Profile of the Populations of the Upper and Lower Waitaki Catchment Highlighting 2013 Census Data

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

Upper Waitaki Limit Setting Process: Profile of the Populations of the Upper and Lower Waitaki Catchment highlighting 2013 Census data

Prepared for Environment Canterbury

by Wayne McClintock and Nick Taylor

Taylor Baines and Associates

November 2014

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Method and definitions ...... 1 2 Usually Resident Population ...... 2 2.1 Population by age and sex ...... 3 2.2 Ethnic composition ...... 4 2.3 Period of residence of population ...... 5 2.4 Educational qualifications ...... 6 3 Employment ...... 7 3.1 Labour force status ...... 7 3.2 Employment status ...... 7 3.3 Occupational status ...... 8 3.4 Employment by industry for residents of the area ...... 8 4 Families and households ...... 9 4.1 Family types ...... 9 4.2 Household types ...... 10 5 Household income, tenure of dwellings and access to vehicles ...... 11 5.1 Household income ...... 11 5.2 Sources of income received from government ...... 11 5.3 Dwelling tenure ...... 12 5.4 Access to motor vehicles by households ...... 13 5 Summary ...... 13 Attachment 1: Map of Upper and Lower Waitaki Catchment and main settlements ...... 15 Attachment 2: Map of South Island District Councils ...... 16 Attachment 3: Lists of meshblocks ...... 17

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

1 Introduction

This profile of the Upper and Lower Waitaki populations was compiled primarily from 2013 census statistics. The population profile is a supplementary report to the baseline social profile report titled: Upper Waitaki Limit Setting Process: Social-economic Profile of the Waitaki Catchment by Taylor Baines and Harris Consulting.1 It should be used in conjunction with the main profile report.

1.1 Method and definitions The profile was prepared by combining data from a number of mesh blocks that were used to define the geographical areas of Rural Upper Waitaki, Rural Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy, and by using data from the area units of the townships (these areas are shown in Map 1).

Census statistics for the MacKenzie, Waimate, and Waitaki Districts, and New Zealand have been used as a basis for comparison.

Rural Upper Waitaki and Rural Lower Waitaki had significant numbers of mesh blocks which had very low population counts. In these circumstances Statistics NZ’s confidentiality restrictions limit the availability of data, or their rounding of the count made the data less accurate. This problem also applies to some variables considered for the Glenavy settlement compared to the settlements that are represented by area units. When these constraints apply the analysis is based only on mesh blocks for which the full data set was available.2 The analysis of the age structure of Rural Upper Waitaki, for example, used 23 of the 50 mesh blocks for this area as data for the other 27 mesh blocks had very low counts. As the results are only reported here as percentages, and these represent by definition the more densely populated parts of the catchment, the results can be taken as sufficiently robust to use for the comparative purpose intended. The tables where caution should be used are all accompanied by a note. Where cautions apply, percentages should not be used to calculate a whole number.

Census data were collected for the following key variables for the Rural Upper Waitaki, Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo, Twizel Community, Omarama, Otematata, Rural Lower Waitaki, Kurow, Duntroon, Glenavy, Mackenzie District, Waimate District, Waitaki District and New Zealand:

 usually resident population (2001, 2006 and 2013)  age and sex structure  ethnic composition  period of residence of the population  educational qualifications  labour force status  employment status  occupational status  employment by industry for residents of the area  family types  household types

1 The 2013 census results were not available when the initial work was completed on the profile. 2 In each case the data set is a total of the mesh blocks with available data.

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

 household income  sources of income received from government  dwelling tenure  access to motor vehicles by households.3

2 Usually Resident Population The following table illustrates the uneven population changes in recent years at the community level and low growth at the District level. The two rural areas, Upper and Lower Waitaki experienced much stronger population growth than their respective Districts between 2001 and 2013; suggesting that dairy conversions and intensification in these areas may have attracted additional farm workers and their families who either reside on farm or nearby, as well as people attracted by the availability of lifestyle blocks made available during the period. By comparison population growth in the townships has been mixed. Only Lake Tekapo, Twizel and Glenavy townships increased their populations during this period, while the number of residents declined at Mount Cook, Omarama, Otematata, Kurow and Duntroon. In the shorter period 2006-13 Omarama grew a little and Otematata was stable.

Table 1: Changes in usually resident population of selected areas of Waitaki catchment 2001-2013

Per cent change Area/Townships 2001 2006 2013 2001-2013 Rural Upper Waitaki 447 576 642 43.6 Mount Cook 234 213 195 -16.7 Lake Tekapo 303 318 366 20.8 Twizel Community 1011 1017 1137 12.5 Omarama 276 231 267 -3.3 Otematata 243 186 186 -23.5 Rural Lower Waitaki 1152 1251 1497 29.9 Kurow 387 339 312 -19.6 Duntroon 117 114 87 -25.6 Glenavy 189 195 267 41.3 Mackenzie District 3717 3804 4158 11.9 Waimate District 7101 7209 7536 6.1 Waitaki District 20085 20223 20826 3.7 New Zealand 3737277 4027947 4242048 13.5 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Note: The rural areas do not include the township populations.

3 These variables are consistent with major elements of social and economic well being, as guided by section 5 of the Resource Management Act. The have been used in a number of social assessments conducted under the RMA.

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

2.1 Population by age and sex Rural Upper Waitaki and Rural Lower Waitaki had more youthful populations, than the three Districts in 2013. They had higher proportions of people less than 15 years old, and considerably lower proportions of people over 65 years amongst their residents. Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo, Omarama, and Duntroon also had younger populations due to the low proportion of residents over 65 years, while Twizel, Otematata, Kurow and Glenavy had relatively more people in this age group. Males outnumbered females in all the populations, except that of Mount Cook, and this imbalance was most evident for the populations of Otematata, Omarama, Rural Upper Waitaki and Rural Lower Waitaki that had male/female ratios exceeding 1.10.

Table 2: Percentages of usually resident population by age groups for Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013 Area/township Under 15 years 15-64 years 65 years & over Dependency Per cent Per cent Per cent Ratios Rural Upper Waitaki4 21.9 68.4 9.7 0.46 Mount Cook 15.6 84.4 - 0.19 Lake Tekapo 10.6 76.2 13.1 0.31 Twizel Community 19.0 60.0 20.9 0.67 Omarama 13.5 73.0 13.5 0.37 Otematata 9.5 58.7 31.7 0.70 Rural Lower Waitaki 24.2 64.5 11.2 0.55 Kurow 13.6 51.4 35.0 0.96 Duntroon 13.8 72.4 13.8 0.38 Glenavy 17.2 62.1 20.7 0.61 Mackenzie District 19.9 64.1 15.9 0.56 Waimate District 17.9 59.8 22.3 0.67 Waitaki District 18.4 59.5 22.1 0.68 New Zealand 20.4 65.3 14.3 0.53 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Sex ratios Males/Females: 1.12 Rural Upper Waitaki, 0.91 Mount Cook, 1.08 Lake Tekapo, 1.04 Twizel Community, 1.12 Omarama, 1.21 Otematata, 1.11 Rural Lower Waitaki, 1.04 Kurow, 1.07 Duntroon, 1.07 Glenavy, 1.05 Mackenzie District, 1.02 Waimate District, 0.95 Waitaki District 0.95 New Zealand.

4 Rural Upper Waitaki , Rural Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy percentages and ratios are based on limited data as explained above.

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

2.2 Ethnic composition Although people of European descent comprised the great majority of residents in all eight townships and the two rural areas in 2013, there was some degree of ethnic diversity in many of the populations. Mount Cook, for instance, had significant proportions of Asians, Maori and Pacific Peoples who were residents. Lake Tekapo, Duntroon, and Rural Lower Waitaki also had relatively high proportions of Asians among their residents, whereas Maori were a significant component of the populations of Kurow, Twizel, and Otematata. Furthermore, the proportion of Asians in the population has increased markedly in some locations since the 2001 census. For example, Mount Cook increased from 11 per cent to 17 per cent, and Lake Tekapo from 14 per cent to 20 percent, reflecting employment in the tourism sector.

Table 3: Percentages of usual residents of Upper and Lower Waitaki affiliated to major ethnic groups - 2013

Area Per cent of total responses European Maori Asian Pacific Peoples Rural Upper Waitaki 83.3 4.3 0.5 - Mount Cook 60.0 7.7 16.9 9.2 Lake Tekapo 68.3 4.1 19.5 0.8 Twizel Community 85.0 9.2 3.2 0.8 Omarama 82.0 3.4 4.5 1.1 Otematata 82.5 7.9 1.6 1.6 Rural Lower Waitaki 80.1 3.6 8.6 0.2 Kurow 93.3 9.6 2.9 - Duntroon 80.0 3.3 17.0 - Glenavy 78.9 6.7 4.4 - Mackenzie District 85.6 6.3 4.4 1.2 Waimate District 87.0 5.9 2.7 0.6 Waitaki District 85.7 6.1 2.9 2.3 New Zealand 70.0 14.1 11.1 7.0 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Note: Rural Upper and Lower Waitaki percentages are based on limited data.

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

2.3 Period of residence of population The townships of Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo, Glenavy and Twizel, and Rural Lower Waitaki had high proportions of residents who had lived in these localities for less than five years when compared with the respective Districts. In the case of Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo, Twizel and Omarama, the transient nature of their populations is associated with their function as tourism destinations, while this feature of Glenavy and Rural Lower Waitaki’s populations most likely relates to the expansion of the dairy industry in the Waimate and Waitaki Districts.

Table 4: Period of residence of population of Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013

Area Less than five years Fifteen or more years Per cent Per cent Rural Upper Waitaki 41.9 12.4 Mount Cook 75.4 1.6 Lake Tekapo 57.7 11.4 Twizel Community 48.8 17.7 Omarama 46.1 15.7 Otematata 38.1 25.4 Rural Lower Waitaki 48.4 16.1 Kurow 37.5 29.8 Duntroon 36.7 23.3 Glenavy 50.0 13.3 Mackenzie District 47.7 18.9 Waimate District 38.6 20.5 Waitaki District 43.2 23.0 New Zealand 48.8 15.1 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Note: Rural Upper and lower Waitaki percentages are based on limited data.

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

2.4 Educational qualifications Residents of Mount Cook, Twizel, Omarama, and Otematata held relatively higher formal educational qualifications than their counterparts in the other townships and two rural areas in 2013. Kurow (36%) and Duntroon (28%) had higher proportions of their populations who had no educational qualifications when compared with the population of Waitaki District (26%).

Table 5: Percentages of usually resident population aged 15 years and over with tertiary and no educational qualifications for Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013

Area Tertiary qualifications (1) No qualifications Per cent Per cent Rural Upper Waitaki 24.9 4.1 Mount Cook 40.0 5.5 Lake Tekapo 28.4 11.9 Twizel Community 34.1 22.7 Omarama 35.1 9.1 Otematata 31.6 16.9 Rural Lower Waitaki 25.2 18.6 Kurow 20.2 36.0 Duntroon 20.0 28.0 Glenavy 24.2 27.4 Mackenzie District 33.2 19.6 Waimate District 24.3 29.1 Waitaki District 25.9 26.3 New Zealand 34.7 18.6 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Notes: (1) Tertiary qualifications include Level 4 Certificate, Level 5 or Level 6 Diploma, Bachelor Degree and Level 7 qualifications, Postgraduate and Honours Degree, Masters Degree and Doctorate Degree. (2) Rural Upper and Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy percentages are based on limited data.

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

3 Employment

3.1 Labour force status Residents of Kurow and Otematata had much lower participation rates in the labour force compared with residents of the other six townships and the two rural areas. Over half the people living at Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo, Twizel, Omarama, Rural Upper Waitaki and Rural Lower Waitaki held full- time jobs in 2013, and except for Duntroon (4%) all the townships and areas had unemployment rates that were much lower than the national rate of 4.5 per cent.

Table 6: Labour force status of residents of Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013

Area Employed FT Employed PT Unemployed Not in Labour Force Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Rural Upper Waitaki 66.1 11.3 - 16.5 Mount Cook 75.9 3.7 1.9 9.3 Lake Tekapo 61.5 11.9 1.8 17.4 Twizel Community 50.8 16.3 0.7 28.0 Omarama 57.1 13.0 - 22.1 Otematata 45.6 8.8 1.8 36.8 Rural Lower Waitaki 54.6 19.5 2.1 21.4 Kurow 41.1 16.7 2.2 40.0 Duntroon 48.0 16.0 4.0 32.0 Glenavy 43.2 14.9 2.7 31.1 Mackenzie District 54.1 15.3 1.4 24.7 Waimate District 43.0 14.5 2.4 34.9 Waitaki District 43.1 15.0 2.3 34.5 New Zealand 45.6 13.6 4.5 31.3 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Note: Rural Upper and Lower Waitaki percentages are based on limited data.

3.2 Employment status Rural McKenzie and Rural Lower Waitaki had lower proportions of paid employees (49% and 54% compared to 78% for New Zealand) and higher proportions of employers (12% and 15%compared to 7% for New Zealand) in their workforces; reflecting the pattern of employment status usually associated with primary production and its support services. Paid employees were more prevalent in all the townships where they comprised between 69 per cent (Kurow) and 98 per cent (Mount Cook) of the resident workforce.

Table 7: Employment status of residents of Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013 Area Paid employees Employers Self-employed persons Per cent Per cent Per cent Rural Upper Waitaki 65.3 15.8 13.7 Mount Cook 97.7 - 2.3 Lake Tekapo 71.3 12.5 12.5 Twizel Community 75.7 8.3 13.1 Omarama 68.5 16.7 9.3 Otematata 71.0 6.5 22.6 Rural Lower Waitaki 53.6 15.2 16.7 Kurow 69.2 9.6 11.5

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

Duntroon 81.3 6.3 12.5 Glenavy 69.0 9.5 11.9 Mackenzie District 66.1 11.0 17.0 Waimate District 65.8 11.0 15.2 Waitaki District 73.1 8.9 12.0 New Zealand 77.6 6.5 11.8 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Note: Rural Upper and Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy percentages are based on limited data.

3.3 Occupational status In 2013 Rural Lower Waitaki (55 per cent) and Rural Upper Waitaki (45 per cent) had a large proportion of their resident workforces employed as managers and professionals. A further 19 to 25 per cent of their workforces were employed as machinery operators, drivers and labours. This occupational pattern reflects the high incidence of farmers in these areas (classified as managers for census purposes), and less skilled workers employed on-farm and in agricultural support services. The presence of residents with blue collar occupations was relatively higher in the rural service centres of Duntroon, Glenavy, Kurow and Twizel, when compared with the tourism destinations of Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo and Omarama.

Table 8: Percentages of residents with higher status and blue collar occupations in Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013

Area Higher status occupations Blue collar occupations Per cent Per cent Rural Upper Waitaki 55.1 19.2 Mount Cook 32.6 7.0 Lake Tekapo 38.8 15.0 Twizel Community 33.8 24.0 Omarama 37.0 20.4 Otematata 25.8 16.1 Rural Lower Waitaki 45.0 24.8 Kurow 23.1 26.9 Duntroon 25.0 50.0 Glenavy 34.1 29.3 Mackenzie District 39.7 22.3 Waimate District 36.9 29.6 Waitaki District 32.8 26.3 New Zealand 39.1 15.7 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Note: Higher status occupations are the manager and professional categories, and blue collar occupations are the machinery operator and drivers, and labourer categories. Rural Upper and Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy percentages are based on limited data.

3.4 Employment by industry for residents of the area The distinction between the townships that are rural service centres and those hosting tourism activities is also strongly reflected by the industries in which their residents are employed. Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo and Omarama, for instance, had at least two-fifths of their residential workforces employed in the wholesale, retail and hospitality sector in 2013. Glenavy, Duntroon, and Kurow on the other hand, had at least a fifth of their residents employed in the primary sector. About a

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines quarter of the residents of Twizel and Otematata also worked in the wholesale, retail and hospitality sector; some of whom commute to other townships to work for tourism enterprises. Rural areas, particularly Rural Lower Waitaki, are dominated by primary production.

Table 9: Percentages of residents employed by industry in Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013

Area Agriculture, Manufacturing Wholesale, Professional, Education, forestry, fishing Per cent retail, technical, health, social, Per cent hospitality administrative arts Per cent Per cent Per cent Rural Upper Waitaki 51.9 - 3.7 4.6 1.9 Mount Cook - - 62.8 9.3 23.3 Lake Tekapo 1.3 - 52.5 13.8 10.0 Twizel Community 12.2 3.4 27.3 7.8 15.6 Omarama 16.7 1.9 38.9 7.4 14.8 Otematata 12.9 3.2 25.8 12.9 6.5 Rural Lower Waitaki 62.4 3.4 3.8 2.7 3.0 Kurow 21.6 3.9 21.6 5.9 15.7 Duntroon 33.3 13.3 6.7 6.7 13.3 Glenavy 38.1 14.3 19.0 11.9 4.8 Mackenzie District 27.0 2.9 23.7 9.1 14.1 Waimate District 38.0 9.6 11.5 7.2 13.1 Waitaki District 19.1 14.3 19.6 7.5 14.7 New Zealand 6.4 9.4 19.9 16.5 19.4 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Note: The wholesale, retail and hospitality category is the sum of the wholesale trade, retail trade and accommodation and food services industry divisions; the professional, technical and administrative category is the sum of the professional, scientific and technical services, administrative and support services and public administration and safety industry divisions; and the education, health, social, arts category is the sum of the education and training, health care and social assistance and arts and recreation services industry divisions. Rural Upper and Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy percentages are based on limited data.

4 Families and households

4.1 Family types Although couple only families (no children) predominate in all of the townships, their presence is particularly strong at Omarama, Kurow and Lake Tekapo where they comprise around two-thirds of all families, reflecting the presence of both older and younger couples. By contrast two parent families are more prevalent at Mount Cook and Twizel, and in Rural Upper Waitaki and Rural Lower Waitaki .

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

Table 10: Main types of families in Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013 Area Couple only Two parent One parent Per cent Per cent Per cent Rural Upper Waitaki 40.7 48.3 - Mount Cook 54.5 36.4 9.1 Lake Tekapo 65.5 24.1 6.9 Twizel Community 52.8 34.3 12.0 Omarama 69.6 26.1 4.3 Otematata 72.2 16.7 5.6 Rural Lower Waitaki 47.4 41.1 6.2 Kurow 67.8 19.4 12.9 Duntroon 44.4 22.2 11.1 Glenavy 59.3 25.9 11.1 Mackenzie District 51.3 40.1 8.8 Waimate District 53.7 36.1 10.3 Waitaki District 53.3 34.3 12.4 New Zealand 40.9 41.3 17.8 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Note: Rural Upper and Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy percentages are based on limited data.

4.2 Household types One person households comprised at least 30 per cent of total households at Mount Cook, Otematata, Duntroon and Glenavy in 2013, most likely a combination of younger single people and elderly on their own. One family households dominated in the Rural Upper Waitaki and Kurow in particular.

Table 11: Selected types of households in Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013

Area One family One person Per cent Per cent Rural Upper Waitaki 77.6 18.4 Mount Cook 44.0 48.0 Lake Tekapo 56.3 27.1 Twizel Community 66.7 27.7 Omarama 63.9 25.0 Otematata 58.1 32.3 Rural Lower Waitaki 64.4 24.2 Kurow 71.4 26.8 Duntroon 69.2 30.8 Glenavy 61.0 36.6 Mackenzie District 66.9 26.4 Waimate District 65.8 27.7 Waitaki District 64.4 29.5 New Zealand 66.4 22.9 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Note: Rural Upper Waitaki , Rural Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy percentages are based on limited data as previously explained.

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

5 Household income, tenure of dwellings and access to vehicles

5.1 Household income The distribution of annual household incomes reveals significant differences between the townships and rural areas. Households in Mount Cook, Otematata, Kurow and Glenavy had lower incomes than those in the other four townships; with 74 to 82 per cent of them receiving up to $100,000 in annual household income in 2013. The MacKenzie District had a median household income in 2013 of $55,100, whereas both Waimate and Waitaki District had a median household income of $48,100.

Table 12: Distribution of household incomes in Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013 Area $50,000 & under $50,001-$100,000 $100,001 & over Per cent Per cent Per cent Rural Upper Waitaki 27.9 37.2 11.6 Mount Cook 40.0 36.0 8.0 Lake Tekapo 33.0 29.2 18.8 Twizel Community 37.7 33.3 14.5 Omarama 27.8 33.3 19.4 Otematata 48.4 25.8 16.1 Rural Lower Waitaki 33.8 34.4 16.0 Kurow 58.0 24.0 6.0 Duntroon 25.0 25.0 16.7 Glenavy 42.9 31.0 7.1 Mackenzie District 38.6 31.3 15.8 Waimate District 44.9 28.8 12.7 Waitaki District 44.7 28.3 13.3 New Zealand 33.8 27.7 23.4 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Note: Rural Upper and Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy percentages are based on limited data. In addition, many households did not state their income. Income data should therefore be treated with caution, especially in the smaller localities.

5.2 Sources of income received from government The differences in the distribution of household incomes between the townships and rural areas are partly explained by the varying degrees of dependence residents of these areas have on income received from government sources. The total number of government payments received by residents of Kurow, for instance, represented 51 per cent of its residents (15 years & over) in 2013, while it was 36 per cent for Duntroon and 35 per cent for Otematata. The main type of government payment received by residents of all the areas was the NZ superannuation and veteran’s pension. As shown in Table 6, the level of unemployment was generally low, except for Duntroon.

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

Table 13: Sources of income from government received by residents of Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013

Area Total number Number of Total payments NZ superannuation & of payments residents (15 received ÷ number veteran’s pension received years & over) of residents received Per cent Per cent of residents Rural Upper Waitaki 48 459 10.5 9.6 Mount Cook 15 162 9.3 1.9 Lake Tekapo 60 327 18.3 12.8 Twizel Community 291 918 31.7 23.2 Omarama 33 231 14.3 11.7 Otematata 60 171 35.1 31.6 Rural Lower Waitaki 216 1110 19.5 12.2 Kurow 135 267 50.6 38.2 Duntroon 27 75 36.0 20.0 Glenavy 72 216 33.3 22.2 Mackenzie District 885 3,327 26.6 18.2 Waimate District 2,310 6,189 37.3 24.6 Waitaki District 6,148 16,998 36.2 23.5 New Zealand 1,077,444 3,376,416 31.9 15.6 Source: Statistics New Zealand Note: Rural Upper and Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy percentages are based on limited data.

5.3 Dwelling tenure All the townships, except Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo and Omarama , had higher levels of home ownership (owned & family trust) in 2013 than the national average of 61 per cent; with 75 per cent of dwellings in Duntroon and 68 per cent of dwellings in Otematata being owner occupied. By contrast, Mount Cook (88%), Rural Upper Waitaki (40%), Rural Lower Waitaki (39%) and Lake Tekapo (38%) had relatively high proportions of their dwellings that were not owned by their residents.

Table 14: Tenure of dwellings held by residents of Lower and Upper Waitaki - 2013 Area Owned/partly owned Held in a family trust Not owned Per cent Per cent Per cent Rural Upper Waitaki 27.4 17.7 40.3 Mount Cook - - 88.0 Lake Tekapo 27.1 18.8 37.5 Twizel Community 52.2 13.2 28.9 Omarama 38.9 19.4 33.3 Otematata 54.8 12.9 29.0 Rural Lower Waitaki 33.3 11.8 38.5 Kurow 46.0 20.0 30.0 Duntroon 41.7 33.3 8.3 Glenavy 56.1 7.3 29.3 Mackenzie District 46.6 14.9 32.4 Waimate District 53.0 11.9 27.4 Waitaki District 52.2 15.4 25.7 New Zealand 46.8 13.9 33.0 Source: Statistics New ZealandNote: Rural Upper and Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy percentages are based on limited data.

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

5.4 Access to motor vehicles by households Few households in most of the townships, Rural Upper Waitaki, Rural Lower Waitaki and the three Districts did not have access to a motor vehicle. For residents of these areas the general access to motor vehicles was high by national standards; particularly for people living in Rural Upper Waitaki, Rural Lower Waitaki and Omarama where over 60 per cent of households reported they had two or more vehicles. Households in Mount Cook, however, had a much lower access to this form of private transport than other parts of the District as 13 per cent of them did not have any motor vehicle (cf. 4 % for Mackenzie District), and a further 67 per cent had access to only one vehicle (cf. 33% for Mackenzie District).

Table 15: Access to motor vehicles for households in Upper and Lower Waitaki - 2013 Area None One motor Two motor Three or more Per cent vehicle vehicles motor vehicles Per cent Per cent Per cent Rural Upper Waitaki 2.0 22.4 44.9 26.5 Mount Cook 12.5 66.7 16.7 - Lake Tekapo 2.1 31.3 41.7 12.5 Twizel Community 6.9 39.6 35.2 13.2 Omarama 5.5 25.0 44.4 19.4 Otematata 6.5 35.5 35.5 14.0 Rural Lower Waitaki 3.4 24.0 40.0 21.7 Kurow 6.0 34.0 44.0 14.0 Duntroon - 41.7 25.0 25.0 Glenavy 2.3 34.9 37.2 14.0 Mackenzie District 4.4 33.1 39.1 18.0 Waimate District 5.7 33.9 36.2 18.5 Waitaki District 6.9 35.5 35.4 17.1 New Zealand 7.5 35.7 36.5 15.3 Source: Statistics New Zealand

Note: Rural Upper and Lower Waitaki, and Glenavy percentages are based on limited data.

5 Summary Key features of the population of Upper Waitaki and Lower Waitaki in 2013 were:

 Rural Upper Waitaki and Rural Lower Waitaki experienced much stronger population growth than their respective Districts between 2001 and 2013; suggesting that dairy conversions and intensification in these areas may have attracted additional farm workers, with families residing on a farm or nearby. Other factors were the growth in tourism and development of rural lifestyle subdivisions.  Population growth in the townships was mixed; Lake Tekapo, Twizel and Glenavy townships increased their populations, while the number of residents at the other townships declined.  Rural Upper Waitaki and Rural Lower Waitaki had more youthful population than their Districts. Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo, Omarama, and Duntroon had younger populations due to the low proportion of residents over 65 years, while Twizel, Otematata, Kurow and Glenavy had relatively more people in this age group.  Males outnumbered females in all the populations (except for Mount Cook) and this imbalance was most evident for Otematata, Omarama, Rural Upper Waitaki and Rural Lower Waitaki, where the male/female ratios exceeded 1.10.  A degree of ethnic diversity existed in several populations of the Upper and Lower Waitaki. Mount Cook had significant and growing proportions of Asians, Maori and Pacific Peoples.

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

Lake Tekapo, Duntroon, and Rural Lower Waitaki also had relatively high proportions of Asians among their residents, whereas Maori were a significant component of the populations of Kurow, Twizel, and Otematata.  A number of the townships and Rural Lower Waitaki had high proportions of residents who had lived in these localities for less than five years. The transient nature of their populations is either associated with their function as tourism destinations (i.e. Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo , Twizel and Omarama), or relates to the expansion of the dairy industry and its associated workforce in the Waimate and Waitaki Districts (i.e.Glenavy and Rural Lower Waitaki).  Residents of Mount Cook, Twizel, Omarama, and Otematata had relatively higher formal educational qualifications than their counterparts in the other townships and the two rural areas.  Residents of Kurow and Otematata had much lower participation rates in the labour force than residents of the other six townships and the two rural areas. There are a significant number of elderly residents in these two towns.  Over half the people living at Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo, Twizel, Omarama, Rural Upper Waitaki and Rural Lower Waitaki held full-time jobs in 2013, and nearly all the townships and areas force had unemployment rates that were much lower than the national level.  Rural McKenzie and Rural Lower Waitaki had low proportions of paid employees and high proportions of employers in their workforces; reflecting the pattern of employment status usually associated with primary production and its support services.  Rural Lower Waitaki and Rural Upper Waitaki had at least 45 per cent of their resident workforces employed as managers (including farm managers) and professionals. The presence of residents with blue collar occupations was relatively stronger in the rural service centres of Duntroon, Glenavy, Kurow and Twizel, when compared with the tourism destinations of Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo and Omarama.  Mount Cook, Lake Tekapo and Omarama had at least two-fifths of their residential workforces employed in the wholesale, retail and hospitality sector, while Glenavy, Duntroon, and Kurow had at least a fifth of their residents employed in the primary sector.  Although couple only families predominate in all of the townships, their presence is particularly strong at Omarama, Kurow and Lake Tekapo, where they comprise around two- thirds of all families.  Households at Mount Cook, Otematata, Kurow and Glenavy had lower incomes than those in the other four townships.  Residents of Kurow, Duntroon and Otematata had a high degree of dependence on government payments for their personal incomes.  Five of the townships had higher levels of home ownership than the national rate, while Mount Cook, Rural Lower Waitaki and Lake Tekapo had relatively high proportions of their dwellings that were not owned by their occupiers.  While access to motor vehicles for residents of most townships and the two rural areas was high by national standards, households at Mount Cook were relatively different as 13 per cent of them did not have any motor vehicle (reflecting the highly pedestrian nature of the village and possible access to work vehicles), and a further 67 per cent had access to only one vehicle.

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

Attachment 1: Map of Upper and Lower Waitaki Catchment and main settlements

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

Attachment 2: Map of South Island District Councils

Source: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/map/2739/south-island-district-and-city-council-boundaries

Working DRAFT Taylor Baines

Attachment 3: Lists of meshblocks

For the purposes of this analysis Rural Upper Waitaki is defined as mesh blocks 2812600, 2812700, 2812801, 2812803, 2812804, 2812805, 2812806, 2812903, 2813007, 2813008,2813101, 2813102, 2813103, 2813201, 2813202, 2813300, 2813400, 2813500, 2813600, 2813800, 2813901, 2813902, 2814001, 2814002, 2814101, 2814102, 2814202, 2814203, 2814210, 2814211, 2814212, 2814213, 2814300, 2814400, 2814500, 2825701, 2825702, 2851300, 2851401, 2851600, 2851700, 2851800, 2852100, 2852202, 2852203, 2852204, 2852205, 2852206, 2852300 and 2851500.

Rural Lower Waitaki is defined as mesh blocks 2822701, 2823500, 2823700, 2823800, 2823900, 2824700, 2825001, 2825002, 2825100, 2825300, 2825501, 2825502, 2825600, 2825703, 2825800, 2825900, 2826000, 2826101, 2826201, 2826301, 2826601, 2826701, 2848900, 2849000, 2849100, 2849200, 2849300, 2849401, 2849501, 2849600, 2849700, 2849903, 2849904, 2850000, 2850101, 2850401, 2850501, 2850600, 2850700 and 2852400.

Glenavy is defined as mesh blocks 2823700, 2823800 and 2823900 (also included in Rural Lower Waitaki).