TARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL COMMUNITRAK™ SURVEY MAY 2014
COMMUNITRAK™ SURVEY
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS AND
INTERPRETATIONS OF
COUNCIL SERVICES AND REPRESENTATION
PREPARED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK PROGRAMME FOR:
TARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL
MAY 2014
National Research Bureau Ltd PO Box 10118, Mt Eden, Auckland, New Zealand P (09) 6300 655, F (09) 6387 846, www.nrb.co.nz
CONTENTS
Page No.
A. SITUATION AND OBJECTIVES...... 1
B. COMMUNITRAK™ SPECIFICATIONS...... 2
C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 7
D. MAIN FINDINGS...... 23
1. SATISFACTION WITH COUNCIL SERVICES/FACILITIES...... 24
a. Satisfaction With Council Services/Facilities...... 25 i. Footpaths...... 25 ii. Sealed Roads (excluding State Highways)...... 29 iii. Unsealed Roads...... 33 iv. Management Of Stormwater...... 37 v. Availability Of Town Water Throughout The Year...... 41 vi. The Reliability Of The Sewerage System...... 45 vii. Control Of Dogs...... 48 viii. Parks And Reserves...... 52 ix. Rubbish Collection...... 55 x. Recycling Services...... 58 xi. Landfill And Transfer Station Management...... 62 xii. Cemeteries...... 66 xiii. Community Buildings (eg, Towns Halls, Community Centres, Sports Stadiums)...... 69 xiv. Public Libraries...... 72 xv. Public Toilets...... 75 xvi. Public Swimming Pools...... 78 xvii. Council's Efforts In Economic Development...... 82 xviii. Community Support (ie, grants to community groups, including assisting service agencies in meeting and identifying community needs)...... 86 xix. Civil Defence Emergency Management...... 89 xx. Council's Management Of Land Use Through The District Plan...... 92 xxi. Town Upgrades That Were Completed This Year (ie, Woodville Town Centre upgrade)...... 95 b. Customer Service Frontline Staff...... 98 i. Contact...... 98 ii. Satisfaction With Overall Service Received...... 100 c. After Hours Call Centre Staff...... 103 i. Contact...... 103 ii. Satisfaction With Overall Service Received...... 104
2. RATES ISSUES...... 107 a. Satisfaction With The Way Rates Are Spent On The Services And Facilities Provided By The Council...... 108
CONTENTS (continued)
Page No.
3. CONTACT WITH COUNCIL...... 112 a. Have Residents Contacted Council Offices By Phone, In Person, In Writing Or By Email, In The Last 12 Months?...... 113 b. Satisfaction With Service Received When Contacted Council Offices...... 115
4. INFORMATION...... 117 a. Which Newspapers* Do Residents Read?...... 118 b. Readership Of Information Published By Council In The Last 12 Months...... 120 c. Council's Weekly Information Page, Published In The Bush Telegraph..... 122 i. Readership...... 122 ii. Usefulness Of Information...... 124 iii. Suggested Improvements...... 126 d. The Sufficiency Of The Information Supplied...... 127
5. REPRESENTATION...... 129 a. Performance Rating Of The Mayor And Councillors In The Last Year...... 130 b. Performance Rating Of Council Staff In The Last Year...... 132 c. Overall Performance Rating Of The Community Board Or Committee Relative To Resident's Area In The Last Year...... 134
6. LOCAL ISSUES...... 136 a. Place To Live...... 137 b. Council Consultation And Community Involvement...... 139 c. Single Most Important Issue...... 141 d. Perception Of Safety...... 144 e. Emergency Management...... 146 f. Community Spirit...... 148 g. Health Services...... 150 h. Education Services...... 152 i. Natural Environment...... 154 j. Physical Activity...... 156
E. APPENDIX...... 160
NB: Please note the following explanations for this report: Figures that are comparably lower than percentages for other respondent types. Figures that are comparably higher than percentages for other respondent types.
Arrows, whenever shown, depict a directional trend. In general, where bases are small (<30), no comparisons have been made. For small bases, the estimates of results are not statistically reliable due to the high margins of error.
1
A. SITUATION AND OBJECTIVES
Council has engaged a variety of approaches both to seeking public opinion and to communicating its decisions and programmes to residents and ratepayers. One of these approaches was to commission the National Research Bureau's Communitrak™ survey in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011 and now again in 2014.
In 2006, a Community Outcomes Survey was conducted, which has now been incorporated into the 2008, 2011 and 2014 survey.
Communitrak™ determines how well Council are performing in terms of services offered and representation given to its citizens.
The advantages, and benefits of this are that Council has the National Average and Peer Group comparisons against which to analyse perceived performance.
* * * * * 2
B. COMMUNITRAK™ SPECIFICATIONS
Sample Size
This CommunitrakTM survey was conducted with 451 residents of the Tararua District.
The survey is framed on the basis of the Wards, as the elected representatives are associated with a particular Ward.
Sampling was based on two Wards and the interviews were spread as follows:
North 250 South (comprised of the old Pahiatua-Woodville & Eketahuna Wards) 201 Total 451
The number of interviews conducted in each of the locations mentioned throughout this report was as follows: Dannevirke township 142 Woodville township 42 Pahiatua township 64 Eketahuna township 15 Elsewhere in the District (Rural) 188
The number of interviews conducted in the areas mentioned throughout this report was as follows: Urban (comprised of the four townships above) 263 Rural (as above) 188
Interview Type
All interviewing was conducted by telephone, with calls being made between 4.30pm and 8.30pm on weekdays and 9.30am and 8.30pm weekends. 3
Sample Selection
The relevant white pages of the telephone directories were used as the sample source, with every xth number being selected.
Quota sampling was used to ensure an even balance of male and female respondents, with the sample also stratified according to Ward. Sample sizes for each Ward were predetermined to ensure a sufficient number of respondents within each Ward, so that analysis could be conducted on a Ward-by-Ward basis.
A target of interviewing 100 residents, aged 18 to 44 years, was also set.
Households were screened to ensure they fell within the Tararua District Council's geographical boundaries.
Respondent Selection
Respondent selection within the household was also randomised, with the eligible person being the man or woman, normally living in the household, aged 18 years or over, who had the last birthday.
Call Backs
Three call backs, ie, four calls in all, were made to a residence before the number was replaced in the sample. Call backs were made on a different day or, in the case of a weekend, during a different time period, ie, at least four hours later.
Sample Weighting
Weightings were applied to the sample data, to reflect the actual Ward, gender and age group proportions in the area as determined by Statistics New Zealand's 2013 Census data. The result is that the total figures represent the adult population's viewpoint as a whole across the entire Tararua District. Bases for subsamples are shown in the Appendix. Where we specify a "base", we are referring to the actual number of residents interviewed.
Survey Dates
All interviews were conducted between Friday 9th May and Sunday 18th May, 2014. 4
Comparison Data
Communitrak™ offers to Councils the opportunity to compare their performance with those of Local Authorities across all New Zealand as a whole and with similarly constituted Local Authorities.
The Communitrak service includes:
• comparisons with a national sample of 1,003 interviews conducted in November 2012,
• comparisons with provincial, urban and rural norms.
The survey methodology for the comparison data is similar in every respect to that used for your Council's Communitrak™ reading.
Where comment has been made regarding respondents more or less likely to represent a particular opinion or response, the comparison has been made between respondents in each socio-economic group, and not between each socio-economic group and the total.
Weightings have been applied to this comparison data to reflect the actual adult population in Local Authorities as determined by Statistics NZ 2006 Census data.
Comparisons With National Communitrak™ Results
Where survey results have been compared with Peer Group and/or National Average results from the November 2012 National Communitrak™ Survey, NRB has used the following for comparative purposes, for a sample of 450 residents:
above/below ±7% or more slightly above/below ±5% to 6% on par with ±3% to 4% similar to ±1% to 2% 5
Margin Of Error
The survey is a quota sample, designed to cover the important variables within the population. Therefore, we are making the assumption that it is appropriate to use the error estimates that would apply to a simple random sample of the population.
The following margins of error are based on a simple random sample. The maximum likely error limits occur when a reported percentage is 50%, but more often than not the reported percentage is different, and margins of error for other reported percentages are shown below. The margin of error approaches 0% as a reported percentage approaches either 100% or 0%.
Margins of error rounded to the nearest whole percentage, at the 95 percent level of confidence, for different sample sizes and reported percentages are:
Reported Percentage Sample Size 50% 60% or 40% 70% or 30% 80% or 20% 90% or 10% 500 ±4% ±4% ±4% ±4% ±3% 450 ±4% ±4% ±4% ±4% ±3% 400 ±5% ±5% ±5% ±4% ±3% 300 ±6% ±6% ±5% ±5% ±3% 200 ±7% ±7% ±6% ±6% ±4%
The margin of error figures above refer to the accuracy of a result in a survey, given a 95 percent level of confidence. A 95 percent level of confidence implies that if 100 samples were taken, we would expect the margin of error to contain the true value in all but five samples. At the 95 percent level of confidence, the margin of error for a sample of 450 respondents, at a reported percentage of 50%, is plus or minus 5%.
6
Significant Difference
This is a test to determine if the difference in a result between two separate surveys is significant. Significant differences rounded to the nearest whole percentage, at the 95 percent level of confidence, for different sample sizes and midpoints are:
Midpoint Sample Size 50% 60% or 40% 70% or 30% 80% or 20% 90% or 10% 500 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 450 7% 7% 6% 6% 4% 400 7% 7% 6% 6% 4% 300 8% 8% 7% 6% 5% 200 10% 10% 9% 8% 6%
The figures above refer to the difference between two results that is required, in order to say that the difference is significant, given a 95 percent level of confidence. Thus the significant difference, for the same question, between two separate surveys of 400 respondents is 7%, given a 95 percent level of confidence, where the midpoint of the two results is 50%.
Please note that while the Communitrak™ survey report is, of course, available to residents, the Mayor and Councillors, and Council staff, it is not available to research or other companies to use or leverage in any way for commercial purposes.
* * * * *
7
C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarises the opinions and attitudes of Tararua District Council residents and ratepayers to the services and facilities provided for them by their Council and their elected representatives.
The Tararua District Council commissioned Communitrak™ as a means of measuring their effectiveness in representing the wishes and viewpoints of their residents. Understanding residents' and ratepayers' opinions and needs will allow Council to be more responsive towards its citizens.
Communitrak™ provides a comparison for Council on major issues, on their performance relative to the performance of their Peer Group of similarly constituted Local Authorities and to Local Authorities on average throughout New Zealand. 8 COUNCIL SERVICES/FACILITIES
Summary Table: Satisfaction With Services/Facilities
Tararua 2014 Tararua 2011
Very/fairly Not very Very/fairly Not very satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied % % % %
Parks and reserves 92 4 91 4
Community buildings 91 4 93 2
Public libraries 80 4 87 1
Cemeteries 77 3 77 1
Town upgrades that were completed this year 77 8 NA NA
Footpaths 76 18 77 18
Sealed roads (excluding State Highways) 75 24 80 19
Public toilets 71 9 76 6
Recycling services 70 15 73 18
Dog control 68 22 80 13
Community support 65 4 67 4
Civil Defence Emergency Management 63 3 58 4
Landfill and transfer station management 62 10 47 22
Management of stormwater† 60 20 61 25
Public swimming pools 59 15 66 10
Reliability of the sewerage system†† 57 2 61 2
Unsealed roads 57 16 58 18
Rubbish collection 54 7 58 10
Council's management of land use through the District Plan 51 6 NA NA
Council's efforts in economic development 51 14 51 13
Availability of town water throughout the year* 49 14 51 25
NB: the balance, where figures don't add to 100%, is a "don't know" response † 2011 readings relate to stormwater drainage in general †† 2011 readings relate to sewerage system in general * 2011 readings relate to availability of water NA: not asked 9
Percent Not Very Satisfied - Comparison
2014 2011 Service/Facility % % Comparison
Sealed roads (excluding State Highways) 24 19 ↑
Dog control 22 13 ↑
Management of stormwater† 20 25 ↓
Footpaths 18 18 =
Unsealed roads 16 18 =
Recycling services 15 18 =
Public swimming pools 15 10 ↑
Availability of town water throughout the year* 14 25 ↓
Council's efforts in economic development 14 13 =
Landfill and transfer station management 10 22 ↓
Public toilets 9 6 =
Rubbish collection 7 10 =
Parks and reserves 4 4 =
Community support 4 4 =
Community buildings 4 2 =
Public libraries 4 1 =
Civil Defence Emergency Management 3 4 =
Cemeteries 3 1 =
Reliability of the sewerage system†† 2 2 =
Key: ↑ above/slightly above ↓ below/slightly below = similar/on par
† 2011 readings relate to stormwater drainage in general †† 2011 readings relate to sewerage system in general * 2011 readings relate to availability of water 10 The Tararua District compares unfavourably to the Peer Group and/or National Averages for the percent not very satisfied for...
National Tararua Peer Group Average % % % • dog control 22 16 18 • management of stormwater 20 ◊13 ◊14 • recycling services 15 10 11 • public swimming pools 15 11 10
However, the comparison is favourable for Tararua District for ...
• unsealed roads 16 *28 *23 • Council's efforts in economic development 14 °°27 °°23 • public toilets 9 17 18 • community support 4 10 9 • Civil Defence Emergency Management 3 6 8 • reliability of the sewerage system 2 ◊◊6 ◊◊9
The comparison for the following show Tararua on par/similar to the Peer Group and National Averages for ...
• sealed roads 24 *28 *23 • footpaths 18 21 21 • availability of town water throughout the year 14 †12 †11 • landfill and transfer station management 10 ††12 ††12 • rubbish collection 7 11 9 • parks and reserves 4 4 2 • community buildings 4 **8 **5 • public libraries 4 3 3 • cemeteries 3 °4 °5
* figures are based on ratings for roads in general ** figures are based on ratings for public halls ◊ figures are based on ratings for stormwater drainage in general ◊◊ figures are based on ratings for sewerage system in general ° figures are based on ratings for cemeteries, including maintenance for cemeteries °° figures are based on ratings for business promotion † figures are based on ratings for water supply in general †† figures are based on ratings for refuse disposal (ie, landfill sites) 11 Note that the "don't know" readings are higher/slightly higher than the Peer Group and/ or National Averages for ...
Tararua District Peer Group National Average % % %
Reliability of the sewerage system 41 ◊35 ◊16 Rubbish collection 40 24 10 Availability of town water throughout the year 38 †27 †12 Council efforts in economic development 34 °25 °32 Community support 32 23 29 Landfill and transfer station management 29 ††22 ††23 Unsealed roads 27 *0 *1 Public toilets 20 11 13 Public libraries 16 12 10 Recycling services 15 12 5
* figures are based on ratings for roads in general † figures are based on ratings for water supply in general †† figures are based on ratings for refuse disposal (ie, landfill sites) ° figures are based on ratings for business promotion ◊ figures are based on ratings for sewerage system in general
For the following, the "don't know" reading is lower/slightly lower than the Peer Group or National Averages ...
Tararua District Peer Group National Average % % %
Cemeteries 20 17 26 Management of stormwater 19 ◊◊30 ◊◊13 Footpaths 6 11 5 Community buildings 5 **16 **30
** figures are based on ratings for public halls ◊◊ figures are based on ratings for stormwater drainage in general
12
FRONTLINE STAFF
In the last 12 months, 62% of residents have been in contact with the customer service frontline staff (67% in 2011).
Satisfaction With Overall Service
Very satisfied 68% of residents* Fairly satisfied 27% Not very satisfied 6%
(does not add to 100% due to rounding) * those residents who have contacted customer frontline staff in last 12 months N=289
AFTER HOURS CALL CENTRE STAFF
14% of residents say they have been in contact with after hours call centre staff, in the last 12 months.
Satisfaction With Overall Service
Very satisfied 53% of residents* Fairly satisfied 28% Not very satisfied 19%
* those residents who have contacted after hours call centre staff in last 12 months N=60 13
RATES ISSUES
89% of residents identified themselves as ratepayers (89% in 2011).
Overall, 70% of Tararua residents are satisfied with the way rates are spent on the services and facilities provided by Council (63% in 2011), with ratepayers being similarly satisfied at 70% (64% in 2011).
The percent not very satisfied (24%) is below the Peer Group Average and on par with the National Average and 7% below the 2011 reading.
The Way Rates Are Spent On Services And Facilities Provided By Council
100
90
80 70 72 70 70 66 B B 63 63 B B
e 60 B B g a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40 32 31 29 27 J J 30 J 24 J 21 J 20 J
10
0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied 14
CONTACT WITH COUNCIL
58% of residents have contacted the Council offices in the last 12 months by phone, in person, in writing or by email.
Satisfaction With The Overall Service Received When Contacted Council Offices
Base = 264 (does not add to 100% due to rounding) 15
INFORMATION
Newspapers* Residents Read ...
The main newspapers* residents read are ...
Bush Telegraph 90% of residents Hawke's Bay Today 36% Manawatu Evening Standard 27% Dominion Post 24% Dannevirke News 23%
* multiple responses allowed
Council's Weekly Information Page
69% of residents say they usually read the Council's weekly information page, which is published in the Bush Telegraph.
Usefulness Of The Council's Weekly Information Page
Very useful 22% of residents who say they usually read the Council's weekly information page Useful 69% Not that useful 7% Not at all useful 2% Don't know 1%
Base = 329 (does not add to 100% due to rounding) 16
Information Published By The Council
74% of residents have seen or read, in the last 12 months, information that the Council publishes specifically for the community (78% in 2011).
Residents* think that the information the Council supplies to the community is ...
More than enough 5% of residents* Enough 70% Not enough 15% Nowhere near enough 3% Don't know/Not sure 7%
Base = 387
* those who say they have seen or read, in the last 12 months, information that the Council publishes specifically for the community, and/or those who say they usually read the Council's weekly information page
17
REPRESENTATION
Performance Rating Of The Mayor And Councillors
66% of residents rate the performance of the Mayor and Councillors, over the past year, as very/fairly good (55% in 2011). 5% rate their performance as not very good/poor, 20% say it is just acceptable (28% in 2011), and 9% are unable to comment (12% in 2011).
Tararua District is above the Peer Group and National Averages, in terms of the very/ fairly good ratings.
Performance Rating Of Council Staff
66% of residents rate the performance of Council staff, over the past year, as very/fairly good. 2% rate their performance as not very good/poor (5% in 2011), while 17% say it is just acceptable. 14% are unable to comment (11% in 2011).
Tararua District is similar to the Peer Group Average and above the National Average, in terms of the very/fairly good ratings.
Performance Rating Of Community Board Or Committee
54% of residents rate the performance of the Community Board or committee relative to their area as very/fairly good. 4% rate their performance as not very good/poor, and 13% say it is just acceptable. 28% are unable to comment.
18
LOCAL ISSUES
Place To Live
36% of residents think the Tararua District, as a place to live, is better than it was three years ago (29% in 2011), while 57% say it is the same (63% in 2011) and 3% feel it is worse. 5% are unable to comment.
(does not add to 100% due to rounding)
Council Consultation And Community Involvement
How Satisfied Are Residents With The Way Council Involves The Public In The Decisions It Makes?
Very satisfied 7% of all residents (5% in 2011) Satisfied 48% (43% in 2011) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 28% (27% in 2011) Dissatisfied 9% (16% in 2011) Very dissatisfied 1% (3% in 2011) Don't know 6% (6% in 2011)
(does not add to 100% due to rounding)
Single Most Important Issue
The main issues* residents feel are the most important facing the District in the next few years are ...
• employment prospects, mentioned by 17% of all residents, • economic growth/promote business/encourage industry, 12%, • water supply - availability and quality, 12%, • roading/bridges, 11%, • need population growth/population decline, 9%, • rates/increases/fair allocation, 7%, • financial issues/expenditure, 5%, • adequate services/facilities/infrastructure to support growth, 4%.
* multiple responses allowed
19
Perception Of Safety
Is The Tararua District Generally A Safe Place To Live?
of all residents
Emergency Management
68% of residents say they have an emergency survival kit at home to look after themselves and their household for at least three days, in the event of an emergency, while 30% say they don't and 2% are unable to comment.
Community Spirit
Residents Rate The Community Spirit Of The Tararua District As ...
of all residents
(50% in 2011)
(9% in 2011)
(does not add to 100% due to rounding) 20
Health Services
Satisfaction With Health Services In The Tararua District
of all residents
Education Services
Satisfaction With Education Services In The Tararua District
of all residents
(does not add to 100% due to rounding) 21
Natural Environment
Satisfaction That The Natural Environment In The Tararua District Is Being Preserved And Sustained For Future Generations ...
of all residents (17% in 2011)
(57% in 2011)
(13% in 2011)
(8% in 2011)
(2% in 2011)
(2% in 2011)
(does not add to 100% due to rounding)
22
Physical Activity
Over The Last 7 Days, On How Many Days Did Residents Engage In At Least 30 Minutes Of Moderate Activity Or At Least 15 Minutes Of Vigorous Activity?
of all residents
The main examples/instances where the residents† have been physically active are ...
• walking, mentioned by 49% of residents†, • farming/farmer/farm work, 27%, • sport, 15%, • gym/fitness/exercises, 14%, • at work, 9%, • firewood/dealing with wood/use chainsaw, 6%.
† residents who have been physically active over last seven days, N=400
* * * * *
23
D. MAIN FINDINGS
Throughout this Communitrak™ report comparisons are made with the National Average of Local Authorities and with the Peer Group of similar Local Authorities.
All verbatim responses are fully transcribed in a separate Verbatims Report.
For Tararua District Council, this Peer Group of similar Local Authorities are those comprising a rural area, together with a town(s) or urban component.
NRB has defined the Rural Peer Group as those Territorial Authorities where less than 66% of meshblocks belong within an urban area, as classified by Statistics New Zealand's 2006 Census data.
In this group are ...
Ashburton District Council Rangitikei District Council Buller District Council Ruapehu District Council Carterton District Council Selwyn District Council Central Hawke's Bay District Council South Taranaki District Council Central Otago District Council South Wairarapa District Council Clutha District Council Southland District Council Far North District Council Stratford District Council Hauraki District Council Tasman District Council Hurunui District Council Thames Coromandel District Council Kaikoura District Council Waimate District Council Kaipara District Council Wairoa District Council MacKenzie District Council Waitaki District Council Manawatu District Council Waitomo District Council Matamata Piako District Council Western Bay of Plenty District Council Opotiki District Council Westland District Council Otorohanga District Council
24
1. Satisfaction With Council Services/Facilities 25
a. Satisfaction With Council Services/Facilities
Residents were read out a number of Council functions and asked whether they are very satisfied, fairly satisfied or not very satisfied with the provision of that service/facility. i. Footpaths
Overall
76% of Tararua District residents are satisfied with footpaths, while 18% are not very satisfied. These readings are similar to the 2011 results.
The percent not very satisfied is on par with the Peer Group and National Averages.
Residents more likely to be not very satisfied with footpaths are ...
• Urban residents, • residents aged 45 years or over, • ratepayers. 26 Satisfaction With Footpaths
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 22 54 76 18 6 2011 24 53 77 18 5 2008 16 48 64 27 9 2005 11 54 65 27 8 2004 16 49 65 28 7 2003 14 48 62 28 10
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=426) 23 58 81 19 -
Comparison Peer Group (Rural)† 21 46 67 21 11 National Average 28 46 74 21 5
Location Dannevirke 22 50 72 28 - Woodville 17 54 71 29 - Pahiatua 15 58 73 26 1 Eketahuna* - 81 81 19 - Elsewhere in District 26 55 81 7 12
Area Urban 18 55 73 27 - Rural 26 55 81 7 12
Ward North† 29 49 78 17 4 South 13 61 74 19 7
Age 18-44 years† 23 62 85 9 5 45-64 years 23 48 71 22 7 65+ years 17 53 70 27 3
Ratepayer? Ratepayer 20 54 74 20 6 Non-ratepayer 36 56 92 8 -
% read across * caution: small base (N=15) † does not add to 100% due to rounding 27
The main reasons residents are not very satisfied with footpaths are ...
• uneven/potholes/cracked/rough/chipped, • poor condition/lack of maintenance/need upgrading, • no footpaths/one side only/need completion.
Summary Table: Main Reasons* For Being Not Very Satisfied With Footpaths
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
Uneven/potholes/cracked/rough/chipped 9 18 10 12 4 3
Poor condition/lack of maintenance/ need upgrading 6 8 8 17 - 2
No footpaths/one side only/need completion 3 1 14 - - 3
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base 28
Footpaths
100
90
80 77 76 B B 70 65 65 64 62 B B B e 60 B g a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40
28 28 30 27 27 J J J J 20 18 18 J J 10
0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 76% 29
ii. Sealed Roads (excluding State Highways)
Overall
75% of residents overall are satisfied with sealed roads (80% in 2011) while 24% are not very satisfied (19% in 2011).
The percent not very satisfied is on par with the Peer Group Average and similar to the National Average readings for roads in general.
Residents more likely to be not very satisfied with sealed roads are ...
• Rural residents (those not living in the four main towns), • North Ward residents, • residents aged 18 to 44 years. 30 Satisfaction With Sealed Roads (Excluding State Highways)
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall†† Total District 2014 16 59 75 24 1 2011 18 62 80 19 1 2008 21 58 79 20 1 2005 14 57 71 28 1 2004 18 58 76 24 - 2003 15 62 77 21 2
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=447) 16 60 76 24 -
Comparison** Peer Group (Rural) 18 54 72 28 - National Average 25 51 76 23 1
Location Dannevirke 16 65 81 17 2 Woodville† 32 56 88 12 - Pahiatua 27 59 86 14 - Eketahuna*† 9 87 96 5 - Elsewhere in District 11 54 65 35 -
Area Urban 21 63 84 15 1 Rural 11 54 65 35 -
Ward North 13 57 70 29 1 South 20 62 82 18 -
Age 18-44 years 11 58 69 31 - 45-64 years 17 61 78 21 1 65+ years 24 59 83 16 1
% read across * caution: small base ** Peer Group and National Averages are based on ratings for roads in general † does not add to 100% due to rounding †† readings prior to 2008 did not specifically exclude State Highways 31
The main reasons residents are not very satisfied with sealed roads are ...
• potholes/uneven/rough/sunken, • poor condition/lack maintenance/slow to maintain/need upgrading, • poor quality of work/materials used/patching.
Summary Table: Main Reasons* For Being Not Very Satisfied With Sealed Roads
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
Potholes/uneven/rough/sunken 11 11 7 6 - 13
Poor condition/lack maintenance/ slow to maintain/need upgrading 10 4 4 6 5 16
Poor quality of work/materials used/patching 7 4 3 7 - 1
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base NB: no other reason is mentioned by more than 2% of all residents 32
Sealed Roads
100
90 79 80 77 76 80 B B 75 B B 71 B 70 B
e 60 g a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40
28 30 24 24 21 J J 20 19 J 20 J J J 10
0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 75% 33
iii. Unsealed Roads
Overall
57% of residents are satisfied with the District's unsealed roads, while 16% are not very satisfied. A notable percentage (27%) are unable to comment (24% in 2011).
The percent not very satisfied is below the Peer Group and National Averages for roads in general.
Rural residents are more likely to be not very satisfied with unsealed roads, than Urban residents.
It also appears that the following residents are slightly more likely to feel this way ...
• residents aged 18 to 64 years, • ratepayers. 34 Satisfaction With Unsealed Roads
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 7 50 57 16 27 2011 7 51 58 18 24 2008 13 44 57 18 25 2005 5 43 48 22 30 2004 6 37 43 26 31 2003 4 49 53 21 26
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=312) 9 69 78 22 -
Comparison** Peer Group (Rural) 18 54 72 28 - National Average 25 51 76 23 1
Location Dannevirke 3 44 47 10 43 Woodville† 6 55 61 3 37 Pahiatua 8 49 57 5 38 Eketahuna*† 5 41 46 15 40 Elsewhere in District 9 55 64 25 11
Area† Urban 5 47 52 8 41 Rural 9 55 63 25 11
Ward North 7 49 56 17 27 South† 6 52 58 14 27
Age 18-44 years† 5 60 65 17 17 45-64 years 7 50 57 19 24 65+ years 9 34 43 8 49
Ratepayer? Ratepayer 6 50 56 17 27 Non-ratepayer† 13 53 66 6 27
% read across * caution: small base ** Peer Group and National Averages are based on ratings for roads in general † does not add to 100% due to rounding 35
The main reasons residents are not very satisfied with unsealed roads are ...
• poor condition/lack maintenance/need upgrading/improving, • potholes/uneven/rough, • need grading regularly.
Summary Table: Main Reasons* For Being Not Very Satisfied With Unsealed Roads
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
Poor condition/lack maintenance/ need upgrading/improving 8 3 3 5 15 11
Potholes/uneven/rough 5 2 - 4 15 7
Need grading regularly 3 1 - 3 - 5
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base 36
Unsealed Roads
100
90
80
70
58 e 60 57 57 g
a 53 B
t B B
n B 48 e 50 c
r 43 B e
P 40 B
30 26 21 J 22 20 J J 18 18 16 J J J 10
0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 57% 37
iv. Management Of Stormwater
Overall
60% of residents are satisfied with the management of stormwater, while 20% are not very satisfied and 19% are unable to comment.
The percent not very satisfied (20%) is above the Peer Group Average and slightly above the National Average readings for stormwater drainage in general.
Urban residents are more likely to be not very satisfied with the management of stormwater, than Rural residents.
It also appears that residents aged 45 to 64 years are slightly more likely to feel this way, than other age groups. 38 Satisfaction With Management Of Stormwater
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014**† 18 42 60 20 19 2011 14 47 61 25 14 2008 17 43 60 23 17 2005 13 43 56 29 15 2004 11 44 55 33 12 2003 10 46 56 30 14
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=370) 23 53 76 24 -
Comparison** Peer Group (Rural) 23 34 57 13 30 National Average 30 43 73 14 13
Location Dannevirke 19 47 66 27 7 Woodville 28 38 66 34 - Pahiatua 16 56 72 16 12 Eketahuna*† 51 13 64 28 9 Elsewhere in District 14 38 52 12 36
Area Urban 21 46 67 25 8 Rural 14 38 52 12 36
Ward North 16 45 61 19 20 South 21 39 60 19 21
Age 18-44 years 13 44 57 13 30 45-64 years 19 40 59 26 14 65+ years 27 42 69 17 14
% read across * caution: small base ** readings prior to 2014 and Peer Group and National Average relate to stormwater drainage in general † does not add to 100% due to rounding 39
The main reasons residents are not very satisfied with stormwater management are ...
• flooding/surface flooding/build-up of water, • blocked drains/culverts/need cleaning/lack of maintenance, • not very good/improvement needed/problems not fixed.
Summary Table: Main Reasons* For Being Not Very Satisfied With Stormwater Management
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
Flooding/surface flooding/build-up of water 11 15 23 7 12 8
Blocked drains/culverts/ need cleaning/lack maintenance 6 7 18 5 16 2
Not very good/improvement needed/ problems not fixed 5 8 9 6 9 2
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base NB: no other reason is mentioned by more than 2% of all residents 40
Stormwater Management
100
90
80
70 60 61 60 e 60 56 56 B g 55 B B a t B B B n
e 50 c r e
P 40 33 30 J 29 30 25 J J 23 20 J J 20 J
10
0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014* Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
* readings prior to 2014 relate to stormwater drainage in general
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 60% 41
v. Availability Of Town Water Throughout The Year
Overall
49% of Tararua District residents are satisfied with the availability of town water throughout the year, while 14% are not very satisfied. A large percentage, 38%, are unable to comment.
The percent not very satisfied is similar to the Peer Group Average and on par with the National Average reading for the water supply in general.
Residents more likely to be not very satisfied with the availability of town water throughout the year are ...
• residents who live in Woodville township (caution is required as the base for Eketahuna is small, N=15), • Urban residents, • South Ward residents, • women. 42 Satisfaction With The Availability Of Town Water Throughout The Year
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall** Total District 2014† 27 22 49 14 38 2011*† 22 29 51 25 25 2008 16 28 44 38 18 2005 32 34 66 9 25 2004 27 35 62 12 26 2003 20 40 60 15 25
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=301) 43 35 78 22 -
Comparison** Peer Group (Rural)† 38 22 60 12 27 National Average 47 30 77 11 12
Location Dannevirke† 56 36 92 6 3 Woodville 25 15 40 55 5 Pahiatua 22 38 60 34 6 Eketahuna°† 51 25 76 16 9 Elsewhere in District† 8 9 17 5 79
Area Urban 42 33 75 21 4 Rural† 8 9 17 5 79
Ward† North 35 24 59 5 37 South 16 19 35 25 39
Gender Male 25 22 47 10 43 Female 28 21 49 18 33
% read across ° caution: small base * 2004-2011 readings relate to the availability of water ** the 2003 reading and the Peer Group and National Averages are based on ratings for the water supply in general † does not add to 100% due to rounding 43
The main reasons residents are not very satisfied with the availability of town water throughout the year are ...
• water restrictions, • poor quality of water, • bad taste.
Summary Table: Main Reasons* For Being Not Very Satisfied With The Availability Of Town Water Throughout The Year
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
Water restrictions 5 2 22 12 11 -
Poor quality of water 4 - 10 21 - 1
Bad taste 3 - 7 11 - 1
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base NB: whilst being asked about availability, some residents' reasons for dissatisfaction relate to the water supply in general 44
Availability Of Town Water Throughout The Year
100
90
80
70 66 60 62 B e 60 B g B a
t 51
n 49
e 50 B c 44 B r
e B P 40 J 38 30 25 J 20 15 14 12 J 9 J J 10 J 0 2003† 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014* Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
† readings relate to water supply in general * 2004-2001 readings relate to the availability of water
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 49% 45
vi. The Reliability Of The Sewerage System
Overall
57% of residents are satisfied with the reliability of the sewerage system, including 29% who are very satisfied. 2% are not very satisfied with this service, while a notable percentage (41%) are unable to comment.
The percent not very satisfied is on par with the Peer Group Average and below the National Average for readings for the sewerage system in general.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with the reliability of the sewerage system. 46
Satisfaction With The Reliability Of The Sewerage System
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014** 29 28 57 2 41 2011 27 34 61 2 37 2008 32 35 67 3 30 2005 22 40 62 6 32 2004 23 41 64 5 31 2003 16 46 62 6 32
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=279) 50 47 97 3 -
Comparison** Peer Group (Rural)† 32 26 58 6 35 National Average 45 30 75 9 16
Location Dannevirke 47 46 93 2 5 Woodville 56 30 86 3 11 Pahiatua 41 49 90 1 9 Eketahuna* 60 8 68 - 32 Elsewhere in District† 7 10 17 1 81
Area Urban 48 42 90 2 8 Rural† 7 10 17 1 81
Ward North 30 29 59 2 39 South 29 26 55 1 44
% read across * caution: small base ** readings prior to 2014 and Peer Group and National Average readings refer to sewerage system in general † does not add to 100% due to rounding
47
The reasons* residents are not very satisfied with the District's sewerage system are ...
• no sewerage system, mentioned by 1% of residents, • others, 1%,
* multiple responses allowed
Reliability Of The Sewerage System
100
90
80
67 70 64 62 62 B 61 B e 60 B B B 57 g a
t B n
e 50 c r e
P 40
30
20
10 6 6 5 3 J J 2 2 J J 0 J J 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014* Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
* 2003-2011 readings relate to the sewerage system in general
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 57% 48
vii. Control Of Dogs
Overall
In 2014, 68% of Tararua District residents express satisfaction with the Council's efforts in controlling dogs (80% in 2011), including 25% who are very satisfied (32% in 2011).
The percent not very satisfied (22%) is slightly above the Peer Group Average, on par with the National Average and 9% above the 2011 result.
Urban residents are more likely to be not very satisfied with dog control, than Rural residents. It also appears that residents who live in Eketahuna are more likely to feel this way, than those who live in other towns/areas in the District, but caution is recommended as the base is small.
It appears that ratepayers are slightly more likely, than non-ratepayers, to feel this way. 49
Satisfaction With Control Of Dogs
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 25 43 68 22 10 2011† 32 48 80 13 8 2008 29 47 76 17 7 2005 20 48 68 24 8 2004 26 44 70 24 6 2003 18 51 69 23 8
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=409) 27 48 75 25 -
Comparison Peer Group (Rural) 35 39 74 16 10 National Average 32 44 76 18 6
Location Dannevirke 24 43 67 30 3 Woodville† 20 49 69 23 7 Pahiatua† 39 38 77 23 1 Eketahuna* 10 35 45 55 - Elsewhere in District 22 45 67 15 18
Area Urban 26 42 68 29 3 Rural 22 45 67 15 18
Ward North 21 46 67 25 8 South 29 41 70 18 12
Ratepayer? Ratepayer 23 44 67 23 10 Non-ratepayer 38 38 76 14 10
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 50
The main reasons residents are not very satisfied with dog control are ...
• roaming/uncontrolled dogs, • more control needed/enforcement/tougher penalties, • danger to people and other animals, • irresponsible owners.
Summary Table: Main Reasons* For Being Not Very Satisfied With Dog Control
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
Roaming/uncontrolled dogs 14 19 11 11 50 9
More control needed/enforcement/ tougher penalties 6 6 4 9 13 5
Danger to people and other animals 5 6 9 2 33 3
Irresponsible owners 4 6 - 3 4 3
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base 51
Dog Control
100
90 80 80 76 B 69 70 B 70 68 68 B B B B
e 60 g a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40
30 23 24 24 22 J J 20 J 17 J J 13 10 J
0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 68% 52
viii. Parks And Reserves
Overall
92% of residents are satisfied with their local parks and reserves, including 51% who are very satisfied. These readings are similar to the 2011 results.
Those not very satisfied (4%) are similar to the percentages for like Districts, the National Average and the 2011 reading.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with the District's parks and reserves. 53
Satisfaction With Parks And Reserves
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014† 51 41 92 4 5 2011 49 42 91 4 5 2008 52 34 86 7 7 2005 45 45 90 5 5 2004 43 42 85 5 10 2003 36 51 87 7 6
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=428) 54 42 96 4 -
Comparison Peer Group (Rural) 59 32 91 4 5 National Average 60 36 96 2 2
Location Dannevirke† 53 40 93 3 5 Woodville 60 37 97 3 - Pahiatua 54 41 95 4 1 Eketahuna* 64 9 73 8 19 Elsewhere in District 47 43 90 4 6
Area Urban† 55 38 93 4 4 Rural 47 43 90 4 6
Ward North 50 42 92 3 5 South† 52 39 91 4 4
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding
54
The main reasons* residents are not very satisfied with parks and reserves are ...
• lack of maintenance/upkeep, mentioned by 2% of residents, • rundown/need upgrading/improving, 1%.
* multiple responses allowed
Parks And Reserves
100 90 91 92 90 87 85 B 86 B B B B B 80
70
e 60 g a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40
30
20
7 7 10 5 5 4 4 J J J J J J 0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 92% 55
ix. Rubbish Collection
Overall
Overall, 54% of residents are satisfied with the District's rubbish collection (58% in 2011), including 30% who are very satisfied. 7% are not very satisfied and a significant percentage (40%) are unable to comment (32% in 2011).
The percent not very satisfied is on par with the Peer Group Average and 2011 reading and similar to the National Average.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups in terms of those residents not very satisfied with the rubbish collection. 56
Satisfaction With Rubbish Collection
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014† 30 24 54 7 40 2011 29 29 58 10 32 2008 35 25 60 10 30 2005 26 26 52 10 38 2004 24 25 49 13 38 2003 19 36 55 10 35
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=278) 50 39 89 11 -
Comparison Peer Group (Rural) 43 22 65 11 24 National Average 54 27 81 9 10
Location Dannevirke 45 31 76 7 17 Woodville 45 31 76 5 19 Pahiatua 47 30 77 10 13 Eketahuna* 72 23 95 - 5 Elsewhere in District 9 16 25 6 69
Area Urban 47 30 77 7 16 Rural 9 16 25 6 69
Ward North 29 25 54 7 39 South† 32 22 54 7 40
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding
57
The main reasons* residents are not very satisfied with the District's rubbish collection are ...
• paying for collection/too expensive/paying twice, mentioned by 4% of all residents, • no collection service, 2%, • erratic collection/collectors could improve, 1%.
* multiple responses allowed
Rubbish Collection
100
90
80
70
60 58 e 60 g 55 B 54 a 52 B t B n 49 B
e 50 B c B r e
P 40
30
20 13 10 10 10 10 J 7 10 J J J J J 0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 54% 58
x. Recycling Services
Overall
70% of Tararua District residents are satisfied with recycling services, including 47% who are very satisfied (34% in 2011). 15% are not very satisfied (18% in 2011) and 15% are unable to comment (9% in 2011).
The percent not very satisfied is slightly above the Peer Group Average and on par with the National Average.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with the recycling services. However, it appears that women are slightly more likely to feel this way, than men. 59
Satisfaction With Recycling Services
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 47 23 70 15 15 2011 34 39 73 18 9 2008 48 27 75 12 13 2005 14 31 45 26 29 2004 17 27 44 28 28 2003 17 33 50 19 31
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=389) 56 27 83 17 -
Comparison Peer Group (Rural) 53 25 78 10 12 National Average 55 29 84 11 5
Location Dannevirke 52 22 74 15 11 Woodville† 57 22 79 16 4 Pahiatua 40 36 76 15 9 Eketahuna* 87 13 100 - - Elsewhere in District 42 20 62 15 23
Area Urban 52 25 77 14 9 Rural 42 20 62 15 23
Ward North† 47 22 69 14 18 South 47 24 71 16 13
Gender Male 48 26 74 11 15 Female 46 20 66 18 16
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 60
The main reasons residents are not very satisfied with recycling services are ...
• need more facilities available/better facilities, • not open enough/need longer opening hours, • could do more recycling/need more options/very limited.
Summary Table: Main Reasons* For Being Not Very Satisfied With Recycling Services
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
Need more facilities available/better facilities 3 3 - 6 - 3
Not open enough/need longer opening hours 3 1 - 2 - 5
Could do more recycling/need more options/ very limited 3 5 3 6 - -
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base 61
Recycling Services
100
90
80 75 73 70 B B 70 B
e 60 g a t 50 n
e 50 B 45 c 44 r
e B B P 40
28 30 26 J J 19 18 20 15 J J 12 J 10 J
0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 70% 62
xi. Landfill And Transfer Station Management
Overall
62% of residents are satisfied with landfill and transfer station management (47% in 2011), while 10% are not very satisfied (22% in 2011). A large percentage (29%) are unable to comment (32% in 2011).
The percent not very satisfied is similar to the Peer Group and National Averages for refuse disposal.
South Ward residents are more likely to be not very satisfied with landfill and transfer station management, than North Ward residents. 63
Satisfaction With Landfill And Transfer Station Management
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014† 37 25 62 10 29 2011**† 12 35 47 22 32 2008 22 36 58 13 29 2005 21 40 61 11 28 2004 22 38 60 10 30 2003 17 43 60 15 25
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=323) 52 34 86 14 -
Comparison†† Peer Group (Rural)† 31 35 66 12 22 National Average 26 39 65 12 23
Location Dannevirke† 60 23 83 3 13 Woodville 20 42 62 17 21 Pahiatua 13 26 39 27 34 Eketahuna* 5 51 56 17 27 Elsewhere in District 35 20 55 6 39
Area Urban 39 28 67 12 21 Rural 35 20 55 6 39
Ward† North 52 23 75 4 22 South 19 26 45 17 37
% read across * caution: small base ** readings prior to 2011 refer to Landfill Management † does not add to 100% due to rounding †† Peer Group and National Averages are based on ratings for refuse disposal (ie, landfill sites) 64
The main reasons residents are not very satisfied with landfill and transfer station management are ...
• the hours are too limited/not open often enough, • charges/too expensive.
Summary Table: Main Reasons* For Being Not Very Satisfied With Landfill And Transfer Station Management
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
The hours are too limited/not open often enough 4 - 7 13 4 3
Charges/too expensive 4 2 7 9 13 2
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base NB: no other reason mentioned by more than 1% of all residents 65
Landfill And Transfer Station Management
100
90
80
70 61 62 60 60 58 e 60 B B g B B
a B t
n 47 e 50 c
r B e
P 40
30 22 20 J 15 13 10 11 10 J J 10 J J J
0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011†† 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied †† readings prior to 2011 refer to Landfill Management
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 62% 66
xii. Cemeteries
Overall
77% of residents are satisfied with the District's cemeteries, with 50% being very satisfied (43% in 2011). 3% are not very satisfied and a large percentage (20%) are unable to comment.
The percent not very satisfied is similar to the Peer Group and National Averages and the 2011 reading.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with the District's cemeteries. 67
Satisfaction With Cemeteries
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall** Total District 2014 50 27 77 3 20 2011 43 34 77 1 22 2008 43 33 76 4 20 2005 41 36 77 2 21 2004 41 33 74 3 23 2003 31 40 71 6 23
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=369) 63 34 97 3 -
Comparison** Peer Group (Rural)† 49 29 78 4 17 National Average 36 33 69 5 26
Location Dannevirke 60 19 79 6 15 Woodville 59 34 93 - 7 Pahiatua† 41 37 78 5 18 Eketahuna* 58 23 81 - 19 Elsewhere in District 45 28 73 1 26
Area Urban 55 26 81 4 15 Rural 45 28 73 1 26
Ward North 55 24 79 3 18 South 43 32 75 2 23
% read across * caution: small base ** 2003 reading and the Peer Group and National Averages relate to ratings for cemeteries, including maintenance of cemeteries † does not add to 100% due to rounding
68
The reasons* residents are not very satisfied with the District's cemeteries are ... • not attractive/lack of maintenance/upkeep, mentioned by 2% of residents, • others, 1%.
* multiple responses allowed
Cemeteries
100
90
77 76 77 77 80 74 71 B B B B B 70 B
e 60 g a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40
30
20
10 6 3 4 3 J 2 1 J J J 0 J J 2003* 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
* readings relate to ratings for cemeteries, including maintenance of cemeteries
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 77% 69
xiii. Community Buildings (eg, Towns Halls, Community Centres, Sports Stadiums)
Overall
91% of residents are satisfied with community buildings, including 50% who are very satisfied (54% in 2011). 4% are not very satisfied and 5% are unable to comment.
The percent not very satisfied is on par with the Peer Group Average and similar to the National Average for public halls, and the 2011 reading.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those not very satisfied with community buildings. 70
Satisfaction With Community Buildings
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 50 41 91 4 5 2011 54 39 93 2 5 2008 57 34 91 3 6 2005 37 53 90 4 6 2004 31 53 84 5 11 2003 26 60 86 5 9
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=426) 53 43 96 4 -
Comparison** Peer Group (Rural) 38 38 76 8 16 National Average† 25 41 66 5 30
Location Dannevirke 54 35 89 5 6 Woodville 53 40 93 - 7 Pahiatua 51 46 97 1 2 Eketahuna*† 54 32 86 - 15 Elsewhere in District 46 43 89 6 5
Area Urban† 53 38 91 3 5 Rural 46 43 89 6 5
Ward North 51 37 88 6 6 South† 49 45 94 2 5
% read across * caution: small base ** Peer Group and National Averages are based on ratings for public halls † does not add to 100% due to rounding
71
The reasons* residents are not very satisfied with the District's community buildings are ... • upgrading/maintenance required, mentioned by 3% of residents, • amalgamation of Council and library, 1%, • costly to use/under utilised, 1%.
* multiple responses allowed
Community Buildings
100 93 90 91 91 B 90 86 84 B B B B B 80
70
e 60 g a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40
30
20
10 5 5 4 3 2 4 J J J J J 0 J 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 91% 72
xiv. Public Libraries
Overall
80% of Tararua residents are satisfied with the public libraries (87% in 2011), including 59% who are very satisfied. 4% are not very satisfied and 16% are unable to comment (12% in 2011).
The percent not very satisfied is similar to the Peer Group and National Averages and on par with the 2011 reading.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those not very satisfied with the public libraries. 73
Satisfaction With Public Libraries
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 59 21 80 4 16 2011 61 26 87 1 12 2008 66 20 86 2 12 2005 58 24 82 4 14 2004 48 29 77 6 17 2003 40 35 75 8 17
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=384) 70 26 96 4 -
Comparison Peer Group (Rural) 60 25 85 3 12 National Average 64 23 87 3 10
Location Dannevirke 68 15 83 3 14 Woodville 59 29 88 4 8 Pahiatua 53 27 80 4 16 Eketahuna* 54 22 76 - 24 Elsewhere in District† 56 23 79 4 18
Area Urban 62 20 82 3 14 Rural† 56 23 79 4 18
Ward North† 63 19 82 1 16 South 54 25 79 6 15
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding
74
The main reasons* residents are not very satisfied with the public libraries are ...
• leave library where it is/not suitable in Council building, mentioned by 3% of residents, • under funded/needs upgrade/more books, 1%.
* multiple responses allowed
Public Libraries
100
90 86 87 82 B B 80 77 80 75 B B B B 70
e 60 g a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40
30
20
8 6 10 4 4 J 2 1 J J J 0 J J 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 80% 75
xv. Public Toilets
Overall
71% of residents are satisfied with the District's public toilets (76% in 2011), including 32% who are very satisfied. 9% are not very satisfied and 20% are unable to comment.
The percent not very satisfied is below the Peer Group and National Averages, and on par with the 2011 reading.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those not very satisfied with public toilets. 76
Satisfaction With Public Toilets
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 32 39 71 9 20 2011 33 43 76 6 18 2008 33 36 69 9 22 2005 24 42 66 12 22 2004 30 38 68 12 20 2003 29 39 68 11 21
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=354) 40 49 89 11 -
Comparison Peer Group (Rural) 35 37 72 17 11 National Average 23 46 69 18 13
Location Dannevirke 37 37 74 5 21 Woodville 25 39 64 16 20 Pahiatua† 29 28 57 9 35 Eketahuna* 45 21 66 19 15 Elsewhere in District† 30 45 75 10 16
Area Urban 34 34 68 8 24 Rural† 30 45 75 10 16
Ward North 34 41 75 9 16 South 28 37 65 9 26
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding
77
The main reasons* residents are not very satisfied with public toilets are ... • in poor condition/lack maintenance/need upgrade, mentioned by 4% of residents, • dirty/disgusting/unhygienic/stink, 3%, • not enough/need more, 1%, • toilet doors open onto road/no privacy, 1%.
* multiple responses allowed
Public Toilets
100
90
80 76 69 B 71 70 68 68 66 B B B B B
e 60 g a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40
30
20 12 12 11 9 9 J J 6 10 J J J J 0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 71% 78
xvi. Public Swimming Pools
Overall
59% of residents are satisfied with the District's public swimming pools (66% in 2011), including 33% who are very satisfied (36% in 2011). 15% are not very satisfied and a large percentage (26%) are unable to comment.
The percent not very satisfied is on par with the Peer Group Average, slightly above the National Average and 5% above the 2011 reading.
Residents more likely to be not very satisfied with public swimming pools are ...
• South Ward residents, • residents aged 18 to 44 years.
It appears that residents who live in Eketahuna are more likely, than those who live in other towns/areas in the District, to feel this way (caution required as the base is small, N=15). 79 Satisfaction With Public Swimming Pools
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 33 26 59 15 26 2011 36 30 66 10 24 2008 45 24 69 6 25 2005 34 32 66 7 27 2004 38 27 65 11 24 2003 37 32 69 7 24
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=325) 45 34 79 21 -
Comparison Peer Group (Rural)† 31 29 60 11 30 National Average 34 30 64 10 26
Location Dannevirke 51 25 76 7 17 Woodville† 19 46 65 17 19 Pahiatua 17 21 38 25 37 Eketahuna* 5 16 21 51 28 Elsewhere in District† 31 24 55 15 30
Area Urban† 35 27 62 16 23 Rural 31 24 55 15 30
Ward North† 48 26 74 6 19 South 15 24 39 26 35
Age 18-44 years 30 23 53 24 23 45-64 years 37 28 65 12 23 65+ years† 32 25 57 6 36
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 80
The main reasons residents are not very satisfied with public swimming pools are ...
• need improving/upgrading/maintenance/repairs since earthquake, • could be covered/need heating/cold, • not open enough.
Summary Table: Main Reasons* For Being Not Very Satisfied With Public Swimming Pools
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
Need improving/upgrading/maintenance /repairs since earthquake 5 - 3 9 36 6
Could be covered/need heating/cold 4 1 3 14 - 4
Not open enough 3 - 8 9 - 1
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base 81
Public Swimming Pools
100
90
80 69 69 70 66 66 B 65 B B B B 59 e 60 g B a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40
30
20 15 11 10 J 7 7 10 J 6 J J J J 0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 59% 82
xvii. Council's Efforts In Economic Development
Overall
51% of residents are satisfied with Council's efforts in economic development, while 14% are not very satisfied. A large percentage (34%) are unable to comment. These readings are similar to the 2011 results.
The percent not very satisfied is below the Peer Group and National Averages for business promotion.
It appears that residents who live in Eketahuna are more likely to be not very satisfied, than those who live in other towns/areas in the District (caution is recommended as base is small N=15). 83
Satisfaction With Council's Efforts In Economic Development
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall* Total District 2014† 11 40 51 14 34 2011 7 44 51 13 36 2008 11 45 56 16 28 2005 11 46 57 11 32 2004 11 40 51 17 32 2003 12 44 56 19 25
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=301) 17 61 78 22 -
Comparison* Peer Group (Rural)† 14 35 49 27 25 National Average 13 32 45 23 32
Location Dannevirke 11 37 48 13 39 Woodville† 13 49 62 13 26 Pahiatua 6 30 36 19 45 Eketahuna**† 4 20 24 42 33 Elsewhere in District 14 45 59 12 29
Area Urban 10 36 46 16 38 Rural 14 45 59 12 29
Ward North† 13 42 55 14 32 South 9 39 48 15 37
% read across * 2003 reading and Peer Group & National Averages are based on ratings for business promotion ** caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 84
The main reasons residents are not very satisfied with Council's efforts in economic development are ...
• could do more/not enough being done, • need more help/support for business/more encouragement to set up, • not doing anything/nothing done, • unfair allocation of funds/biased/some areas miss out.
Summary Table: Main Reasons* For Being Not Very Satisfied With Council's Efforts In Economic Development
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
Could do more/not enough being done 4 3 1 5 17 3
Need more help/support for business/ more encouragement to set up 3 6 - 3 4 3
Not doing anything/nothing done 2 1 2 4 4 3
Unfair allocation of funds/biased/ some areas miss out 2 - 3 4 17 1
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base 85
Efforts In Economic Development
100
90
80
70
e 60 56 57 56 g a
t B 51 B B 51 51 n
e 50 B B B c r e
P 40
30 19 20 17 16 J 13 14 J 11 J J 10 J J
0 2003* 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
* readings relate to ratings for business promotion
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 51% 86
xviii. Community Support (ie, grants to community groups, including assisting service agencies in meeting and identifying community needs)
Overall
65% of residents are satisfied with community support, including 25% who are very satisfied. 4% are not very satisfied and a notable percentage (32%) are unable to comment. These readings are similar to the 2011 results.
The percent not very satisfied is slightly below the Peer Group and National Averages.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups in terms of those residents are more likely to be not very satisfied with community support. 87
Satisfaction With Community Support
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall* Total District 2014† 25 40 65 4 32 2011† 23 44 67 4 30 2008 23 41 64 7 29 2005 26 47 73 6 21 2004 22 43 65 7 28
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=310) 36 58 94 6 -
Comparison Peer Group (Rural)† 27 41 68 10 23 National Average 19 43 62 9 29
Location Dannevirke† 23 38 61 8 30 Woodville 20 44 64 4 32 Pahiatua† 24 37 61 - 40 Eketahuna**† 29 23 52 6 41 Elsewhere in District 26 43 69 2 29
Area Urban 23 38 61 6 33 Rural 26 43 69 2 29
Ward North† 26 41 67 6 27 South 23 39 62 1 37
% read across * not asked prior to 2004 ** caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding
88
The reasons* residents are not very satisfied with community support are ...
• lack of support/could do more, mentioned by 2% of all residents, • allocation of funds/unfair, 2%, • needs more advertising/publicity, 1%.
* multiple responses allowed
Community Support
100
90
80 73 B 67 70 65 64 65 B B B B e 60 g a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40
30
20
7 6 7 10 4 4 J J J J J 0 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 65% 89
xix. Civil Defence Emergency Management
Overall
63% of residents are satisfied with Civil Defence Emergency Management (58% in 2011), including 27% who are very satisfied (23% in 2011). 3% are not very satisfied and a large percentage, 34%, are unable to comment (38% in 2011).
The percent not very satisfied is on par with the Peer Group Average, slightly below the National Average and similar to the 2011 reading.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with Civil Defence Emergency Management. 90
Satisfaction With Civil Defence Emergency Management
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall** Total District 2014 27 36 63 3 34 2011 23 35 58 4 38
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=299) 41 55 96 4 -
Comparison Peer Group (Rural) 21 41 62 6 32 National Average 21 39 60 8 32
Location Dannevirke 32 30 62 2 36 Woodville 27 39 66 9 25 Pahiatua 16 42 58 2 40 Eketahuna* 50 32 82 5 13 Elsewhere in District† 26 38 64 2 35
Area Urban 28 35 63 3 34 Rural† 26 38 64 2 35
Ward North 31 35 66 2 32 South† 23 38 61 4 36
% read across * caution: small base ** not asked in 2011 † does not add to 100% due to rounding
91
The main reasons* residents are not very satisfied with the Civil Defence Emergency Management are ...
• unaware of/haven't heard of anything, mentioned by 1% of all residents, • poor management planning/lack of communication, 1%, • nothing in place, 1%.
* multiple responses allowed
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 63% 92
xx. Council's Management Of Land Use Through The District Plan
Overall
51% of residents are satisfied with Council's management of land use through the District Plan, while 6% are not very satisfied. A large percentage, 44%, are unable to comment.
There are no comparative Peer Group and National Averages for this reading.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents not very satisfied with Council's management of land use through the District Plan. 93
Satisfaction With Council's Management Of Land Use Through The District Plan
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall** Total District 2014† 10 41 51 6 44
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=254) 17 73 90 10 -
Location Dannevirke 16 40 56 5 39 Woodville† 4 53 57 10 32 Pahiatua† 8 31 39 5 57 Eketahuna* 4 23 27 - 73 Elsewhere in District 7 44 51 6 43
Area Urban 12 39 51 5 44 Rural 7 44 51 6 43
Ward† North 12 43 55 7 39 South 6 39 45 4 50
% read across * caution: small base ** not asked prior to 2014 † does not add to 100% due to rounding
94
The main reasons* residents are not very satisfied with the Council's management of land use through the District Plan are ...
• could do more/improvements needed, mentioned by 2% of all residents, • concerns over decisions, 1%, • more development/growth/building development, 1%.
* multiple responses allowed
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 51% 95
xxi. Town Upgrades That Were Completed This Year (ie, Woodville Town Centre upgrade)
Overall
77% of residents are satisfied with town upgrades that were completed this year, including 49% who were very satisfied, while 8% are not very satisfied. 15% are unable to comment.
There are no comparative Peer Group and National Averages for this reading.
South Ward residents are more likely to be not very satisfied with town upgrades that were completed this year, than North Ward residents. 96
Satisfaction With Town Upgrades That Were Completed This Year
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall** Total District 2014 49 28 77 8 15
Excluding Don't Knows (Base=391) 58 33 91 9 -
Location Dannevirke 54 30 84 4 12 Woodville 69 20 89 9 2 Pahiatua 36 35 71 16 13 Eketahuna* 41 - 41 28 31 Elsewhere in District 47 28 75 6 19
Area Urban 51 28 79 9 12 Rural 47 28 75 6 19
Ward North† 52 30 82 3 14 South 45 26 71 14 15
% read across * caution: small base ** not asked prior to 2014 † does not add to 100% due to rounding
97
The main reasons* residents are not very satisfied with town upgrades that were completed this year are ...
• more needs to be done, mentioned by 3% of all residents, • money wasted/too much spent, 2%, • unfair allocation of funds/our rates spent elsewhere, 2%.
* multiple responses allowed
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 77% 98
b. Customer Service Frontline Staff i. Contact
Percent Saying 'Yes' - Comparison
Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Location
*
* caution: small base 99
Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Area Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Ward
Percent Saying 'Yes' - Comparing Different Types Of Residents
In the last 12 months, 62% of residents have been in contact with the customer service frontline staff (67% in 2011).
Residents more likely to contact customer service frontline staff are ...
• North Ward residents, • ratepayers. 100
ii. Satisfaction With Overall Service Received
Contacted Customer Service Frontline Staff In Last 12 Months
Base = 289 101
Satisfaction With Overall Service Received
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Contacted Customer Service Frontline Staff In Last 12 Months 2014 (289)† 68 27 95 6 - 2011 (309) 62 30 92 8 -
Location Dannevirke 69 25 94 6 - Woodville 83 8 91 9 - Pahiatua 72 15 87 13 - Eketahuna* 68 32 100 - - Elsewhere in District 62 35 97 3 -
Area Urban 72 20 92 8 - Rural 62 35 97 3 -
Ward North 66 30 96 4 - South 70 22 92 8 -
% read across * caution: very small base N=9 † does not add to 100% due to rounding
102
95% of residents† are satisfied with the overall service they received from the customer frontline staff, including 68% who are very satisfied (62% in 2011), while 6% are not very satisfied.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents† who are not very satisfied.
† residents who have contacted customer service frontline staff in the last 12 months, N=289
The main reasons* residents are not very satisfied are ...
• poor attitude/unhelpful/unfriendly, mentioned by 3% of residents who have contacted customer service frontline staff in last 12 months, • poor service/slow/could do better, 2%.
* multiple responses allowed
103
c. After Hours Call Centre Staff i. Contact
Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Location
*
* caution: small base
Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Area Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Ward
In the last 12 months, 14% of residents have been in contact with after hours call centre staff.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents who have been in contact with after hours call centre staff. 104
ii. Satisfaction With Overall Service Received
Contacted After Hours Call Centre Staff In Last 12 Months
Base = 60 105
Satisfaction With Overall Service Received
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Contacted After Hours Call Centre Staff In Last 12 Months** 2014 (N=60) 53 28 81 19 -
Location* Dannevirke 72 22 94 6 - Woodville 64 19 83 17 - Pahiatua 65 22 87 13 - Eketahuna† 31 50 81 18 - Elsewhere in District 33 37 70 30 -
Area Urban 64 24 88 12 - Rural* 33 37 70 30 -
Ward North 43 34 77 23 - South 61 24 85 15 -
% read across * caution: small/very small bases ** not asked prior to 2014 † does not add to 100% due to rounding
106
81% of residents† are satisfied with the overall service they received from the after hours call centre staff, including 53% who are very satisfied, while 19% are not very satisfied.
As the bases for most groups are small, no comparisons have been made.
† residents who have contacted customer service frontline staff in the last 12 months, N=60
The main reasons* residents are not very satisfied are ...
• poor response when contacted after hours call centre staff, mentioned by 8% of residents who have contacted customer service frontline staff in last 12 months, • no response/no one available, 4%, • not helpful, 4%.
* multiple responses allowed
107
2. Rates Issues 108
a. Satisfaction With The Way Rates Are Spent On The Services And Facilities Provided By The Council
Overall Ratepayers
Base = 408
89% of residents identified themselves as ratepayers.
Overall, 70% of Tararua residents are satisfied with the way rates are spent on the services and facilities provided by the Council (63% in 2011), while 24% are not very satisfied with this spending.
The percent not very satisfied with the way rates are spent is below the Peer Group Average, on par with the National Average and 7% below the 2011 reading.
70% of ratepayers are satisfied with the way rates are spent on services/facilities provided by Council, with 25% being not very satisfied.
South Ward residents are more likely to be not very satisfied with the way rates are spent, than North Ward residents. It also appears that ratepayers are slightly more likely to feel this way, than non-ratepayers. 109
Satisfaction With The Way Rates Are Spent On The Services And Facilities Provided By Council
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 10 60 70 24 6 2011 9 54 63 31 6 2008 7 56 63 32 5 2005 9 63 72 21 7 2004 6 60 66 29 5 2003 6 64 70 27 3
Comparison Peer Group (Rural) 5 57 62 34 4 National Average† 7 60 67 28 6
Location Dannevirke 17 65 82 14 4 Woodville 14 51 65 34 1 Pahiatua 8 57 65 22 13 Eketahuna* 5 45 50 50 - Elsewhere in District 6 60 66 27 7
Area Urban 14 59 73 22 5 Rural 6 60 66 27 7
Ward North† 13 61 74 20 5 South 7 58 65 28 7
Ratepayer? Ratepayer 10 60 70 25 5 Non-ratepayer 14 59 73 15 12
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 110
The main reasons residents are not very satisfied with the way rates are spent on the services and facilities provided by Council are ...
• rates too high/not value for money/get nothing/no services, • water supply needs attention/no water supply, • rubbish disposal/cost involved/no collection, • roading needs attention.
Summary Table: Main Reasons* For Being Not Very Satisfied With The Way Rates Are Spent
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
Rates too high/not value for money/ get nothing/no services 14 6 20 9 24 20
Water supply needs attention/no water supply 4 1 6 11 - 3
Rubbish disposal/cost involved/no collection 4 3 6 - - 5
Roading needs attention 4 2 3 - 5 6
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base 111
The Way Rates Are Spent On Services And Facilities Provided By Council
100
90
80 70 72 70 70 66 B B 63 63 B B
e 60 B B g a t n
e 50 c r e
P 40 32 31 29 27 J J 30 J 24 J 21 J 20 J
10
0 2003 2004 2005 2008 2011 2014 Year
B Very/fairly satisfied J Not very satisfied
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Total District = 70% Ratepayers = 74%
112
3. Contact With Council 113 a. Have Residents Contacted Council Offices By Phone, In Person, In Writing Or By Email, In The Last 12 Months?
Overall
Percent Saying 'Yes' - Comparison
Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Location
*
* caution: small base
Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Area Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Ward
114
58% of residents say they have contacted Council offices by phone, in person, in writing and/or by email in the last 12 months.
This is slightly below the Peer Group Average and on par with the National Average.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups in terms of those residents who say they have contacted Council. However, it appears that North Ward residents are slightly more likely to have said 'Yes', than South Ward residents. 115
b. Satisfaction With Service Received When Contacted Council Offices
Contacted Council Offices By Phone/In Person/In Writing/By Email In Last 12 Months
Base = 264
Of the 58% of residents who contacted the Council offices by phone, in person, in writing and/or by email in the last 12 months, 91% are satisfied with the service received, including 48% who are very satisfied (38% in 2011).
10% are not very satisfied and this is similar to the Peer Group Average and on par with the National Average.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents who have contacted the Council in the last 12 months, and are not very satisfied with the service received. 116
Satisfaction With The Service Received When Contacting Council Offices
Very Fairly Very/Fairly Not Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Know % % % % %
Contacted Council 2014† 48 43 91 10 - 2011 38 49 87 13 - 2008 38 46 84 15 1 2005 41 48 89 11 - 2004 33 46 79 20 1 2003 35 52 87 12 1
Comparison Peer Group (Rural) 48 39 87 12 1 National Average 41 41 82 17 1
Location Dannevirke 56 34 90 10 - Woodville* 31 57 88 12 - Pahiatua 53 34 87 13 - Eketahuna* 57 18 75 25 - Elsewhere in District 45 48 93 7 -
Area Urban 51 37 88 12 - Rural 45 48 93 7 -
Ward North 49 43 92 8 - South† 47 42 89 12 -
Base = 264 % read across * caution: small/very small bases † does not add to 100% due to rounding
Recommended Satisfaction Measure For Reporting Purposes: Contacted Council in last 12 months = 91%
117
4. Information 118
a. Which Newspapers* Do Residents Read?
*( " '&
,! (-% -
$,)*+ $ $ )$ '
%# $ %$%()
$$ + '! ,(
'# $ & '(
''& # (
$)'",! (- "
''& ,(
''& # (
) '(
%$
* multiple responses allowed
90% of residents say they have read the Bush Telegraph, while 36% have read Hawke's Bay Today and 27% have read the Manawatu Evening Standard. These readings are similar to the 2011 results.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents who have read the Bush Telegraph. 119
Percent Who Read The "Bush Telegraph"
By Location
*
* caution: small base
By Area By Ward
The other newspapers residents say they read are ...
"Midweek." (unspecified) "NZ Herald." (5) "Sunday Star Times." (4) "Online/online news." (3) "Wairarapa paper(s)." (2) "Masterton paper." (2) "North Wairarapa News." "Waipukurau Mail." "Hawkes Bay free paper." "The free ones." "Sunday." 120 b. Readership Of Information Published By Council In The Last 12 Months
Overall
Percent Saying 'Yes' - Comparison
Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Location
*
* caution: small base
Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Area Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Ward
121
Percent Saying 'Yes' - Comparing Different Types Of Residents
74% of residents say they have seen or read, in the last 12 months, information Council publishes specifically for the community (78% in 2011).
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents who have seen or read information published by Council in the last 12 months.
However, it appears that ratepayers are slightly more likely to have seen or read information published by Council, than non-ratepayers. 122 c. Council's Weekly Information Page, Published In The Bush Telegraph i. Readership
Overall
Percent Saying 'Yes' - Comparison
(readings prior to 2014 refer to fortnightly publication)
Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Location *
* caution: small base
Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Area Percent Saying 'Yes' - By Ward
123
Percent Saying 'Yes' - Comparing Different Types Of Residents
69% of residents say they usually read the Council's weekly information page, which is published in the Bush Telegraph.
Residents more likely to say 'Yes' are ...
• South Ward residents, • women, • residents aged 45 years or over, • ratepayers.
It also appears that Urban residents are slightly more likely to do so, than Rural residents. 124
ii. Usefulness Of Information
Respondents Who Have Read Council's Information Page In The Bush Telegraph
Base = 329 Does not add to 100% due to rounding 125
Respondents Who Have Read Council's Information Page In The Bush Telegraph
Not that Very Not Not useful/ Very useful/ that at all not at all Don't useful Useful Useful useful useful useful know % % % % % % %
Residents Who Have Read Council's Information Page In The Bush Telegraph 2014† 22 69 91 7 2 9 1 2011 20 61 81 12 4 16 3 2008 20 64 84 12 3 15 1 2005 27 61 88 9 2 11 1
Location Dannevirke 30 63 93 6 1 7 - Woodville† 18 68 86 13 - 13 - Pahiatua 17 75 92 4 - 4 4 Eketahuna* 6 88 94 - - - 6 Elsewhere in District† 19 69 88 7 3 10 1
Area Urban 24 68 92 7 - 7 1 Rural† 19 69 88 7 3 10 1
Ward North 22 69 91 5 3 8 1 South 21 68 89 9 - 9 2
Base = 329 * caution: very small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding
91% of residents† think the Council's fortnightly information page in the Bush Telegraph is very useful/useful (81% in 2011), while 9% find it not that useful/not at all useful (16% in 2011) and 1% are unable to comment.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents† who find the information page not that useful/not at all useful.
† residents who have read the Council's information page in the Bush Telegraph, N=329
126
iii. Suggested Improvements
The 29 residents† who think the Council's weekly information page published in the Bush Telegraph is not that useful/not at all useful offer the following suggested changes*:
• more news on (their) local area/update information, mentioned by 11% of residents who find the page not that useful/not at all useful, • need more detail/easier to understand, 10%, • others, 7%.
* multiple responses allowed
24% of residents† could give no suggestions and 50% said they didn't know.
† those who have read the Council's weekly information page in the Bush Telegraph (N=29: caution small base) 127 d. The Sufficiency Of The Information Supplied
Those residents who have seen or read, in the last 12 months, any information Council has published specifically for the community and/or say they usually read the Council's weekly information page, were asked whether they considered the information supplied by Council to be sufficient.
Base = 387
Summary Table: Comparing Different Types Of Residents
Seen/Read† information published specifically for * * the community Peer Group National 2014 2011 Average Average % % % %
Percent Who Mentioned ...
More than enough 5 7 9 10 75 71 65 66 Enough 70 64 56 56
Not enough 15 18 21 23 18 22 30 30 Nowhere near enough 3 4 9 7
Don't know/not sure 7 7 5 4
Total 100 100 100 100
* Peer Group and National Averages: all respondents in the 2012 National Survey were asked this question
† this includes respondents who have seen/read information published specifically for the community, and/ or those who say they usually read the Council's weekly information page 128
75% of residents† feel that there is enough/more than enough information supplied (71% in 2011), with 18% feeling there is not enough/nowhere near enough information supplied (22% in 2011).
Tararua District residents are more likely, than like Districts and residents nationwide, to feel there is enough/more than enough information.
Rural residents† are more likely to feel there is enough/more than enough information supplied by Council, than Urban residents†.
† those residents who have seen or read, in the last 12 months, any information Council has published specifically for the community, and/or those who say they usually read the Council's weekly information page
129
5. Representation 130
a. Performance Rating Of The Mayor And Councillors In The Last Year
Overall
! !
!
66% of Tararua District residents rate the performance of the Mayor and Councillors over the past year as very/fairly good (55% in 2011), while 5% rate their performance as not very good/poor. 20% rate the performance of the Mayor and Councillors as just acceptable (28% in 2011) and 9% are unable to comment (12% in 2011).
Tararua District is above the Peer Group and National Averages, in terms of the very/ fairly good ratings.
Residents more likely to rate the Mayor and Councillor's performance as very/fairly good are ...
• residents who live in Dannevirke, Pahiatua townships or elsewhere in the District (caution is required, as the base for Eketahuna is small, N=15), • North Ward residents, • women, • ratepayers. 131 Summary Table: Performance Rating Of The Mayor And Councillors In The Last Year
Rated as ... Very good/ Just Not very Don't fairly good acceptable good/poor know % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 66 20 5 9 2011 55 28 5 12 2008 51 29 11 9 2005 61 24 7 8 2004 51 27 11 11 2003 58 26 8 8
Comparison Peer Group Average† 53 23 16 7 National Average 46 33 15 6
Location Dannevirke 70 17 3 10 Woodville 49 33 12 6 Pahiatua† 66 19 11 5 Eketahuna* 35 42 - 23 Elsewhere in District† 68 18 3 10
Area Urban 64 21 6 9 Rural† 68 18 3 10
Ward North 73 16 4 7 South† 58 25 7 11
Gender Male 62 25 6 7 Female 70 15 4 11
Ratepayers? Ratepayer 67 20 5 8 Non-ratepayer† 55 25 1 20
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 132
b. Performance Rating Of Council Staff In The Last Year
Overall Contacted Council In Last 12 Months
! ! !
N=264
66% of Tararua District residents rate the performance of the Council staff over the past year as very/fairly good. 2% rate their performance as not very good/poor (5% in 2011), while 17% say it is just acceptable. 14% are unable to comment (11% in 2011).
Tararua District is similar to the Peer Group Average and above the National Average, in terms of the very/fairly good ratings.
68% of residents who have contacted the Council in the last 12 months, rate the performance of Council staff as very/fairly good, while 3% rate it as not very good/poor.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards or socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents who rate Council staff performance as very/ fairly good. 133
Summary Table: Performance Rating Of Council Staff In The Last Year
Rated as ...
Very good/ Just Not very Don't fairly good acceptable good/poor know % % % %
Overall Total District 2014† 66 17 2 14
Contacted the Council Offices in last 12 months (N=264)† 68 19 3 9
2011 67 17 5 11 2008 67 15 5 13 2005 68 18 6 8 2004 59 19 7 15 2003 68 18 4 10
Comparison Peer Group Average 64 19 8 9 National Average 52 25 12 11
Location Dannevirke† 62 20 2 17 Woodville 71 15 3 11 Pahiatua 72 17 4 7 Eketahuna*† 72 5 5 19 Elsewhere in District 66 17 3 14
Area Urban 66 18 3 13 Rural 66 17 3 14
Ward North 64 18 3 15 South† 68 17 3 12
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 134
c. Overall Performance Rating Of The Community Board Or Committee Relative To Resident's Area In The Last Year
Overall
54% of Tararua District residents rate the performance of the Community Board or committee relative to their area in the last year as very/fairly good, while 4% rate their performance as not very good/poor. 13% rate their performance as just acceptable and 28% are unable to comment.
There are no Peer Group and National Averages for this reading.
Residents more likely to rate their Community Board or committee's performance as very/ fairly good are ...
• South Ward residents, • women. 135
Summary Table: Performance Rating Of The Community Board Or Committee Relative To Their Area In The Last Year
Rated as ...
Very good/ Just Not very Don't fairly good acceptable good/poor know % % % %
Overall* Total District 2014† 54 13 4 28
Location Dannevirke 50 13 5 32 Woodville 53 20 9 18 Pahiatua† 64 8 2 26 Eketahuna** 64 12 5 19 Elsewhere in District 54 13 4 29
Area Urban 55 13 5 27 Rural 54 13 4 29
Ward North 50 15 4 31 South 60 10 5 25
Gender Male 50 15 5 30 Female† 58 11 3 27
% read across * not asked prior to 2014 ** caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding
136
6. Local Issues 137
a. Place To Live
Thinking about the range and standard of amenities and activities which Council can influence, residents were asked to say whether they think Tararua District is better, about the same, or worse, as a place to live, than it was three years ago.
Overall
36% of Tararua residents think the District is better, as a place to live, than it was three years ago (29% in 2011), while 57% feel it is the same (63% in 2011) and 3% say it is worse. 5% are unable to comment.
The percent saying the District is better (36%) is above the Peer Group Average and slightly above the National Average.
Residents more likely to think the District is better, as a place to live, than it was three years ago are ...
• residents who live in Woodville township (caution is required, as the base for Eketahuna is small, N=15), • ratepayers. 138
Summary Table: Is The District A Better/about The Same/Worse Place To Live Than It Was Three Years Ago?
Better Same Worse Unsure % % % %
Overall Total District 2014† 36 57 3 5 2011† 29 63 4 5 2008 33 56 6 5 2005 33 55 4 8 2004 29 55 7 9 2003 37 51 7 5
Comparison Peer Group Average 27 58 8 7 National Average 30 47 18 5
Location Dannevirke 37 58 3 2 Woodville 61 32 4 3 Pahiatua 33 54 3 10 Eketahuna* 9 76 9 6 Elsewhere in District 33 60 2 5
Area Urban 38 54 4 4 Rural 33 60 2 5
Ward North 34 61 3 2 South 37 52 3 8
Ratepayers? Ratepayer 37 56 3 4 Non-ratepayer 24 62 - 14
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 139
b. Council Consultation And Community Involvement
How satisfied are residents with the way Council involves the public in the decisions it makes?
Overall
In 2014, 55% of Tararua residents are satisfied (very satisfied/satisfied) with the way Council involves the public in the decisions it makes (48% in 2011), while 10% are dissatisfied (very dissatisfied/dissatisfied) (19% in 2011).
The "satisfaction" reading is above the Peer Group and National Averages.
Residents who live in all townships, except those who live in Eketahuna township, are more likely to be satisfied (very satisfied/satisfied) (caution is required as the base for Eketahuna is small N=15). 140
Summary Table: Satisfaction With Council Consultation
Very satisfied/ Neither satisfied Dissatisfied/ Don't Satisfied nor dissatisfied Very dissatisfied know % % % %
Overall Total District 2014† 55 28 10 6 2011 48 27 19 6 2008 52 25 15 8 2005 51 31 13 5 2004 44 26 22 8 2003 46 28 23 3
Comparison Peer Group Average† 41 32 21 5 National Average 38 35 23 4
Location Dannevirke† 58 25 9 7 Woodville 72 13 10 5 Pahiatua† 44 36 13 8 Eketahuna* 17 66 17 - Elsewhere in District 56 29 10 5
Area Urban 54 28 11 7 Rural 56 29 10 5
Ward North 58 27 10 5 South 52 30 11 7
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 141
c. Single Most Important Issue
All residents were asked to say what the most important issue is facing the District in the next few years.
The main issues residents mention are ...
• employment prospects, • economic growth/promote business/encourage industry, • water supply - availability and quality, • roading/bridges, • need population growth/population decline, • rates/increases/fair allocation, • financial issues/expenditure, • adequate services/facilities/infrastructure to support growth.
Summary Table: Main Important Issues* Facing The District In The Next Few Years
Location Total District Danne- Wood- Pahia- **Eke- Else- 2014 virke ville tua tahuna where % % % % % %
Percent who mention ...
Employment prospects 17 24 7 9 13 6
Economic growth/promote business/ encourage industry 12 14 7 2 13 15
Water supply - availability and quality 12 10 25 23 5 8
Roading/bridges 11 6 16 2 22 16
Need population growth/population decline 9 8 18 5 25 8
Rates/increases/fair allocation 7 7 11 7 27 5
Financial issues/expenditure 5 3 8 5 19 5
Adequate services/facilities/infrastructure to support growth 4 2 11 6 - 3
* multiple responses allowed ** caution: small base 142
Other main issues* mentioned by 3% of residents are ...
• environmental issues, • One Plan/Horizons One Plan, • earthquake damaged buildings/upgrade buildings, by 2% ...
• upgrade of towns in the area, • oil exploration (positive), • sewerage system/upgrade, • more help/support for youth/things to do, • public swimming pool, • amalgamation of library and Council, • rubbish disposal/recycling, • oil exploration (negative), by 1% ...
• promotion of area/tourism, • stormwater/drainage/flood control, • upgrading footpaths, • keeping town clean and tidy/control of graffiti/vandalism, • criminal activity/safety of community.
5% of residents mentioned "other" issues and 17% were unable to comment.
* multiple responses allowed
143
We have also grouped the major concerns into the following categories*, showing the overall percentages for each.
Economic Issues 41% Environmental Issues 7%
Employment prospects Environmental issues Economic growth/promote business/ The One Plan/Horizons One Plan encourage industry Oil exploration (negative) Need population growth/population decline Rates/increases/fair allocation Built Environment 5% Financial issues/expenditure Upgrade of towns in the area Adequate services/facilities/infrastructure Earthquake damaged buildings/upgrade to support growth buildings Promotion of area/tourism Keeping town clean and tidy/control on Oil exploration (positive) graffiti/vandalism
Services/Facilities Issues 18% Social Issues 3%
Water supply - availability and quality More help/support for youth/things to do Sewerage system/upgrade Criminal activity/safety of community Public swimming pool Amalgamation of library and Council Others 5% Rubbish disposal/recycling Stormwater/drainage/flood control Others
Roading Network 14%
Roading/bridges Problems with heavy traffic/logging trucks affecting roads Upgrading footpaths
* multiple responses allowed 144
d. Perception Of Safety
Is Tararua Generally A Safe Place To Live?...
Yes, Yes, Not No, Don't definitely mostly really definitely not know % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 44 54 2 - - 2011 45 53 1 1 - 2008 36 61 2 1 - 2006 44 51 3 1 -
Comparison Peer Group Average (Rural) 50 45 3 1 1 National Average 36 53 7 3 1
Location Dannevirke 38 59 3 - - Woodville 50 50 - - - Pahiatua† 39 61 1 - - Eketahuna* 45 40 15 - - Elsewhere in District 50 50 - - -
Area Urban 40 57 3 - - Rural 50 50 - - -
Ward North 42 56 2 - - South 47 52 1 - -
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 145
44% of residents feel that generally Tararua District is definitely a safe place to live, 54% say it is mostly and 2% of residents think the District is not really a safe place to live. These readings are similar to the 2011 results.
The percent saying 'yes, definitely' (44%) is slightly below the Peer Group Average but above the National Average.
Rural residents are more likely to feel that Tararua District is definitely a safe place to live, than Urban residents. 146
e. Emergency Management
Overall
68% of residents say they have an emergency survival kit at home to look after themselves and their household for at least three days, in the event of an emergency, while 30% say they don't and 2% are unable to comment.
Residents more likely to say 'Yes' are ...
• Rural residents, • ratepayers. 147
Summary Table: Do Residents Have An Emergency Survival Kit
Emergency Survival Kit?
Yes No Don’t Know % % %
Overall* Total District 2014 68 30 2
Location Dannervirke 62 36 2 Woodville 81 19 - Pahiatua 52 46 2 Eketahuna** 94 6 - Elsewhere in District 73 24 3
Area Urban† 64 34 1 Rural 73 24 3
Ward North 66 31 3 South 71 28 1
Ratepayer? Ratepayer 71 27 2 Non-ratepayer 42 54 4
* not asked prior to 2014 ** caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 148
f. Community Spirit
Overall
82% of residents rate the community spirit in their District as very good/good (86% in 2011), including 38% who feel it is very good. 12% say the community spirit is neither good nor bad (9% in 2011), while 6% rate it not very good/poor (in 2011 3% rated it as not very good). 1% are unable to comment.
Tararua District residents are similar to Peer Group residents and above residents nationwide, in rating community spirit as very good/good.
There are no notable differences between Locations, Areas, Wards and socio-economic groups, in terms of those residents who rate the community spirit in the District as very good/good. However, it appears that North Ward residents are slightly more likely to feel this way, than South Ward residents. 149
Rating Community Spirit In The District
Very good/ Neither good Not very good/ Don't good nor bad poor know % % % %
Overall Total District 2014† 82 12 6 1 2011† 86 9 3 1 2008 87 8 4 1 2006 79 16 4 1
Comparison Peer Group Average (Rural) 82 13 5 - National Average† 74 21 6 -
Location Dannevirke 81 15 3 1 Woodville 79 9 12 - Pahiatua† 74 8 16 1 Eketahuna* 77 15 8 - Elsewhere in District 86 11 3 -
Area Urban 79 12 8 1 Rural 86 11 3 -
Ward North 85 12 3 - South 79 11 9 1
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 150
g. Health Services
Residents were asked to say how satisfied they are with health services in the Tararua District.
Neither Very satisfied Dissatisfied/ Very satisfied/ nor Very Very Don't satisfied Satisfied Satisfied dissatisfied Dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied know % % % % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014 21 45 66 13 15 4 19 2 2011 22 44 66 13 16 4 20 1 2008 23 43 66 11 16 4 20 3 2006 15 41 56 20 15 7 22 2
Comparison Peer Group 27 42 69 10 15 4 19 2 National Average 23 49 72 13 11 2 13 2
Location Dannevirke 25 44 69 10 17 4 21 - Woodville 26 44 70 13 14 - 14 3 Pahiatua 24 37 61 15 18 1 19 5 Eketahuna* 23 50 73 12 - 15 15 - Elsewhere in District 17 47 64 14 15 4 19 3
Area Urban† 25 43 68 12 16 3 19 2 Rural 17 47 64 14 15 4 19 3
Ward North† 22 45 67 11 15 5 20 1 South 21 43 64 14 16 2 18 4
Age 18-44 years 11 48 59 14 18 6 24 3 45-64 years 22 41 63 16 17 3 20 1 65+ years† 37 44 81 5 9 2 11 2
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 151
66% of residents are very satisfied/satisfied with health services in the Tararua District. This is on par with the Peer Group Average, similar to the 2011 reading and slightly below the National Average.
19% are dissatisfied/very dissatisfied, while 13% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. These readings are similar to the 2011 results.
Residents aged 65 years or over are more likely to be very satisfied/satisfied, than other age groups.
The main reasons* residents† feel dissatisfied/very dissatisfied are ...
• couldn't get an appointment soon enough, mentioned by 39% of residents†, • lack of services locally/limited care, 25%, • waiting time at the doctor excessive, 20%, • no after hours/weekend service, 18%, • not enough doctors in the area/doctors are too busy, 16%.
* multiple responses allowed † residents who feel dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with health services in Tararua District N=78 152 h. Education Services
Residents were asked to say how satisfied they are with education services in the Tararua District.
Neither Very satisfied Dissatisfied/ Very satisfied/ nor Very Very Don't satisfied Satisfied Satisfied dissatisfied Dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied know % % % % % % % %
Overall Total District 2014† 26 44 70 9 6 1 7 15 2011 24 45 69 10 5 1 6 15 2008 25 44 69 9 5 1 6 16 2006 18 44 62 17 7 1 8 13
Comparison Peer Group 25 49 74 7 5 3 8 11 National Average 22 46 68 10 9 1 10 12
Location Dannevirke 34 39 73 6 4 1 5 16 Woodville 9 45 54 15 12 - 12 19 Pahiatua 22 35 57 20 1 1 2 21 Eketahuna*† 32 49 81 5 - - - 15 Elsewhere in District† 25 49 74 6 7 1 8 12
Area Urban† 27 40 67 11 4 1 5 18 Rural 25 49 74 6 7 1 8 12
Ward North 32 43 75 6 5 1 6 13 South 19 44 63 12 6 2 8 17
Gender Male† 27 46 73 8 6 - 6 12 Female 25 41 66 9 5 2 7 18
Age 18-44 years 29 47 76 8 9 2 11 5 45-64 years 25 45 70 8 5 1 6 16 65+ years† 23 38 61 10 1 - 1 28
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding 153
70% of residents are very satisfied/satisfied with education services in the Tararua District. This is on par with the Peer Group Average and similar to the National Average and the 2011 reading.
7% of residents are dissatisfied/very dissatisfied, 9% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 15% are unable to comment. These readings are similar to the 2011 results.
North Ward residents are more likely to be satisfied/very satisfied, than South Ward residents. It also appears that the following residents are slightly more likely to feel this way ...
• residents who live in Dannevirke township, Eketahuna township or elsewhere in the District (caution required as the base for Eketahuna is small, N=15), • Rural residents, • men, • residents aged 18 to 64 years.
The main reasons* residents† feel dissatisfied/very dissatisfied are ...
• not up to standard/poor teaching standards, mentioned by 50% of residents†, • lack of opportunities/options, 23%, • behaviour of students, 15%, • poor leadership, 14%, • schools closing/declining roll, 11%.
* multiple responses allowed † residents who feel dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with education services in Tararua District, caution: small base N=24 154
i. Natural Environment
Residents were asked to say how satisfied they are that the natural environment and recreational areas in the Tararua District are being preserved and sustained for future generations.
Neither Very satisfied Dissatisfied/ Very satisfied/ nor Very Very Don't satisfied Satisfied Satisfied dissatisfied Dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied know % % % % % % % %
Overall†† Total District 2014† 29 60 89 7 2 1 3 2 2011† 17 57 74 13 8 2 10 2 2008 24 54 78 12 6 3 9 1 2006 15 55 70 19 6 2 8 3
Comparison†† Peer Group 22 54 76 14 8 2 10 - National Average 17 57 74 14 8 2 10 2
Location Dannevirke 23 63 86 8 1 1 2 4 Woodville 32 64 96 - 3 - 3 1 Pahiatua 16 71 87 7 3 - 3 3 Eketahuna* 19 49 68 27 5 - 5 - Elsewhere in District 37 54 91 5 2 1 3 1
Area Urban 22 64 86 8 2 1 3 3 Rural 37 54 91 5 2 1 3 1
Ward North 32 57 89 6 2 1 3 2 South 26 63 89 7 2 - 2 2
% read across * caution: small base † does not add to 100% due to rounding †† readings prior to 2014 and Peer Group and National Averages refer to the natural environment in the District being preserved and sustained for future generations 155
89% of residents are very satisfied/satisfied that the natural environment and recreational areas in the Tararua District are being preserved and sustained for future generations (74% in 2011), including 29% who are very satisfied (17% in 2011). This is above the Peer Group and National Averages†.
3% of residents are dissatisfied/very dissatisfied (10% in 2011), while 7% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (13% in 2011).
Residents who live in the township of Eketahuna are more likely to be very satisfied/ satisfied, than those who live in other towns/areas of the District.
† Peer Group and National Average readings refer to the natural environment only
The reasons* residents† feel dissatisfied/very dissatisfied are ...
• could be better, mentioned by 50% of residents†, • pollution of river, 16%, • others, 34%.
* multiple responses allowed † residents who feel dissatisfied/very dissatisfied that the natural environment and recreational areas are being preserved and sustained for future generations, caution: small base N=15 156
j. Physical Activity
Residents were asked about the time they spent being physically active in the last 7 days. Active is defined as doing anything using your muscles.
Thinking about activities at work, school or home, getting from place to place, and any activities they did for exercise, sport, recreation or leisure, on how many days (over the last 7 days) did residents engage in ...
• at least 30 minutes of moderate activity (including brisk walking) that made them breathe a little harder than normal, or • at least 15 minutes of vigorous activity that made them breathe a lot harder than normal (huff and puff).
157
Percent Saying 'Seven Days' - Comparison
Percent Saying 'Seven Days' - By Location
*
* caution: small base
Percent Saying 'Seven Days' - By Area Percent Saying 'Seven Days' - By Ward
Percent Saying 'Seven Days' - Comparing Different Types Of Residents
158
44% of residents say they engaged in at least 30 minutes of moderate activity or at least 15 minutes of vigorous activity for all of the last seven days, while 10% say they have been active for five of these days, 11% say they have been active for four days and 9% state they have been active three days. These readings are similar to the 2011 results.
Residents more likely to say they have been physically active for all of the last seven days are ...
• Rural residents, • men.
The main examples/instances where residents† have been physically active are ...
• walking, mentioned by 49% of residents†, • farming/farmer/farm work, 27%, • sport, 15%, • gym/fitness/exercises, 13%, • at work, 9%, • firewood/dealing with wood/use chainsaw, 6%.
† residents who have been physically active in the last 7 days N=400 159
Other examples/instances mentioned by 5% of residents† ...
• lawn mowing, • running, • building/concreting/painting, by 4% ...
• cycling, • fencing, by 3% ...
• duck shooting/hunting/fishing, • swimming, • lifting and carrying, • cleaning/housework, by 2% ...
• play with children/look after grandchildren, • household activities/manual tasks around home, by 1% ...
• horse riding, • dancing/stage production.
† residents who have been physically active in the last 7 days N=400
* * * * *
160
E. APPENDIX
Base By Sub-sample
*Expected numbers Actual according to residents population interviewed distribution
Ward North 250 247 South 201 202
Gender Male 226 220 Female 225 231
Age 18 to 44 years 98 175 45 to 64 years 193 172 65+ years 160 104
* Interviews are intentionally conducted to allow reasonable bases in each Ward so that comparisons can be made, even though the populations may differ from Ward to Ward. Post- stratification (weighting) is then applied to adjust back to population proportions in order to yield correctly balanced overall percentages. This is accepted statistical procedure. Please also refer to pages 2 to 5.
* * * * *