 597.8 849.8Source: http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/NZ+Regions/North+Island/Waikato+RTO/
Table 91: International and domestic visitor expenditure – Coromandel RTO
Year International (million $) Domestic (million $) Total (million $) 1999 45.3 275.3 320.6
2000 62.3 275.1 337.4
2001 74.1 304.3 378.4
2002 89.7 278.5 368.2
2003 106.8 298.4 405.2
2004 83.9 240.6 324.5Source: http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/NZ+Regions/North+Island/Coromandel+RTO/
Table 92: International and domestic visitor expenditure – Lake Taupo RTO
Year International (million $) Domestic (million $) Total (million $) 1999 80.6 262.8 343.4
2000 86.9 237.8 324.7
2001 124.1 233.7 357.8
2002 120.9 294.8 415.7
2003 116.9 275 391.9
2004 117 264.9 381.9Source: http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/NZ+Regions/North+Island/Lake+Taupo+RTO/
Gaps and limitations The Core Tourism Dataset is disseminated based upon Regional Tourism Organisation boundaries. The boundary of the Waikato Region contains three Regional Tourism Organisation (RTO) areas: Waikato RTO, Coromandel RTO and Lake Taupo RTO.
Data has not been collected for the parts of Franklin and Rotorua Districts that fall within the Waikato Region. It is assumed that these areas only contribute a small part
Page 144 Doc #1084090
to the tourist expenditure in these RTO’s (Auckland RTO and Rotorua RTO respectively).
In addition, the figures for the Ruapehu RTO have not been included. While the Waikato Region includes parts of this area, the major areas of tourism expenditure (Whakapapa and Turoa ski areas and associated services) are outside of the Region.
More information Tourism Research Council of NZ (TRCNZ) www.trcnz.govt.nz
TRCNZ Domestic Travel Survey www.trcnz.govt.nz/Surveys/Domestic+Travel+Survey/default.htm
TRCNZ International Visitors Survey www.trcnz.govt.nz/Surveys/International+Visitor+Survey/default.htm
Ministry of Tourism map of Regional Tourism Organisation boundaries www.tourism.govt.nz/rtonz/rto-pdf-reports/Rto-areas-sept2004.pdf
Waikato Regional Tourist Organisation www.waikatonz.com/
Taupo Regional Tourist Organisation www.laketauponz.com/
Coromandel Regional Tourist Organisation www.thecoromandel.com/
Quality of Life Big Cities Tourism Indicator www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Tourism.pdf
5.3.6.4 #59 – Employment in the tourism industry
What does ‘Employment in the tourism industry’ mean? This indicator measures the numbers of people in employment resulting from direct and indirect tourism demand.
Why is ‘Employment in the tourism industry’ important? An estimated 102,700 full-time equivalent employees (or 5.9 percent of total employment in New Zealand) were directly engaged in producing goods and services purchased by tourists in 2004. This includes employment generated by international students studying in New Zealand for less than one year. (http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/Topics/Economic+Contribution/Tourism+Satellite+Account+2001-2004/)
The ability to measure tourism trends and impacts at a local and regional level assists local government to better plan for tourism infrastructure and services.
Results
Table 93: Summary of Tourism Employment(1)(2) for New Zealand Employment (FTE(3) persons) Employment (FTE persons) engaged in
tourism as a percentage of total employment in New Zealand
Directly engaged intourism
Indirectly engaged in tourism
Total tourism employment in New Zealand
Yearended March
Directly engaged in tourism
Indirectly engaged in tourism
Total tourism employment in New Zealand
Percent
2001 94,900 63,700 158,600 5.9 4.0 9.9
Doc # 1093619 Page 145
2002 98,500 66,400 164,900 6.0 4.0 10.0
2003 104,200 .. .. 6.2 .. ..
2004 102,700 .. .. 5.9 .. .. (1) A change in the data source for employment numbers means that the new series is currently only
available from 2001. (2) Employment numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred. (3) FTE is an abbreviation for full-time equivalent. Source: http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/tsa-2004.htm
Gaps and limitations The Tourism Satellite Accounts reporting process is the only one that draws together accurate figures of employment through direct and indirect tourist demand. However, Tourist Satellite Accounts are published irregularly and provide national summary data only.
More information Tourism Research Council of New Zealand (TRCNZ) link to 2004 Tourism Satellite Accountwww.trcnz.govt.nz/Topics/Economic+Contribution/Tourism+Satellite+Account+2001-2004/
Statistics New Zealand – Tourism satellite account www.stats.govt.nz/datasets/tourism/tourism-satellite-account.htm
5.3.7 Research and innovation outcome (h) Our region has a reputation for entrepreneurship, innovation, research and education; attracting investment and people to work, study and visit.
5.3.7.1 #60 – Total research funding
What does ‘Total research funding’ mean? At the national level only, this indicator presents information on
research and development expenditure type of research and development by sector source of funding for research and development expenditure.
Why is ‘Total research funding’ important? Expenditure for research indicates the level of innovation and investment in science and technology. This reflects the type of society and is a driver towards a knowledge-based economy.
Results
Table 94: National research and development expenditure by sector and published industry – 2002 and 2004
2002 2004 Biennial change Sector Published industry
$(million) $(million) Percent
Private
Primary 14.2 18.8 4.6 32.5
Food, beverage and tobacco manufacturing 29.9 27.7 -2.2 -7.2
Textiles, clothing, footwear and leather 2.9 4.2 1.3 44.9
Page 146 Doc #1084090
2002 2004 Biennial change Sector Published industry
$(million) $(million) Percent manufacturing
Petroleum, coal, chemical and associated product manufacturing
40.1 26.0 -14.1 -35.2
Non-metallic mineral product manufacturing 4.1 3.7 -0.5 -11.4
Metal product manufacturing 7.2 19.0 11.8 163.4
Machinery and equipment manufacturing 105.4 147.9 42.5 40.3
Other manufacturing 4.5 9.3 4.8 107.7
Wholesale trade 30.1 46.5 16.4 54.6
Scientific research 140.9 157.1 16.2 11.5
Technical services 42.9 46.5 3.6 8.5
Computer services 62.4 89.7 27.3 43.8
Other services 35.9 51.5 15.7 43.7
Total private sector 520.6 648.1 127.5 24.5
Government (excluding universities)
Scientific research 408.6 435.6 27.0 6.6
Government administration 28.3 42.0 13.7 48.3
Other government research 22.9 20.8 -2.1 -9.3
Total government sector (excluding universities)
459.8 498.4 38.6 8.4
University
Universities 435.8 454.8 19.0 4.4
Total Research and Development (R&D) Expenditure
1,416.2 1,601.3 185.1 13.1
Source:http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/0/4c2567ef00247c6acc256ff700174954/$FILE/alltabls.xls
Table 95: Research and development expenditure as a proportion of GDP by sector
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 SectorPercent
Private 0.26 0.31 0.30 0.42 P 0.47 P
Government (excluding universities) 0.41 0.39 0.36 0.37 P 0.36 P
University 0.29 0.40 0.34 0.35 P 0.33 P
All Sectors 0.96 1.10 1.01 1.15 P 1.17 P(1) Statistics New Zealand GDP current price expenditure measure, year ended 31 March. P = provisional Source:http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/0/4c2567ef00247c6acc256ff700174954/$FILE/alltabls.xls
Doc # 1093619 Page 147
Gaps and limitations Information reported at national level only. Statistics NZ currently has no plans to produce it at the Regional level. The issue of capturing and releasing information below the national level has been investigated internally, but was considered too problematic. It is problematic for a number of reasons, with two of the major ones being that information is collected at the Enterprise level (rather than at geographic level) and that the survey is designed to produce the best national aggregate data. It wasn't designed with the intention of producing sub-national data; to try and release localised data from this national data would impact on the quality of the data.
Survey methodology has been reviewed (changed between 2002 and 2004 surveys).
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/info-releases/research-development-survey-info-releases.htm - information releases for the Research and Development Surveys 2002 and 2004 (Statistics NZ).
No alternative indicators or data sources identified at this point. Ministry for Economic Development was contacted re any future plans for regional analysis but no response was received.
5.3.7.2 #61 – Enrolments at tertiary education institutes (by type of study)
What does ‘Enrolments at tertiary education institutes (by type of study)’ mean?This indicator measures the percentage participation in tertiary education by type of qualification (certificates, diplomas, bachelor and post-graduate degrees). Formal tertiary education is study undertaken at a public or private tertiary education provider that leads to a recognised New Zealand qualification.
Why are ‘Enrolments at tertiary education institutes (by type of study)’ important?The acquisition of a tertiary qualification provides individuals with skills and knowledge that allows them to participate more fully in society and in the economy. It can also provide higher earning opportunities and help address knowledge and skills gaps in the economy.
ResultsWhile the data provided is national only, information for the major tertiary institutions in the Waikato Region has been extracted and is included below.
Page
148
D
oc #
1084
090
Tabl
e 96
: Num
ber
of s
tude
nts
at m
ajor
tert
iary
inst
itutio
ns in
Wai
kato
Reg
ion
by p
rovi
der,
natu
re o
f atte
ndan
ce, s
ourc
e of
fund
ing
and
gend
er -
July
200
4 So
urce
of f
undi
ng
Fore
ign
fee
payi
ng a
nd
MFA
T IT
O o
ff jo
b tr
aini
ng
Min
istr
y of
Edu
catio
n EF
Ts
subs
idis
edO
ther
sou
rces
of f
undi
ng
Skill
NZ
fund
ed
Tota
lIn
stitu
tion
Fem
ale
Mal
e To
tal
Fem
ale
Mal
e To
tal
Fem
ale
Mal
e To
tal
Fem
ale
Mal
e To
tal
Fem
ale
Mal
e To
tal
Fem
ale
Mal
e To
tal
Full-
time
230
169
399
. .
. 66
3 11
15
1778
.
. .
18
5 23
91
1 12
89
2200
Par
t-tim
e 15
2 83
23
5 78
31
10
9 75
5 12
18
1973
3
24
27
11
8 19
99
9 13
64
2363
Wai
kato
Inst
itute
of
Tec
hnol
ogy
Tota
l 38
2 25
2 63
4 78
31
10
9 14
18
2333
37
51
3 24
27
29
13
42
19
10
2653
45
63
Full-
time
752
808
1560
-
- -
2084
29
13
4997
3
12
15
- -
28
39
3733
65
72
Par
t-tim
e 51
1 46
2 97
3 -
- -
1564
24
83
4047
-
- -
- -
- 20
75
2945
50
20
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to
Tota
l 12
63
1270
25
33
- -
- 36
48
5396
90
44
3 12
15
-
- -
4914
66
78
1159
2
Full-
time
- -
- -
- -
19
16
35
- -
- -
- -
19
16
35
Wai
kato
Inst
itute
fo
r Lei
sure
&
Spo
rtTo
tal
- -
- -
- -
19
16
35
- -
- -
- -
19
16
35
Full-
time
1
1 -
- -
- -
- -
1 1
- -
- 1
1 2
Par
t-tim
e 17
13
30
11
13
24
-
- -
28
26
54
Wai
kato
Inst
itute
of
Edu
catio
n
Tota
l 18
13
30
11
14
25
-
- -
29
27
56
Sou
rce:
Dat
a M
anag
emen
t And
Ana
lysi
s D
ivis
ion,
Min
istry
Of E
duca
tion
2004
Doc # 1093619 Page 149
Gaps and limitations This information is not easily available at the regional or territorial authority level. It could be calculated by identifying the geographic location of the training providers listed by the Ministry of Education but this is beyond the scope of this data report.
There is limited breakdown of numbers by geographic area. Individual education providers can be identified, but in cases where more than one campus exists (e.g. Te Wananga o Aotearoa) there is no breakdown of numbers for each campus.
There is no record of where individuals participating in tertiary education have come from.
More information Ministry of Social Development Social Report
www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/knowledge-skills/participation-tertiary-education.html
Ministry of Education Tertiary Statistics website www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=index&indexID=6142&indexparentid=1051
5.4 Culture and Identity Outcome Theme The Waikato region identifies with - and values – its land, air, rivers and waterways, mountains, flora, fauna and its people.
5.4.1 Regional identity and pride outcome (a) We are proud of our region’s distinctive identity, its strong Maoritanga, and its rich and diverse natural and cultural heritage.9
5.4.1.1 #62 – Residents’ rating of their sense of pride in the way their city/town looks and feels
What does ‘Residents’ rating of their sense of pride in the way their city/town looks and feels’ mean? This indicator measures residents’ rating (on a five point scale) of their sense of pride in the way their city/town looks and feels.
Why are ‘Residents’ rating of their sense of pride in the way their city/town looks and feels’ important? This indicator acts as a barometer of the way residents in the areas surveyed feel about the various aspects that comprise the built environment and their city’s liveability.
9 This outcome is not addressed comprehensively by the indicators included in this report and will be addressed further
by associated Maori indicators being developed in a parallel process.
Page 150
Results
Table 97: Residents’ rating of their sense of pride in the way their city looks and feels – Hamilton City 2004
Percentage of respondents who agree “I feel a sense of pride in
the way the city looks and feels”
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
Total 11.4 57.8 19.1 8.3 2.3
Gender
Male 10.9 54.3 23.4 7.6 2.8
Female 11.8 60.9 15.2 9.0 1.8
Age
15-24 8.4 50.4 24.3 13.4 1.4
25-49 10.4 58.5 20.1 8.0 2.6
50-64 14.9 57.1 15.4 6.1 4.3
65+ 15.7 70.1 10.3 2.7 -
Ethnicity
NZ
European/New
Zealander
11.4 56.4 20.1 8.4 2.8
Maori 6.7 61.7 18.0 12.5 1.0
Pacific Island 16.4 62.1 11.6 - -
Asian/Indian 15.2 55.5 15.7 8.9 -
Other - 100.0 - - -Source: Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Twelve Largest Cities – Residents’ Survey 2004 – Data Tables for Hamilton City, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited.
Doc # 1093619 Page 151
Gaps and limitations Survey currently only includes Hamilton City – no data for Waikato Region or other territorial authorities. Data for the Waikato Region will be available from the 2006 survey.
More information http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf2004/Quality_of_Life_2004_Built.pdf
refer to section 12.6 of the Built Environment chapter of the 2004 survey for results for this indicator
http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Look_and_feel_city.pdf - results of 2002 survey for this indicator
5.4.1.2 #63 – Number of Maori speakers (in Maori and total population)
What does ‘Number of Maori speakers (in Maori and total population)’ mean?This indicator measures how many people can speak and understand the spoken Maori language, in the Maori population and usually resident population.
Why is ‘Number of Maori speakers (in Maori and total population)’ important?The number of Maori speakers reflects the importance of our cultural heritage and its understanding.
Results
Table 98: Language spoken (Maori) and sex, for the Census usually resident population count, 2001 – Waikato Region and territorial authorities
Language Spoken Maori Total People (Includes People Stating One or More Language(s) and None)
Sex Male Female Total Male Female Total
Area
Waikato Region 10,971 11,787 22,758 168,384
174,492
342, 876
Franklin District 1029 1110 2136 23964 24093 48057
Thames-CoromandelDistrict
426 435 858 11655 12120 23775
Hauraki District 372 417 786 8037 8211 16248
Waikato District 1803 2019 3822 18915 19026 37944
Matamata-Piako District 534 555 1089 14109 14364 28473
Hamilton City 3294 3696 6990 53124 57876 110997
Waipa District 819 912 1731 19101 20031 39132
Otorohanga District 492 315 807 4731 4125 8859
South Waikato District 924 954 1881 11220 11139 22359
Waitomo District 528 570 1098 4560 4551 9111
Taupo District 1305 1434 2739 14592 14934 29526
Rotorua District 3387 3648 7032 29268 30894 60162
Page 152
Source:http://xtabs.stats.govt.nz/eng/TableViewer/Wdsview/dispviewp.asp?ReportId=24
Table 99: Language spoken (Maori) and sex, for the Maori ethnic group Census usually resident population count, 2001
Language spoken Maori
Total Usually Resident Population (Maori)
Sex Male Female Male Female
Area Waikato Region 9495 10257 35673 37149
Franklin District 879 969 3801 3861
Thames-Coromandel District 327 342 1785 1809
Hauraki District 300 363 1467 1584
Waikato District 1638 1827 5025 5304
Matamata-Piako District 453 480 1863 1899
Hamilton City 2856 3201 10338 11016
Waipa District 684 756 2877 3051
Otorohanga District 444 282 1437 1101
South Waikato District 726 753 3321 3525
Waitomo District 477 519 1701 1833
Taupo District 1176 1290 4293 4461
Rotorua District 3069 3360 10533 11073 Source:http://xtabs.stats.govt.nz/eng/TableViewer/Wdsview/dispviewp.asp?ReportId=84
Gaps and limitations Statistics NZ does not currently provide an official statistic on proportion of Maori speakers in Maori and total populations (only on number of Maori speakers), although this could be calculated unofficially using total population numbers provided.
The proportion of Maori speakers in the Maori and usually resident populations is only provided by Statistics NZ at a national level for 2001 (in Table 2 of the Mäori report) but could be calculated for the regional and territorial authority levels by dividing the indicator by the total regional and territorial authorities populations surveyed. Note, when calculating proportions, the denominator should be those who stated a response to the language question.
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/maori-lang-survey-2001.htm - 2001 Survey on the Health of the Maori Language is a one-off survey looking at the proficiency in and use of te reo Maori at the national level.
http://xtabs.stats.govt.nz/eng/TableFinder/index.asp - Census Table Finder facility.
Doc # 1093619 Page 153
5.4.1.3 #64 – Proportion of population that speak the ‘first language’ of their ethnic group
What does ‘Proportion of population that speak the ‘first language’ of their ethnic group’ mean? First language is the term used to describe a non-English language associated with a given ethnic group. Due to some ethnic groups having a large number of first languages, for example Chinese and Indian, some ethnic groups have more than one first language. This indicator looks at the number of Census respondents who can have “a conversation about every day things” in the language that is clearly associated with their ethnicity.
Why is ‘Proportion of population that speak the ‘first language’ of their ethnic group’ important? Language is an important part of an ethnic group’s cultural identity. It is embedded with the values, beliefs and norms of the groups who use it. For many migrants, maintaining one’s first language and passing it on to the next generation is perceived as important to both cultural and personal well-being (Statistics Canada, 2000, 14).
As a result of both global migration and declining indigenous populations, many of the world’s diverse languages face declining use or extinction. In New Zealand, some Pacific populations now exceed those of their country of origin. In 2001, the New Zealand usually resident Tokelauan population count was four times greater than the 1996 population count in Tokelau (6,204 compared with 1,507). Similarly, the New Zealand resident Niuean population count was 20,148 in 2001, compared with the 2,088 population count in Niue in 1997 (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2000).
Page 154
Results
Table 100: Proportion of people speaking the first language of their ethnic group – whole of New Zealand 2001 (Table 1 from “Concerning Language” report)
(1) Totals refer to combined selected ethnic groups. Source: Table 1, Concerning Language (2004), Statistics New Zealand
Gaps and limitations “First language” data is only available at the national level on the Statistics New Zealand website. Data at regional and territorial authority level would need to be requested from Statistics New Zealand Customer Services and a fee may apply.
The 2001 Census language question provides data on the ability of individuals to speak a language within an everyday situation. It provides no information on frequency of use, on the level of proficiency, nor on the contexts in which the language is spoken.
The question of whether people can have conversations about everyday things may also have been interpreted differently by respondents and therefore have influenced the number of languages each individual recorded. Some might over-estimate their language ability, while others might under-estimate it.
Also, if people from a particular ethnic group speak more than one language, Statistics NZ wouldn't necessarily know which one is the first one. It is wrong to refer to 'language of the ethnicity' and we're not able to tell from the Census which is the first language. A significant proportion of people of particular ethnicities speak many
Doc # 1093619 Page 155
languages (for example, many Filipino speak only Spanish or only English, and a lot of ethnically Fijian Fijians do not speak Fijian -they may be either Hindi or English speakers). There's not a one-one relationship between language and ethnic group. Ethnicity is self-identified, people often have multiple ethnicities and people's ethnic group identification can and does change.
Ethnic mobility (a change in people’s ethnic affiliation over time or between contexts) is likely to be an influential, but not always directly measurable, factor affecting the analysis presented in “Concerning Language”.
English is an official language of the birthplace of some ethnic groups selected in the “Concerning Language” report. For example, English is a legitimate Indian and European language. The 2001 Census did not distinguish between different varieties of the English language. English has therefore been excluded as a first language in this analysis.
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/concerning-language-2004/default.htm -“Concerning Language (2004) is a report investigating language retention for selected ethnic groups in New Zealand, using data from the 2001 Census of Population and Dwellings. The report examines the relationship between language retention and selected variables.
5.4.2 Historic buildings and places outcome (b) Heritage sites and landscapes of significance to Whanau, Hapu and Iwi are preserved and valued.10
(c) Our historic buildings and places are retained and cared for. New developments are designed to be sensitive to people, places and the environment.
5.4.2.1 #65 – Number of buildings and places listed on Historic Places Trust register
What does ‘Number of buildings and places listed on Historic Places Trust register’ mean? This indicator measures the number of buildings and places listed on the Historic Places Trust Register in each territorial authority.
Why is ‘Number of buildings and places listed on Historic Places Trust register’ important? Buildings, structures, and areas of land, including archaeological sites, notable for their importance in New Zealand’s history, and for their historic, cultural, spiritual, aesthetic, social or architectural value. They may be privately or publicly owned and are not necessarily open to the public. (Statistics New Zealand and Ministry of Cultural Affairs, 1995, p 30.)
Rarangi Taonga: the Register of Historic Places, Historic Areas, Wahi Tapu and Wahi Tapu Areas is the national schedule of New Zealand’s treasured heritage places. It is established under the Historic Places Act 1993, and compiled by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga.
The Trust’s Register is designed to inform property owners and the public about New Zealand’s heritage places and to assist protection of these places under the Resource Management Act 1991. Councils are required to have regard to the Register when
10 This outcome is not addressed by the indicators included in this report but will be addressed further by associated
Maori indicators being developed in a parallel process.
Page 156
developing Regional and District Plans, and Councils are required to notify the Trust as an affected party to resource consent applications that affect registered places.
Results
Table 101: Buildings and sites registered on Historic Places Trust Register as at 29 May 2006 by territorial authority
Territorialauthority
Total Category 1 HistoricPlace
Category 2 Historic Place
HistoricArea
WahiTapu
WahiTapuArea
Franklin District 11 2 9 0 0 0
Waikato District 46 8 37 1 0 0
Otorohanga District 17 0 13 1 2 1
Waitomo District 19 2 14 0 3 0
Waipa District 63 7 56 0 0 0
Thames-CoromandelDistrict
182 11 160 1 3 7
Hauraki District 28 7 19 1 0 1
Matamata-PiakoDistrict
48 7 40 1 0 0
South Waikato District
25 2 23 0 0 0
Hamilton City 38 7 30 1 0 0
Rotorua District 15 3 11 0 0 1
Taupo District 3 0 3 0 0 0Source: Data supplied by Martin Jones (NZ Historic Places Trust) 29 May 2006
Gaps and limitations Official statistics for the Waikato Region are not currently available but could be estimated based on the total for all territorial authorities in the Region, taking into account that some territorial authorities are only partially within the Region.
Wahi tapu places and areas are not recorded in the online Register. To find out about these locations you need to contact the local NZHPT office where a full copy of the Register is kept.
The Online Register is very slow to return information. Data may have to be sourced from the NZ Historic Places Trust direct.
The Online Register is updated every three months (although last date of update is listed as November 2005).
There are a number of historic places that have been removed from the Register for technical reasons only i.e. there are deficiencies in the data that has been supplied to the Register. The numbers of these ‘deficient’ records have been supplied by the NZHPT. It is intended that these places be re-registered in the future.
More information New Zealand Historic Places Trust www.historic.org.nz/index.html
Historic Places Act 1993 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes
Doc # 1093619 Page 157
Ministry of Culture & Heritage www.mch.govt.nz
The Cultural Experiences Survey – includes information about visits to historical places and areas www.stats.govt.nz/NR/exeres/4DF0EEEE-BE19-4D98-BFB0-65A732241B32.htm
5.4.2.2 #66 – Number and proportion of heritage buildings demolished or removed from heritage records
What does ‘Number and proportion of heritage buildings demolished or removed from heritage records’ mean? This indicator measures the number of historic buildings removed from the Historic Places Trust Register.
Why is ‘Number and proportion of heritage buildings demolished or removed from heritage records’ important? Buildings, structures, and areas of land, including archaeological sites, notable for their importance in New Zealand’s history, and for their historic, cultural, spiritual, aesthetic, social or architectural value. They may be privately or publicly owned and are not necessarily open to the public. (Statistics New Zealand and Ministry of Cultural Affairs, 1995, p 30.)
Rarangi Taonga: the Register of Historic Places, Historic Areas, Wahi Tapu and Wahi Tapu Areas is the national schedule of New Zealand’s treasured heritage places. It is established under the Historic Places Act 1993, and compiled by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga.
Registration does not necessarily mean that a place is protected. Protection of historic places is generally through the policies and rules in the District Plan.
Results
Table 102: Number of historic places removed from the Historic Places Trust Register as at 29 May 2006 by territorial authority
Removed Registrations Total Category 1 Historic Place
Category 2 Historic Place
Franklin District 1 - 1
Waikato District 11 - 11
Otorohanga District 2 - 2
Waitomo District 3 - 3
Waipa District 5 - 5
Thames-Coromandel District 16 - 16
Hauraki District 8 - 8
Matamata-Piako District 4 - 4
South Waikato District 1 - 1
Hamilton City 5 - 5
Rotorua District 1 - 1
Taupo District 0 - 0Source: Data supplied by Martin Jones (NZ Historic Places Trust) 29 May 2006
Page 158
Gaps and limitations The New Zealand Historic Places Trust can only provide information on the number of records removed from the Register. It can provide detail on the heritage status of the records removed, but no other information is available. For example detail on buildings removed as opposed to sites, is not available.
There is also no readily available information on why a record is removed. For example we do not know if the building has been demolished or removed for another reason.
More information New Zealand Historic Places Trust www.historic.org.nz/index.html
Historic Places Act 1993 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes
Ministry of Culture & Heritage www.mch.govt.nz
The Cultural Experiences Survey – includes information about visits to historical places and areas www.stats.govt.nz/NR/exeres/4DF0EEEE-BE19-4D98-BFB0-65A732241B32.htm
5.4.2.3 #67 – Design of new developments
What does “Design of new developments” mean? This indicator measures whether respondents to the Environment Waikato Environmental Awareness, Attitudes and Actions survey feel that sustainable design of new developments and subdivisions has become better, become worse or stayed the same in the last few years at the Regional, district, rural and urban levels. “Sustainably designed” is defined as “they blend into the area and take account of the environment and people’s needs.”
Why is “Design of new developments” important? The community wants new developments to be sensitive to people, places and the environment. New subdivisions and development are built for the long term and hence need to be carefully planned to meet current and likely future needs. The public increasingly demand higher standards for urban design that reflect the life style and culture of local communities, use good environmental practice and blend in with the surroundings.
ResultsNo data available yet – results from the 2006 Environmental Awareness, Attitudes and Actions survey will be available sometime in 2007.
Gaps and limitations None yet identified.
More information For more information about the Environmental Awareness, Attitudes and Actions
survey, contact a Social Scientist from Environment Waikato’s Community and Economy team.
Doc # 1093619 Page 159
5.4.3 Culture and recreation outcome (d) All our communities have cultural and recreational events and facilities. We identify with and take part in our communities, building good community spirit.
5.4.3.1 #68 – Residents’ satisfaction with cultural facilities providedNo data source has been identified for this indicator.
5.4.3.2 #69 – Participation in cultural and arts activities
What does ‘Participation in cultural and arts activities’ mean? This indicator measures the number of people participating in a range of cultural activities during a set reference period.
Why is ‘Participation in cultural and arts activities’ important? Increasing recognition is being given to the importance of cultural activities in the daily lives of New Zealanders. Our sense of nationhood and identity is dependent to a significant extent on our experience of New Zealand culture and heritage – a matter of increasing relevance in an ever-globalising world. A developed culture, an appreciation of the unique aspects of our culture – particularly M ori culture – and a strong cultural identity contribute positively to matters as diverse as economic growth, social cohesion, the acceptance and encouragement of diversity, creative thinking in a range of fields, and the imbuing of self-confidence in people. Intrinsic value is also derived from cultural experiences, with their power to stimulate and enlighten us.
Results
Figure 15: Number of adults experiencing most popular cultural activities in previous four weeks (Figure 1.01) - 2002
Source: Cultural Experiences Survey (2002), Statistics New Zealand - http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/exeres/5C81CBEF-DFD7-4577-8B59-17093808C0F3.htm
Page 160
Figure 16: Number of adults experiencing most popular cultural activities in previous 12 months - 2002
Source: Cultural Experiences Survey (2002), Statistics New Zealand - http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/exeres/5C81CBEF-DFD7-4577-8B59-17093808C0F3.htm
Gaps and limitations This indicator was measured in a one-off national survey and there are currently no plans to repeat it. No regional or territorial authority analysis is available, even on request.
However, the Quality of Life residents’ survey 2006 will include a new question (Q34) about participation in cultural and arts activities – this data can be used to update CES information, although probably not directly comparable. It will provide data for the Waikato Region and Hamilton City.
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/exeres/39B6A2C6-4358-4806-AA60-21A9E2B70401.htm - A Measure of Culture, report on cultural experiences and cultural spending in NZ.
Same indicator also included in the Social Report at http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/leisure-recreation/participation-cultural-art-activities.html
http://www.mch.govt.nz/cwb/stats.html - Ministry for Culture and Heritage report on cultural statistics for the Waikato Region
5.4.3.3 #70 – Proportion of council’s spending on cultural activities and events
What does ‘Proportion of council’s spending on cultural activities and events’ mean? This indicator measures all reported local government spending, both capital and output, on public libraries, venues (excluding community halls), and museums and art galleries.
Doc # 1093619 Page 161
Why is ‘Proportion of council’s spending on cultural activities and events’ important? Council’s expenditure provides a further measure of people’s engagement with culture by showing the total expenditure councils are prepared to spend on cultural goods and services, and how this compares with other types of expenditure.
Results
Figure 17: Local government spending on culture across NZ – 1999/2000 to 2003/04
Source: Local Government Spending on Culture (2000-2004) – report by Statistics NZ. Refer to http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/govt-spending-on-culture-2004
Page 162
Figure 18: Local government total and per capita spending on public libraries 2003/2004
Source: Local Government Spending on Culture (2000-2004) – report by Statistics NZ. Refer to http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/govt-spending-on-culture-2004
Figure 19: Local government spending on museums and galleries – 1999/2000 to 2003/2004
Source: Local Government Spending on Culture (2000-2004) – report by Statistics NZ. Refer to http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/govt-spending-on-culture-2004
Doc # 1093619 Page 163
Figure 20: Local government spending on venues – 1999/2000 to 2003/2004
Source: Local Government Spending on Culture (2000-2004) – report by Statistics NZ. Refer to http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/govt-spending-on-culture-2004
Gaps and limitations The information presented above for this indicator was derived from local authority annual reports. There is a wide variance between councils in the way they report their cultural expenditure. Therefore, any comparisons or use of this data must be done with caution, as it is roughly indicative only.
The Ministry for Culture and Heritage Cultural Well-being Programme is working on a more rigorous process for gathering data in this area. Their website (http://www.mch.govt.nz/cwb/resources.html#review) notes:
“As part of the Cultural Statistics programme, the report Government Spending on Culture was issued in June 2005. This report contains details of expenditure by central government departments, the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board and local government for the years 19992004. The information is collected from Estimates of Appropriations and annual reports, including those of all local authorities, for expenditure items that fall within the categories of the New Zealand Framework for Cultural Statistics.
The Ministry for Culture and Heritage recognises that reporting cultural expenditure is not the primary purpose of local government annual reports. This can result in a wide variance in the level of detail reported which may not, therefore, take account of every item of cultural expenditure by local government. However, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and Statistics New Zealand, will, in 2006, be working with local government on ways in which local government expenditure is recorded in order to be able to provide ways to more accurately and usefully reflect cultural wellbeing funding.”
More information http://www.mch.govt.nz/cwb/resources.html#review – Ministry for Culture and Heritage review of Cultural Well-being Resources in local government (refer to Report 2 for information about future plans to progress indicators)
5.4.4 Creativity outcome (e) Art, culture and creativity can be a part of everyone’s life. We all have opportunities for creative expression and our creative industries are supported and promoted.
Page 164
5.4.4.1 #71 – People employed in the cultural sector
What does ‘People employed in the cultural sector’ mean? This indicator measures the number of people in paid employment in the cultural sector, including people in cultural occupations and people in non-cultural occupations working in the cultural industry across New Zealand. Note that paid employment in the cultural sector can be divided into two overlapping categories: employment in cultural occupations, that is, people who directly create cultural
goods or services as defined by the New Zealand Framework for Cultural Statistics Te Anga Tatauranga Tikanga-ä-iwi o Aotearoa 1995, which provides a framework for the systematic collection, analysis and presentation of data related to the cultural sector framework, andthose who are employed in cultural industries but are not directly engaged in the creation of cultural goods and services such as those in supporting occupations, for example accountants, cleaners or administrators.
Why is ‘People employed in the cultural sector’ important? Arts and cultural activities are an integral part of our lives and help to define who we are as New Zealanders. People participate in the arts for a wide variety of reasons: for enjoyment and entertainment, for personal growth and development, as a means of expression, to learn new skills and meet new people, to pass on cultural traditions, and to earn an income.
Results
Figure 21: Number of people employed in cultural sector – New Zealand 2001
Source: Statistics NZ Analytical Report “Employment in the Cultural Sector” June 2005 (http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/D1DAF70A-F84A-41C5-B0C9-D270CE0F2BFE/0/Overview.pdf)
Doc # 1093619 Page 165
Table 103: Number of people employed in cultural sector – change over time between 1991 and 2001 – New Zealand
Source: Statistics NZ Analytical Report “Employment in the Cultural Sector” June 2005 (http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/D1DAF70A-F84A-41C5-B0C9-D270CE0F2BFE/0/Overview.pdf)
Table 104: People employed in cultural occupations by key employment indicators (ethnicity, gender, qualifications, income) – New Zealand 2001
Source: Statistics NZ Analytical Report “Employment in the Cultural Sector” June 2005 (http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/D1DAF70A-F84A-41C5-B0C9-D270CE0F2BFE/0/Overview.pdf)
Gaps and limitations Regional data provided in the report “Employment in the Cultural Sector” relates mostly to proportion of employed people living in select regions. Beyond this, no other data/analysis has been provided at the regional level. For further information on cultural occupations at the regional level, a customised request would need to be made to Statistics New Zealand and a fee may apply.
Data is not available at the territorial authority level but could possibly be extracted from Census data if a customised request was made to Statistics New Zealand. A fee would probably apply.
Page 166
When examining census employment data in order to extract cultural employment data, limitations become obvious. The census asks for information on main job only, which is defined as the job in which people usually work the most hours. There is no facility to analyse secondary employment, yet there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that cultural employment is often undertaken as a second job. Voluntary cultural work is also not separately identifiable from census data and yet it appears that much cultural work is undertaken as unpaid or voluntary work. Census data also excludes people ‘between jobs’. Employment data will be less representative for a sector with a highly mobile labour force, high rates of underemployment and in which people are employed erratically, than for sectors in which employment is more stable or predictable.
To compound these data problems, the classifications used to categorise census data do not correspond exactly with the classification of cultural activities in the New Zealand Framework for Cultural Statistics Te Anga Tatauranga Tikangaä-iwi o Aotearoa, which represents a desired or ‘best-fit’ statistical classification of cultural activities.
More information http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-reports/employment-in-the-cultural-sector.htm -Statistics NZ Analytical Report “Employment in the Cultural Sector” June 2005.
5.5 Participation and Equity Outcome Theme The Waikato region builds strong informed communities and has a culture that encourages people and communities to play their part.
5.5.1 Civic participation (a) All our people and communities can participate in decision-making. We are
educated, informed and have the resources we need to take responsibility for our own futures.
(b) Iwi, Hapu and Maori work together with central government, local government and community organisations in mutually beneficial partnerships.11
(c) Our communities understand partnerships under the Treaty of Waitangi and representation and processes for these partnerships have integrity.
(d) The unique status of Tangata Whenua is respected and reflected in community processes.
(e) Maori have the opportunity to participate in community development and decision-making at Marae, Hapu and Iwi levels.
5.5.1.1 #72 – Percentage of voter turnout at local and general elections
What does ‘Percentage of turnout at local and general elections’ mean? This indicator measures: The proportion of all enrolled electors (both resident and ratepayer) who cast a
vote in the most recent local body elections. To be eligible to vote a person must be at least 18 years old and meet residential and certain other criteria.
The proportion of the persons aged 18 or over usually resident in General electorates (voting-age population) who cast a vote in General electorates in the most recent general election. Note that the total number of persons aged 18 or over usually resident in General electorates includes persons enrolled in Maori electorates (7.1% of the total population aged 18 or over).
11 This outcome and outcomes (c) to (e) below are not addressed comprehensively by the indicators included in this
report and will be addressed further by associated Maori indicators being developed in a parallel process.
Doc # 1093619 Page 167
Why is ‘Percentage of turnout at local and general elections’ important? Voter turnout rates are a measure of political participation. They can be seen as an indicator of the extent to which citizens are a part of the political process, and the confidence the population has in, and the importance they attach to, political institutions.
Results
Table 105: Percentage of all enrolled electors who cast a vote in the 2004 local body elections – Waikato Region and territorial authorities
Area Percentage of enrolled electors who cast a vote
Waikato Region* 45.0%
Franklin 45.9%
Rotorua 48.8%
Hamilton 45.1%
Waikato 42.3%
Waipa 42.2%
Otorohanga 54.8%
Waitomo 55.8%
Thames-Coromandel 56.3%
Hauraki 53.1%
Matamata-Piako 42.2%
South Waikato 41.2%
Taupo 53.0% Source: http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/t-authorities/voter-turnout.htmland*http://www.dia.govt.nz/pubforms.nsf/URL/Electionstats2004.pdf/$file/Electionstats2004.pdf
Table 106: Percentage of estimated voting age population who cast a vote in 2002 general election – Waikato Region
Region Percentage of estimated voting age
population who cast a vote
Waikato 68.0%Source: http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/t-authorities/voter-turnout.html
Gaps and limitations Voter turnout figures do not include votes cast in Maori electorates, and there is no feasible method of estimating the number of Maori enrolees or votes by General electorate or region. For this reason the estimates of voter turnout are understated, and this is likely to be most pronounced in regions with a relatively high proportion of Maori among the total population.
Page 168
More information http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/civil-political-rights/voter-turnout.html - Social Report page on local body and General Election voter turnout, national data and trends
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/r-councils/voter.html - Social Report page on regional voter turnout, regional data and trends
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/t-authorities/voter-turnout.html -Social Report page on territorial authority voter turnout, TA data and trends
http://www.dia.govt.nz/pubforms.nsf/URL/Electionstats2004.pdf/$file/Electionstats2004.pdf - Department of Internal Affairs report “Local Government Election Statistics 2004” on which Social Report 2004 data is based
http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Voter_turnout.pdf - Quality of Life report page on voter turnout indicator, showing trends on local council elections for Hamilton City from 1995-2001.
http://www.dia.govt.nz/pubforms.nsf/URL/Electionstats2004.pdf/$file/Electionstats2004.pdf - Department of Internal Affairs report “Local Government Election Statistics 2004” also contains data on District Health Board, community board and mayoral election voter turnout.
5.5.1.2 #73 – Degree of representation by tangata whenua and minority groups on governance and decision-making bodies
What does ‘Degree of representation by tangata whenua and minority groups on governance and decision-making bodies’ mean? This indicator measures: The proportion of female elected members of the city or district council in the most
recent local body elections by territorial authority.
The proportion of female elected members of the city or district council in the most recent local body elections by region.
The proportion of Maori elected members in local government in the 2001 local body elections.
Why is ‘Degree of representation by tangata whenua and minority groups on governance and decision-making bodies’ important? Anecdotal evidence suggests overrepresentation on governance and decision-making bodies by people who identify with the NZ European ethnic group, with a correspondingly poor representation by women, minority ethnic groups and young people. This may have an impact on the ability of those bodies to understand and advocate for these population groups, and on the perceived relevance of these bodies to such communities. Specific groups or sectors of the community may not feel they are being heard or their concerns addressed. Alienation from local decision-making process can have adverse repercussions for social connectedness in cities, districts and regions.
Doc # 1093619 Page 169
Results
Figure 22: Proportion of female elected members of the city or district council in the 2004 local body elections by region
Waikato Region = 50% Source: http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/r-councils/women.html
Page 170
Table 107: The proportion of female elected members of city or district councils in the 2004 local body elections by territorial authority
Territorial authority Proportion of female
elected members
Franklin District 40%
Rotorua District 25%
Hamilton City 38%
Waikato District 15%
Waipa District 25%
Otorohanga District 43%
Waitomo District 33%
Thames-Coromandel District 13%
Hauraki District 23%
Matamata-Piako District 27%
South Waikato District 56%
Taupo District 33%Source: http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/t-authorities/women.html
Table 108: Percentage of Maori elected members in local government across New Zealand – 1992 to 2001
Election year No. Maori out of total
elected members
Percentage
2001 52/940 5.5%
1998 48/799 6.0%
1995 39/1123 3.5%
1992 29/1156 2.5%Source: Local Government New Zealand at http://www.lgnz.co.nz/faq/maori.html
Doc # 1093619 Page 171
Gaps and limitations No data on Maori representation in local government at the regional or territorial authority level at all, or at the national level for 2004.
More information http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Representation.pdf - Quality of Life report indicator page on representation, providing data for representation by women in city councils in 2001
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/regional/r-councils/women.html - Social Report page on representation of women in government at city or district council level, reported by regions for 2004
http://www.lgnz.co.nz/faq/maori.html - Local Government NZ page providing data on Maori representation in local government, at the national level only for 2001.
http://www.lgnz.co.nz/faq/women.html - Local Government NZ page providing data on representation of women in local government, at the national level only for 2001.
5.5.1.3 #74 – Residents’ rating of satisfaction with council’s provision of opportunities for community involvement in decision-making
What does ‘Residents’ rating of satisfaction with council’s provision of opportunities for community involvement in decision-making’ mean? This indicator measures residents’ rating of:
agreement with the statement “ I would like to have more of a say in what the council does”
how much influence the public has on the decisions that council makes.
NB. The 2001 Quality of Life survey also measured residents’ rating of satisfaction with council’s provision of opportunities for community involvement in decision-making, but this is no longer included in more recent surveys.
Why is ‘Residents’ rating of satisfaction with council’s provision of opportunities for community involvement in decision-making’ important? The community wants to have a say in what council does. Community involvement is critical for an effective local government. Resident’s perception of councils provisions of opportunities for involvement in decision-making is a good measure of how adequate councils’ processes are for community involvement.
Page 172
Results
Table 109: Percentage of respondents who agree that they would like more of a say in what the council does – Hamilton City 2004
Percentage of respondents who agree that they would like more
of a say in what the council does
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
Total 15.0 40.9 28.7 12.4 1.3
Gender
Male 15.9 41.6 29.5 11.0 0.9
Female 14.2 40.3 28.0 13.6 1.7
Age
15-24 13.5 37.6 38.0 9.3 -
25-49 15.3 41.0 27.7 12.9 1.9
50-64 17.5 42.0 27.8 10.4 1.2
65+ 13.5 45.2 15.9 18.8 1.5
Ethnicity
NZ
European/New
Zealander
15.7 38.3 30.5 13.3 0.7
Maori 11.0 43.8 29.6 12.5 2.1
Pacific Island 12.5 38.7 48.9 - -
Asian/Indian 16.2 60.9 15.8 7.1 -
Other - - - - 50.0Source: Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Twelve Largest Cities – Residents’ Survey 2004 – Data Tables for Hamilton City, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited.
Doc # 1093619 Page 173
Table 110: Residents’ rating of the amount of influence the public has on decisions that council makes – Hamilton City 2004
Residents’ rating of the amount of influence the public has on
decisions that council makes
Large
influence
Some
influence
Small
influence
No
influence
Don’t
know
Total 6.3 44.6 36.8 9.4 2.89
Gender
Male 5.6 45.6 37.3 8.6 2.9
Female 6.9 43.7 36.3 10.1 2.9
Age
15-24 9.0 63.5 23.6 - 3.9
25-49 5.6 41.9 40.7 10.1 1.8
50-64 7.3 33.2 35.1 21.3 3.1
65+ 2.5 33.3 49.8 9.4 5.0
Ethnicity
NZ
European/New
Zealander
5.5 43.3 38.6 10.3 2.3
Maori 9.7 41.5 31.8 10.8 6.2
Pacific Island 32.2 39.3 28.5 - -
Asian/Indian 7.2 62.2 23.3 - 7.3
Other - 100.0 - - -Source: Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Twelve Largest Cities – Residents’ Survey 2004 – Data Tables for Hamilton City, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited.
Gaps and limitations Survey currently only includes Hamilton City – no data for Waikato Region or other territorial authorities. Data will be available from the 2006 survey for the Waikato Region.
Page 174
More information Quality of Life indicator page on community involvement in council decision-
making, including 2002 results for this indicator for eight cities – http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Community_involvement.pdf
5.5.2 Cultural well-being outcome (f) We are knowledgeable about and show respect for the many and diverse cultures of the people who live here.
5.5.2.1 #75 – Percentage of residents’ perceiving that cultural diversity makes their region/city/town a better place to live
What does ‘Percentage of residents’ perceiving that cultural diversity makes their region/city/town a better place to live’ mean? This indicator measures residents’ views about whether cultural diversity makes their region/city/town a better place to live. This indicator focuses on those who expressed positive views about this statement, answering either “a much better place” or “a better place.”
Why is the ‘Percentage of residents’ perceiving that cultural diversity makes their region/city/town a better place to live’ important? Cities are home for an increasing number of people with diverse lifestyles and cultures from different countries. This diversity impacts on how we communicate with different population groups and how they are made to feel part of their city, and enjoy a quality of life.
Results
Table 111: Resident’s perceptions about whether cultural diversity makes Hamilton City a better place to live – 2004
Percentage of residents perceiving that cultural diversity makes
their city a better place to live
A much
better place
A better
place
Makes no
difference
A worse
place
A much
worse
place
Total 10.3 35.8 38.6 10.3 2.1
Gender
Male 10.1 31.8 40.1 12.4 2.1
Female 10.4 39.4 37.3 8.5 2.1
Doc # 1093619 Page 175
Percentage of residents perceiving that cultural diversity makes
their city a better place to live
A much
better place
A better
place
Makes no
difference
A worse
place
A much
worse
place
Age
15-24 4.6 32.1 53.7 6.9 -
25-49 13.2 39.9 33.4 9.9 1.4
50-64 12.5 35.8 30.3 10.7 6.2
65+ 7.8 27.8 39.4 17.9 3.1
Ethnicity
NZ
European/New
Zealander
8.0 34.4 40.5 11.9 2.4
Maori 8.8 33.7 38.6 9.5 2.0
Pacific Island 28.8 61.7 9.4 - -
Asian/Indian 24.5 52.8 22.7 - -
Other 50.0 - 50.0 - -Source: Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Twelve Largest Cities – Residents’ Survey 2004 – Data Tables for Hamilton City, Gravitas Research and Strategy Limited.
Gaps and limitations Survey currently only includes Hamilton City – no data for Waikato Region or other territorial authorities. However, data will be available for the Waikato Region from the 2006 survey.
More information http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/pdf/Diversity.pdf - Quality of Life indicator page on Diversity, presenting data on residents’ perceptions of cultural diversity for 8 cities (including Hamilton). Note that information is also available on why people hold the views that they do about cultural diversity.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/census-snpsht-cult-diversity-Mar02.htm - Statistics NZ article giving a snapshot of national findings on cultural diversity from 2001 census.
Page 176
6 Data Gaps This section summarises the data and information gaps identified during the collation of data for the core indicators presented in this report.
6.1 Summary of overall data gaps in core set of indicatorsTable 112 shows the overall data gaps within the core set of indicators presented in this report.
Table 112: Summary of overall data gaps in core set of indicators
Data coverage issue Number of
indicators
affected
Percentage of
total core
indicator set
No data source identified 6 8%
No data available yet (indicator under
development or data to be collected in future)
9 12%
National data only 6 8%
Regional data only 11 15%
Data available for some territorial authorities but
not all
14 19%
Territorial authority data only 6 8%
Data available but not for regional council
boundary
3 4%
NB. Total number of core indicators is now 75.
6.2 Data gaps by coverage issue
6.2.1 No data source identified The following six core indicators have no data source identified at the time of report writing:
9. Protection of natural heritage and landscapes 15. Public access (NB. Data is available for proxy of coastline ownership) 37. Proximity to work, study and recreation 45. Youth and older people’s engagement in decision-making 55. Resident’s satisfaction with council’s approach to planning and providing services 68. Resident’s satisfaction with cultural facilities provided
Doc # 1093619 Page 177
6.2.2 No data available yet (indicator under development or data to be collected in future)The following nine core indicators currently have no data available because they are either still under development or the data will be collected in the future:
5. Land use (under development by Statistics NZ) 8. Surface water availability and use (under development by Environment Waikato) 11. Protected native vegetation areas (under development by Ministry for the
Environment/Environment Waikato) 31. Adult and community education (to be collected in future by the Tertiary Education
Commission) 38. Criminal victimisation rates (under development at sub-national level by Statistics
NZ) – ‘recorded crime’ as proxy 46. Genuine Progress Indicator (under development by NZCEE/Environment Waikato) 47. Regional GDP (under development by Statistics NZ) 56. Regional GDP contributed by primary industries (under development by Statistics
NZ)67. Design of new developments (to be collected by Environment Waikato later in
2006)70. Proportion of council’s spending on cultural activities and events (Ministry for
Culture and Heritage investigating options)
6.2.3 National data only The following six core indicators are currently only available at the national level:
30. Participation in early childhood education 34. Housing affordability (although regional data was available for 2000-01) 59. Employment in tourism industry12
60. Total research funding 64. Proportion of population that speak the ‘first language’ of their ethnic group* 71. People employed in cultural sector* * May be available at regional and or local level on request from the Ministry of
Culture and Heritage for a fee.
6.2.4 Regional data only The following 11 core indicators are currently only available at the regional level:
1. River water quality for ecological health+
2. River water quality for recreation+
3. Lakes water quality for ecological health+
4. Lakes water quality for recreation 6. Air quality (particulate matter, PM10)7. Groundwater availability and use+
14. Coastal water quality for recreation 17. Stock density+
20. Energy efficiency (proxy Energy use relative to economic growth) 42. Participation in sport and active leisure 49. Median weekly income* + Environment Waikato may be able to supply at local level if request made for
further analysis. * May be available at local level on request for a fee.
6.2.5 Data available for some territorial authorities only The following 14 core indicators are currently only available for some territorial authorities within the Waikato Region: 12 This indicator could be produced from census data. SNZ may explore this further.
Page 178
18. Total energy consumption 23. Life expectancy at birth 25. Avoidable mortality and hospitalisation rates 26. Overall quality of life+ 27. Barriers to accessing General Practitioners+ 32. Work opportunities matching skills+ 39. Perceptions of safety+ 43. Participation in social networks and groups+ 51. Building consents* 54. Resident’s confidence in council’s decision making+ 62. Resident’s rating of their sense of pride in the way their city/town looks and feels+ 69. Participation in cultural and arts activities 74. Residents satisfaction with Council's provision of opportunities for community
involvement in decisions+ 75. Percentage of residents perceiving that cultural diversity makes their region/
city/town a better place to live+ * Data available for other territorial authorities for a fee from INFOS series or directly
from territorial authorities themselves. + Data available for Hamilton City and from 2006 for Waikato Region.
6.2.6 Territorial authority data only The following six core indicators are currently only available at the territorial authority level:
19. Greenhouse gas emissions 24. Social deprivation index 52. Drinking water quality 57. Nights in commercial accommodation 65. Number of buildings and places listed on Historic Places Trust register 66. Number and proportion of heritage buildings demolished or removed from heritage
records
6.2.7 Data available but not within regional council boundaries The following four core indicators are available for part of or more than the Waikato Region, as they are measured across geographic areas that are not consistent with the Waikato regional boundary:
25. Avoidable mortality and hospitalisation rates (Waikato DHB region) 38. Proxy of Recorded offences and resolution rates (Waikato Police District) 58. Income from tourism (international and domestic) (Regional Tourism Organisation
regions)
Doc # 1093619 Page 179
7 Recommendations This section contains recommendations for MARCO about how some of the data gaps identified in Section 6 could be addressed or progressed in the future.
7.1 Indicators where no data source identified13
The following six core indicators have no data source identified at the time of report writing:
9. Protection of natural heritage and landscapes 15. Public access to the coast (NB. Data is available for proxy of coastline ownership) 37. Proximity to work, study and recreation 45. Youth and older people’s engagement in decision-making 55. Resident’s satisfaction with council’s approach to planning and providing services 68. Resident’s satisfaction with cultural facilities provided
7.1.1.1 Recommendation 1Indicators 55, 68 and 70 are all related to the performance of territorial authorities. Given that MARCO members are currently discussing the type and consistency of surveys undertaken by their respective agencies, those from territorial authorities could consider the inclusion of questions designed to provide information for these performance related indicators in any future local surveys.
7.2 Indicators where no data available yet The following nine core indicators currently have no data available because they are either still under development or the data will be collected in the future:
5. Land use (under development by Statistics NZ) 8. Surface water availability and use (under development by Environment Waikato) 11. Protected native vegetation areas (under development by Ministry for the
Environment/Environment Waikato) 31. Adult and community education (to be collected in future by the Tertiary Education
Commission) 38. Criminal victimisation rates (under development at sub-national level by Statistics
NZ)46. Genuine Progress Indicator (under development by NZCEE/Environment Waikato) 47. Regional GDP (under development by Statistics NZ) 56. Regional GDP contributed by primary industries (under development by Statistics
NZ) – linked to above #47 67. Design of new developments (to be collected by Environment Waikato later in
2006)70. Proportion of council’s spending on cultural activities and events (being
investigated by Ministry for Culture and Heritage in 2006)
7.2.1.1 Recommendation 2The completed metadata sheets for each of these indicators provide information about when data might be available and from where. It is suggested that either key MARCO members or future contractors for MARCO be given responsibility for keeping abreast of progress with indicator development and data availability. It may be possible to register interest with the agencies responsible for each indicator, such that key MARCO contacts are kept in the loop by the agencies themselves with respect to progress over time.
13 This includes indicators for which no standardised method for collection of data has been developed yet.
Page 180
7.2.1.2 Recommendation 3Given that Matamata-Piako District Council currently obtains regular district-based GDP information from the University of Waikato, MARCO could consider initiating a project to make this information available for all territorial authorities in the region on a one-off basis. MARCO could then consider whether it would be cost-effective to continue this work on a regular basis.
7.3 Indicators where national data only The following six core indicators are currently only available at the national level:
30. Participation in early childhood education 34. Housing affordability (although regional data was available for 2000-01) 59. Employment in tourism industry 60. Total research funding 64. Proportion of population that speak the ‘first language’ of their ethnic group* 71. People employed in cultural sector* * May be available at regional and or local level on request for a fee.
7.3.1.1 Recommendation 4MARCO could consider engaging a contractor or agency such as the University of Waikato to contact tourism businesses or tourism umbrella organisations within the region to estimate regional figures for Indicator 59.
7.3.1.2 Recommendation 5Further investigation is required as to the potential for and future plans of agencies other than Statistics New Zealand to gather data for Indicator 60 at the sub-national level. The author has contacted the Ministry of Economic Development on this issue but no reply had been received at the data of report writing. Sub-national economic development agencies would also be useful contacts for this indicator. MARCO could also consider commissioning an agency such as the University of Waikato to gather local and/or regional data for this indicator.
7.3.1.3 Recommendation 6Indicators 64 and 71 may be available at a sub-national level from Statistics New Zealand on request and for a fee. MARCO should investigate data availability and cost further, so a decision can be made as to whether it is cost effective to purchase additional more relevant data at the appropriate levels.
7.4 Indicators where regional data only The following 11 core indicators are currently only available at the regional level:
1. River water quality for ecological health+
2. River water quality for recreation+
3. Lakes water quality for ecological health+
4. Lakes water quality for recreation 6. Air quality (particulate matter, PM10)7. Groundwater availability and use+
14. Coastal water quality for recreation 17. Stock density+
20. Energy efficiency (proxy Energy use relative to economic growth) 42. Participation in sport and active leisure (NB. Will be available in future for Hamilton
City through 2006 Quality of Life survey) 49. Median weekly income* + Environment Waikato may be able to supply at territorial authority level if request
made for further analysis. * May be available on request from Statistics NZ at local level for a fee.
Doc # 1093619 Page 181
7.4.1.1 Recommendation 7Given that indicators 1, 2, 3, 7 and 17 may be able to be supplied by Environment Waikato at the territorial authority level if a request is made to the Resource Information Group for further analysis, MARCO could consider pursuing this with Environment Waikato. If a request is made by MARCO through the MARCO process, an agreement may be able to be reached regarding the availability of all core indicators sourced from Environment Waikato at the territorial authority level where practicable and possible.
7.4.1.2 Recommendation 8Indicators 49 may be available at a sub-national level from Statistics New Zealand on request and for a fee. MARCO should investigate data availability and cost further, so a decision can be made as to whether it is cost effective to purchase additional more relevant data at the appropriate levels. Alternatively, MARCO could pursue an alternative indicator ‘Average weekly earnings’ sourced from the NZ Quarterly Employment Survey and currently obtained by Matamata-Piako District Council through the regional Quarterly Report provided to Environment Waikato by Statistics New Zealand. MARCO should also add an additional indicator ‘median personal income’ to the list of non-core indicators to help provide a more comprehensive picture.
7.5 Indicators where data available for some territorial authorities only The following 14 core indicators are currently only available for some territorial authorities within the Waikato Region:
18. Total energy consumption 23. Life expectancy at birth 25. Avoidable mortality and hospitalisation rates 26. Overall quality of life+
27. Barriers to accessing General Practitioners+
32. Work opportunities matching skills+
39. Perceptions of safety+
43. Participation in social networks and groups+
51. Building consents* 54. Resident’s confidence in council’s decision making+
62. Resident’s rating of their sense of pride in the way their city/town looks and feels+
69. Participation in cultural and arts activities 74. Residents satisfaction with Council's provision of opportunities for community
involvement in decisions+
75. Percentage of residents perceiving that cultural diversity makes their region/ city/town a better place to live+
* Data available for other territorial authorities for a fee from INFOS series or directly from territorial authorities themselves.
+ Data available for Hamilton City and from 2006 for Waikato Region.
7.5.1.1 Recommendation 9Depending on the relative importance of Indicator 18, MARCO member agencies could consider commissioning a regional assessment, by territorial authority, of total energy consumption. It could be co-ordinated by Environment Waikato, given recently assigned regional responsibilities for energy-related issues.
7.5.1.2 Recommendation 10Indicators 26, 27, 32, 39, 43, 54, 62, 74 and 75 are all part of the Quality of Life survey, which includes Hamilton City and from 2006, a Waikato Region sample. Given the number of indicators (9) and the ability to compare with other parts of New Zealand, MARCO member agencies not currently participating in the survey should consider the cost benefit of future participation. An alternative could be local surveys which include the same questions as those providing data for these indicators, depending on the outcome of MARCO’s region-wide survey review.
Page 182
7.5.1.3 Recommendation 11Indicator 51 is based on information provided to Statistics New Zealand by territorial authorities. If it is not already the case, MARCO agencies should discuss with Statistics New Zealand the provision of a regular comprehensive regional summary of this information for all territorial authorities within the region, free of charge. Alternatively, MARCO could establish their own database of this information, with all territorial authorities providing this information to a delegated MARCO member on a monthly basis at the same time as it is provided to Statistics New Zealand.
7.5.1.4 Recommendation 12Indicator 25 has currently only been sourced from the Waikato District Health Board, which does not cover all of the Waikato Region. The next step is to identify the surrounding relevant DHBs and gather data and information for this indicator for those territorial authorities within the Waikato Region but outside the Waikato DHB region. The MARCO member from the Waikato DHB could assist with this task.
7.6 Indicators where data available for territorial authorities only The following six core indicators are currently only available at the territorial authority level:
19. Greenhouse gas emissions 24. Social deprivation index 52. Drinking water quality 57. Nights in commercial accommodation 65. Number of buildings and places listed on Historic Places Trust register 66. Number and proportion of heritage buildings demolished or removed from heritage
records
7.6.1.1 Recommendation 13MARCO could discuss with both NIWA and the National Climate Change Office the possibility of providing regional data for Indicator 19. The National Climate Change is already considering this as a project for the current financial year, therefore prompt interest and support from the MARCO team could well encourage them towards this outcome. Alternatively, it may not be difficult for NIWA to aggregate territorial authority data at the regional level when the next Greenhouse Gas Inventory is prepared. NIWA have indicated that they may undertake another inventory based on 2006 census data over the next 12 months, so it would be in MARCO’s best interests to contact them regarding regional data as soon as possible.
7.6.1.2 Recommendation 14Data for Indicator 24 was extracted at the territorial authority level from the published hardcopy report “Degrees of Deprivation”. It may be possible to obtain this data by ethnicity from either the Ministry of Health or the report authors on request, if it is a priority. It may also be possible for territorial authority data to be aggregated to give a regional measure, although the accuracy may be questionable. If meeting these data gaps is a priority for MARCO, the MARCO member from the Waikato DHB may be able to assist in progressing these requests with the Ministry of Health or may even have access to more detailed data.
7.6.1.3 Recommendation 15MARCO could consider developing a methodology or protocol for the accurate aggregation of territorial authority data to provide a regional estimate for the indicators listed under this section. The methodology would need to take into account the partial inclusion of Rotorua, Franklin, Taupo and Waitomo districts within the Waikato Region. In particular, the data provided by the Historic Places Trust Register for Indicators 65 and 66 does not include all buildings and waahi tapu sites listed in District Plans,
Doc # 1093619 Page 183
making aggregation at the territorial authority level a better option providing data is collected in a standardised way.
7.7 Indicators where data available within non-regional boundaries The following four core indicators are available for part of or more than the Waikato Region, as they are measured across geographic areas that are not consistent with the Waikato regional boundary:
25. Avoidable mortality and hospitalisation rates (Waikato DHB region) – see Recommendation 10 above
38. Proxy of Recorded offences and resolution rates (Waikato Police District) 58. Income from tourism (international and domestic) (Regional Tourism Organisation
regions)
7.7.1.1 Recommendation 16Depending on the relative priority of regional information for Indicators 25, 38 and 58 and the nature of the data available, MARCO could consider tasking Environment Waikato with the job of using their GIS database to assist in the generation of data estimates consistent with the Waikato Regional boundary.
Page 184
8 Next Steps The MARCO Group will undertake the following:
1. Make data available to all MARCO and Choosing Futures Waikato COPT members, so they are able to use it in the preparation of community outcome reports (by Dec 2006).
2. Publish report on Choosing Futures Waikato website (pdf file), by Dec 2006.
3. Make data and associated metadata publicly available via a web-based searchable Data Discovery Tool (prototype tool by June 2007). In the short-term produce a CD with data (and associated metadata) in an easy accessible structure and format for councils (by March 2007).
4. Establish a robust process for regular updating of benchmark data in the future, including checking progress with indicators either under development or as yet not measured (developing monitoring plan and data sharing protocols during 2007; ongoing task).
Doc # 1093619 Page 185
9 Appendices
9.1 Appendix 1 – LGA Requirements to Monitor and Report Community Outcomes Organisation Legislation Monitoring
Requirement Mandatory
Timeframe and Reporting Requirement
Report annually on the results of any measurement undertaken during the year of progress towards the achievement of community outcomes (Schedule 10 S. 15(c))
Monitor progress towards community outcomes (outcome monitoring)
Yes
Report not less than once every three years on the progress made by the local community in achieving community outcomes (S. 92)
Compare actual Council activities and performance against intended activities and levels of service as set out in the LTCCP (output monitoring)
Yes Reported on in the Annual Report (Schedule 10 S. 15(e)).
Regional, city and district councils
LGA 2002
Describe the effects of Council activities on the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of the community (mixture of output and outcome monitoring)
Yes Reported on in the Annual Report (Schedule 10 S. 15(d)).
Page 186
9.2 Appendix 2 – Non-core indicators Metadata and data will be collected for these indicators as time and resources permit.
Id THEME OUTCOME Potential indicators/ measures
Source Availability/Notes
2 Sustainable Environment
Air, land and water quality
2. Odour complaints
Environment Waikato (and Councils?) complaint registers
Current EW indicator does not include other council’s databases. Questions about meaning of data (ie. need for analysis of reason for complaint)
3 Sustainable Environment
Air, land and water quality
3. Soil quality at selected sites
Environment Waikato
Regional level information; currently 55 sites grouped into various land uses types
11 Sustainable Environment
Biodiversity 11. Forest fragmentation
EW Regional level, updated every five years
12 Sustainable Environment
Biodiversity 12. Threatened, endangered and extinct species
DoC/MfE? Possibly available down to regional level; there may be key indicator species at the territorial level (eg. kiwi)
14 Sustainable Environment
Environmental attitudes and behaviours
14. Environmental knowledge
Environment Waikato Perception Survey
Down to territorial level; available every three years
15 Sustainable Environment
Environmental attitudes and behaviours
15. Environmental satisfaction
Environment Waikato Perception Survey
Down to territorial level; available every three years
17 Sustainable Environment
Environmental attitudes and behaviours
17. People’s public environmental actions
Environment Waikato Perception Survey
Down to territorial level; available every three years
18 Sustainable Environment
Environmental attitudes and behaviours
18. Landcare groups
Environment Waikato (and Waikato Biodiversity Forum?)
Currently EW indicator only presents number of groups by type (river, lake, land, harbour, beach) - memberships & activities also desirable. Needs more coordination from other potential sources.
19 Sustainable Environment
Environmental attitudes and behaviours
19. Enviro-schools
Enviro-schools coordinator
Some information is already available, may need to be better coordinated.
22 Sustainable Environment
Coastal environment
22. Coastal ownership
EW/local councils/DoC
Measures the public and private ownership of the coastline. Up-dating every 10 years.
24 Sustainable Environment
Coastal environment
24. Coastal development (at risk)
EW/local councils
Current indicator focuses on Coromandel (development at risk from coastal erosion) Other information is already available, may need to be more rigour around collection/interpretation.
28 Sustainable Environment
Energy 28. Energy use relative to economic growth
EW Measures the efficiency of energy use (in relation to economic growth, as GDP)
Doc # 1093619 Page 187
33 Quality of Life Health 33. Prevalence of physical activity
SPARC Physical Activity Questionnaire/ NZ Health Survey
Currently only at national and regional level (including DHB boundary). Similar/same question used for Quality of Life Survey– data available for Hamilton City and possibly Waikato Region overall but not other Waikato TAs. Should ideally include gender, ethnicity etc cross-tabs for all health indicators.
35 Quality of Life Health 35. Residents’ rating of own health, plus reasons
Quality of Life Survey
Data available for Hamilton and possibly Waikato Region overall but not other Waikato TAs.
36 Quality of Life Health 36. Number of schools and children using walking school buses
Enviro-schools/ Project Energise/ walking school bus coordinators (e.g. HCC)
Metadata missing
40 Quality of Life Health 40. Experience of barriers to accessing health care that you want (including acupuncture, homeopathy etc)
? Metadata missing
41 Quality of Life Health 41. Prevalence of cigarette smoking
Ministry of Health/ AC Neilson Ltd/ Census
Available at national and regional levels only? Item to be included in 2006 Census - TA level.
42 Quality of Life Health 42. Suicide rate
Waikato DHB Health Needs Assessment
Annual data available at TA level. Contentious as to whether reporting on suicide rates has a perverse effect.
43 Quality of Life Health 43. Obesity rate
Waikato DHB Health Needs Assessment/ NZ Health Survey
BMI (based on height/weight ratio) is questionable as it doesn't distinguish overweight from lean muscle.
44 Quality of Life Health 44. Number of gambling venues and electronic gambling machines?
? Metadata missing
47 Quality of Life Education 47. % of students leaving school without core numeracy and literacy credits at NCEA Level 1
Ministry of Education
Metadata missing
48 Quality of Life Education 48. School leavers with higher qualifications (e.g. 6th Form Cert/NCEA Level 2 or higher)
Ministry of Education
Available at TA level (although issues about comparison with historical data due to introduction of NCEA).
52 Quality of Life Education 52. Number of people in industry-based training
Tertiary Education Commission
Metadata missing
53 Quality of Life Education 53. Number of Modern Apprenticeships currently in progress
Tertiary Education Commission
Metadata missing
54 Quality of Life Education 54. Number of students enrolled in alternative education prog
Ministry of Education
Metadata missing
Page 188
63 Quality of Life Housing 63. Equivalised Crowding Index or Canadian National Occupancy Standard or alternative
Stats NZ – Constructed from Census data
Available at TA level but only every 5 years. http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/Response/Indicator+2a:+Equivalised+Crowding+Index
68 Quality of Life Community safety
68. Reported criminal offences (per 10,000) and resolution rates [Note: 69. Criminal Victimisation Rate included in core set]
NZ Police Available at regional and (to an extent) sub-regional level – but the Police District boundaries do not match with TA boundaries. Best to report by category, including burglaries, domestic violence/ overall violence, drugs and anti-social, sexual offences.
72 Quality of Life Community participation
72. Residents’ sense of community within local neighbourhood
Quality of Life Survey
Data available for Hamilton City and possibly Waikato Region overall but not other Waikato TAs.
76 Quality of Life Sport and leisure
76. Experience of barriers to leisure activity
Quality of Life Survey
Data available for Hamilton City and possibly Waikato Region overall but not other Waikato TAs.
78 Quality of Life Sport and leisure
78. Satisfaction with work-life balance
Quality of Life Survey
Data available for Hamilton City and possibly Waikato Region overall but not other Waikato TAs. Reasons important.
79 Quality of Life Family and community cohesion
79. Contact between young people and their parents
Adolescent Health Research Group
Available at national and regional but not TA level.
80 Quality of Life Family and community cohesion
80. Loneliness
Quality of Life Survey
Data available for Hamilton City and possibly Waikato Region overall but not other Waikato TAs.
81 Quality of Life Family and community cohesion
81. Trust in others
Quality of Life Survey
Data available for Hamilton City and possibly Waikato Region overall but not other Waikato TAs.
83 Quality of Life Family and community cohesion
83. Satisfaction with workplace family policies
?
84 Quality of Life Family and community cohesion
84. Residents’ frequency of being able to rely on people around them for support when feeling stressed
Quality of Life Survey
Data available for Hamilton City and possibly Waikato Region overall but not other Waikato TAs.
85 Quality of Life Family and community cohesion
85. Participation in parenting programmes
Plunket? Plunket visits hits to parenting websites/ 0800 numbers etc
86 Quality of Life Family and community cohesion
86. Residents' perception of group or network that matters most to them
Quality of Life Survey
Data available for Hamilton City and possibly Waikato Region overall but not other Waikato TAs.
87 Quality of Life Youth and older people
87. Hospitalisations for intentional injury – children and older people
Ministry of Health/ NZHIS
Available at national and possibly regional but not local level (and numbers could be small).
88 Quality of Life Youth and older people
88. Notifications to CYFS
CYFS Available at regional and (to an extent) sub-regional level – but the CYFS boundaries do not match with TA boundaries, and the data are subject to media (i.e. promotion) effects.
Doc # 1093619 Page 189
89 Quality of Life Youth and older people
89. Youth unemployment (registered with Work and Income)
MSD/ Work and Income
Subject to policy changes.
90 Quality of Life Youth and older people
90. Older persons unemployment rate
MSD/ Work and Income
Metadata missing
91 Quality of Life Youth and older people
91. Participation in family/ whanau activities
Stats NZ Living Standards Survey 2000
Available at national level only.
92 Quality of Life Youth and older people
92. Truancy rates
Ministry of Education
Data not currently collected consistently.
93 Quality of Life Youth and older people
93. Stand-downs, suspensions and exclusions from school
Ministry of Education
Data available for all TAs.
94 Quality of Life Youth and older people
94. Percentage of young people aged 15-19 not in school, work or training (not sure how to measure)
? Metadata missing
95 Sustainable Economy
Sustainable development
95. Resident perceptions that development is sustainable
?
101 Sustainable Economy
Economic prosperity
101. Capital Value (CV) per capita
TAs. Available at TA level.
103 Sustainable Economy
Economic prosperity
103. Personal bankruptcies and involuntary company liquidations
Insolvency and Trustee Service, Ministry of Economic Development (or Statistics New Zealand?)
Quarterly data available at the national and regional level – not sure about TA level. Some interpretation issues (i.e. bankruptcy rate as an indicator of entrepreneurship).
105 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
105. Travel times
? MfE has developed a data protocol but it has not been implemented.
107 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
107. Effectiveness of wastewater treatment systems
EW Bus passenger data not relevant for other TAs.
108 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
108. Hamilton City bus passenger numbers
EW Regional indicator only.
109 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
109. Intra-regional bus passenger numbers
Quality of Life Survey
Available for Hamilton City and possibly region.
110 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
110. Bus passenger satisfaction with service
TAs Available for Hamilton City.
111 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
111. Satisfaction with cycleways and walkways
Annual Residents Surveys
Available for Hamilton City.
112 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
112. Length of cycleways/ walkways
TAs Probably available for all TA but interpretation is unclear.
113 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
113. Heavy vehicle counts on main pedestrian streets
Transit/ TAs? Metadata missing
Page 190
114 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
114. Telecommunications connection, confidence and capability
Household telephone and Internet connection from Census data. Other data would rely on surveys.
Household connection data is available at TA and sub-TA level, but regional and local data on confidence and capability are not yet available.
115 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
115. Power outages per annum
Power companies?
Metadata missing
116 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
116. Satisfaction with emergency service responsiveness
Survey
117 Sustainable Economy
Transport, infrastructure and services
117. Volume/value of freight transported by rail
Toll? Metadata missing
118 Sustainable Economy
Regional planning
118. Consumer Magazine resident ratings of local councils
Consumer magazine
Available at TA level but a contentious indicator (league table).
120 Sustainable Economy
Regional planning
120. List of examples of inter-agency collaboration
TAs
122 Sustainable Economy
Regional planning
122. Resident perceptions of opportunities provided by councils for community involvement in decision making
? Available for Hamilton City (Annual Residents Survey).
123 Sustainable Economy
Regional planning
123. Resident perceptions of public’s influence on council decision making
Quality of Life Survey
Available for Hamilton City and possibly region but not other TAs.
124 Sustainable Economy
Regional planning
124. Resident perceptions of public’s influence on Central Government decision making
Quality of Life Survey
Available for Hamilton City and possibly region but not other TAs.
131 Sustainable Economy
Tourism 131. Occupancy rates in commercial accommodation
Stats NZ Accommodation Survey
Available at regional and TA level.
134 Sustainable Economy
Tourism 134. Economic Impact Assessments of major/iconic facilities and events
TAs? Regional indicator only.
136 Sustainable Economy
Research and innovation
136. Business start-ups and survival rate
Uni, Wintec, TWOA
Regional indicator only.
137 Sustainable Economy
Research and innovation
137. Research and Development
Stats NZ's Research and Develop. in NZ
National-level only, baseline only.
138 Sustainable Economy
Research and innovation
138. Business Frame Update, R&D section - same as #137?
? Metadata missing
Doc # 1093619 Page 191
139 Sustainable Economy
Research and innovation
139. Number of people employed in research positions
Tertiary education institutes, CRIs, large private enterprises
Metadata missing
140 Sustainable Economy
Research and innovation
140. Percentage of population with a higher degree
Census Available at regional and TA level every 5 years.
141 Sustainable Economy
Research and innovation
141. PBRF rankings (Performance Based Research Fund)
Tertiary Education Commission http://www.tec.govt.nz/downloads/a2z_publications/pbrf_report.html
League table approach is very contentious.
148 Culture and Identity
Regional identity and pride
148. Insurance value of NZ collections (museums, Marae taonga etc)
? Metadata missing
149 Culture and Identity
Regional identity and pride
149. Proportion of population that speak the ‘first language’ of their ethnic group
? Metadata missing
150 Culture and Identity
Regional identity and pride
150. Number of events celebrating cultures/days of cultural significance
? Metadata missing
151 Culture and Identity
Maori heritage
151. Number of visitors to significant heritage sites
? Metadata missing
154 Culture and Identity
Culture and recreation
154. Participation in cultural experiences (eg. visit art gallery, live music, visit marae, theatrical performance, etc)
? Metadata missing
156 Culture and Identity
Culture and recreation
156. Membership rates in community organisations/clubs/associations categorised as ‘arts’ i.e. drama groups, choirs, kapahaka)
? Metadata missing
157 Culture and Identity
Culture and recreation
157. Number of sports, arts, recreation clubs, facilities and organisations
? Metadata missing
160 Culture and Identity
Creativity 160. Household spending on cultural activities
? Metadata missing
161 Culture and Identity
Creativity 161. Median cost of events as a ratio to median income
? Metadata missing
162 Culture and Identity
Creativity 162. Geographic distribution of cultural events
? Metadata missing
163 Culture and Identity
Creativity 163. Main occupations of people in the creative arts industry
? Metadata missing
Page 192
165 Participation and Equity
Civic participation
165. Degree of representation by minority groups on governance and decision-making bodies
Currently a gap in data
Gender and ethnicity of elected representatives in central and local government (should not be too difficult to develop information sources to support this indicator).
166 Participation and Equity
Civic participation
166. Proportion of people by ethnicity still speaking their first language
Census Available at regional, district and other levels every five years.
168 Participation and Equity
Civic participation
168. Residents rating of agreement that decisions made by their Council are in the best interests of the community
Currently a gap in data
Some local authorities ask a question similar to this in their perception survey.
170 Participation and Equity
Civic participation
170. Residents rating of satisfaction with the extent of public influence on Council decision making
Currently a gap in data
Some local authorities ask a question similar to this in their perception survey.
175 Participation and Equity
Cultural well-being
175. Levels of perception toward diversity (refer to #182)
Ministry of Social Development
Available nationally and for Hamilton City (part of the Quality of Life in Cities project)
176 Participation and Equity
Cultural well-being
176. Level of participation in arts, cultural and community activities
??? Information not currently collected in a robust way. (eg. survey question could be developed in a way similar to 2002 Cultural Experiences survey).
178 Participation and Equity
Cultural well-being
178. Perceived discrimination
Human Rights Commission
Proportion (%) of survey respondents who perceived selected groups as being subject to a great deal or some discrimination. Possibly only relevant at the city/regional level.
179 Participation and Equity
Cultural well-being
179. Annual number of complaints to the Human Rights Commission including race relations, disability and sexual harassment???
? Metadata missing
180 Participation and Equity
Cultural well-being
180. Experience of cultural activities
Statistics New Zealand
Proportion of the population aged 15 and over who experienced cultural activities, by activity type & sex. Possibly only relevant at the city/regional level.
181 Participation and Equity
Cultural well-being
181. Residents perception that the community works together and that people support each other]
Collected for Quality of Life project
Not currently available at either the local or regional level.