Rural Taranaki Compared with a Selection of Other Rural Areas in New Zealand

Home , Ashley Gorge, Egmont Village, Kaimata, OKATO, Tiroa, Wairio

REPORT TWO

Rural Taranaki compared with a selection of other rural areas in New Zealand

Ann Pomeroy

Centre for Sustainability: Agriculture, Food, Energy and Environment and Department of Geography, University of Otago

May 2017

Acknowledgements

This project was sponsored by the Bishops Action Foundation and made possible due to the generosity of the TSB Community Trust.

Disclaimer:

While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information herein, and all reasonable skill and care has been exercised in the preparation of the information in this report, neither The University of Otago nor the author accept any liability for error of fact or opinion which may be present, nor for the consequences of any decision based on this information, or arising out of the provision of information in this report.

Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 2 Disclaimer: ...... 2 Chapter 1: Introduction...... 4 Chapter 2: Background to the selected territorial authorities ...... 5 Chapter 3: Population change in the ten study areas ...... 14 Chapter 4: Age Structure ...... 25 Chapter 5: Employment, labour force and occupation ...... 29 Chapter 6: Industry ...... 38 Chapter 7: Socio-economic status ...... 52 Chapter 8: Summary of the rural components of ten territorial authorities ...... 68 Chapter 9: Comparing Taranaki’s territorial authorities with seven others ...... 70 References ...... 72 Abbreviations and definitions ...... 73

Chapter 1: Introduction

This socio-economic profile of rural and minor urban communities in Taranaki and the analysis of trends, changes and differences between Taranaki’s rural districts, rural centres and minor urban communities, (see definitions in the next chapter) and rural communities elsewhere in New Zealand, is sponsored by the Bishop’s Action Foundation and funded by the TSB Community Trust.

The analysis is presented in three reports. The first was a ‘desk’ analysis based on census data (Statistics New Zealand’s area unit data) for each of the rural districts, rural centres, and minor urban areas which make up the three territorial authorities within Taranaki.

This second report looks at the rural components of ten territorial authorities from a perspective similar to that taken in the first report. Emphasis is on population change, age structure, work force and industry engagement (including comparing the industry engagement of people who work in each area against that of people who reside there), unpaid work, education, income, deprivation, ethnicity, and access to the internet, cell-phones and motor vehicles. This report provides an opportunity to see what these ten territorial authorities convey about rural New Zealand, as well as providing the Bishop’s Action Foundation with a comparison of their rural constituents with those in like locations.

The third report will provide an overview and rapid appraisal of current work available on rural New Zealand from a social science perspective, undertaken since the Ministry of Primary Industry (the then Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) ceased sponsoring social science research on rural New Zealand around 2000. It draws on a research seminar sponsored by the New Zealand Geographic Society and the School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University, Palmerston North, which was held at Massey University on 2 February 2017. The seminar aimed to bring together current research practitioners with an interest in studying rural areas from a social perspective.

Chapter 2: Background to the selected territorial authorities

In this, the second report, the rural districts, rural centres and minor urban areas of Taranaki (Maps 2.1 and 2.2) are compared with similar locations across New Zealand. The areas selected for comparison are Waitomo, Central Hawkes Bay (CHB) and South Wairarapa Territorial Authorities (TAs) in the North Island, and in the South Island: Hurunui and Waimakariri TAs (North Canterbury); Gore and Southland TAs (see Map 2.1).

Definitions and data issues

As Statistics NZ points out there is no internationally recognised definition of a ‘rural’ area. Statistics NZ (2013) defines rural areas as those that are not specifically designated as ‘urban’, which means rural areas are defined as places outside centres of population with 1,000 or more people. Defining rural New Zealand in this way locates 14% of the population in rural areas, and 23% of businesses in rural areas. However, when rural is defined as places outside centres of population of 10,000 or more people (which is also the Australian definition), so including minor urban areas within the rural sector, 22% of the population is rural.

Statistics NZ defines minor urban areas as centres of population of 1,000 to 9,999 people. As at the 2013 census there were 103 minor urban areas. In this study 23, or 22 percent, of New Zealand’s minor urban areas are analysed.

Rural centres have no administrative or legal status, but are statistical units. They were created by Statistics NZ to enable the separation of rural dwellers living in open countryside from those living in small settlements or villages (Statistics NZ, 2013). They are defined as centres of population with between 300 and 999 people. There are approximately 133 rural centres in New Zealand. For various reasons1 some of these are recorded as rural districts in this report. This study looks at 27, or 20 percent, of them. As noted in Report One, some rural centres are smaller than the target size of a minimum of 300 people.

As noted above, there is no common definition for ‘rural’. Rural areas have traditionally been residual areas not included in the urban definition. They are often dubbed rural centres and ‘other rural’. Statistics NZ (n.d.) notes: ‘ ‘Other rural’ is the urban area classification residual category and includes all area units not in urban areas or rural centres. This category includes inlets, islands, inland waters, and oceanic waters outside urban areas’. In this study, areas outside centres of 300 or more people are designated rural districts. There are approximately 358 rural districts, and this study looks at 73, or around 20 percent of them. Inlets, waterways and other places with few or no people are excluded (see below).

Life is given to these three categories by the fact that Statistics NZ has mapped over 2,000 area units across New Zealand and provides a large range of census data for these units. The critical point is that a defined statistical boundary is provided for each area unit. ‘Area units are aggregations of meshblocks. They are non-administrative geographic areas that are in between meshblocks and territorial authorities in size’ (Statistics NZ, 2013). By mapping all the area units in each of the ten territorial authorities selected for this study it is possible to allocate them to the correct level of analysis, and exclude settlements larger than minor urban areas. (Territorial authorities are defined under the Local Government Act, 2002 as city or district councils).

In the 1990s, Statistics NZ began a series of projects to better understand the populations of rural New Zealand. As part of this work a decision was made to define distinct rural communities by using workplace

1 Due to the Kaikoura earthquakes which resulted in Statistics NZ message centre staff being out of contact, it was not possible to access this information at the point at which decisions were made on whether area units should allocated to rural centres or rural districts. 5 compared with address of usual residence as a proxy for both distance from, and the need to travel to, an urban area for employment. Statistics NZ (n.d.) states:

Using workplace area, meshblocks in rural areas are allocated to one of four categories, based on their dependence on urban areas. Again, employment location is the defining variable. The allocation is based on a weighted percentage of resident employed adults of a rural meshblock who work in the three standard categories of urban area (for simplicity the methodology uses main, secondary and minor urban area). The percentages working in each urban area were weighted through the use of multipliers. The multipliers allowed for the increasing urbanisation of different sized urban areas. For example, the percentage of rural people working in a main urban area had double the impact of the same percentage working in a minor urban area. This weighting acknowledges the impact that a large urban centre has on its surrounding area. It is also consistent with other methodology, such as the Ministry of Education’s isolation index. The weighting ensures that, for example, rural areas surrounding the secondary [sic: see box below] urban area of Gore are acknowledged as being very different from rural areas outside the main urban area of Christchurch (the latter would be included in the category rural area with high urban influence).

This schema produced four categories of rural areas:

• Rural area with high urban influence • Rural area with moderate urban influence • Rural area with low urban influence • High rural/remote area.

The problem with using this schema is that while maps for the 2001 census are available for all regions showing which areas are in which category, it is not possible to allocate data to the mapped areas (as can be done by simply using area units). Also, Statistics NZ’s own analysis is for the whole of New Zealand and is not available for territorial authorities or other data aggregations. Nor has the data been updated since 2001.

CAVEAT

Numbers and proportions are very inexact when dealing with small data sets. Not only are many data sets incomplete due to people not filling in their census questionnaires, or only partially or inaccurately filling in their questionnaires (for whatever reason), but the data may not be included in tables for confidentiality reasons. In addition, all census data is rounded by up to + or – 3. This means that depending on which data set is used to extract census information, there may be discrepancies between the numbers by +/- 6. For example, in one table an area may be said to have 78 people over the age of 65 years, while a different table may give the figure as 84 people in this age bracket. While this is not an issue in large centres, in small area units it can make an appreciable difference to the perception of a trend. For this reason, decimal points are not used, and data sets must be read and seen only as broad indications of trends.

A further issue is that where Statistics NZ defines locations based on meshblock data, the count may be different from that when area units are used. For example, in the 1990s Gore would have been a secondary urban area on meshblock data, but not in terms of the five area units used in this analysis. (As at the 2013 census, Gore had 9,552 people according to the Statistics NZ meshblock count, but only 7,353 people when the five area units are aggregated).

Map 2.1 shows the locations of the ten study areas, and changes in population size of all New Zealand territorial authorities between the 2001 and 2013 censuses.

MAP 2.1: Population change territorial authorities 2001-2013 (Source: Garden and Nel 2016) with the locations of the territorial authorities

Waitomo

Taranaki TAs

Central Hawke’s Bay

South Wairarapa

Hurunui

Waimakariri

Gore

Southland

The advantage of using area units rather than meshblock data, is that for the most part area units are large enough to overcome data confidentiality issues (see box above). It is also relatively simple to aggregate the area units which make up minor urban areas, and to extract those which make up secondary or larger urban areas. In addition, Statistics NZ provides easily accessed maps of the area units in each territorial authority enabling a visual understanding of their locations relative to each level of settlement.

Unless otherwise referenced, the data used in this study is derived through Statistics New Zealand’s table building tool NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx) for the 2013 census, using 2013 census boundaries for the area units.

Data in each graph is presented in order of population size, from the smallest at the top, to the largest at the base. Taranaki locations are capitalised (in the graphs).

Area unit location maps

Maps of the area units of the ten territorial authorities have been extracted from Statistics NZ’s Geographic Boundary Viewer 2013 http://www.stats.govt.nz/StatsMaps/Home/Boundaries.aspx (see maps 2.2 to 2.9). Names of minor urban area units are in bold font and underlined, while rural centres are in bold. Named settlements that are larger than minor urban areas are in bold font and capitalised.

• Waitomo (Map 2.3) is more or less equidistant from two major centres. Its northern border is around an hour by car to Hamilton, and its southern border around one hour from New Plymouth (which means Te Kuiti is about two hours north of New Plymouth).

• Central Hawke’s Bay (CHB)’s (Map 2.4) northern border is about half an hour by car south of Hastings, and it is a further hour or so to the southern end of the district. The southern part of the district (Porangahau) is two hours from Palmerston North to the south-west.

• While South Wairarapa (Map 2.5) is around one hour north-west of Wellington, its access is across the Rimutaka mountain range (the road is narrow and subject to high winds), or via a commuter train. Its east and south coast settlements are two or more hours away from Wellington city.

• Amberley, at the southern edge of Hurunui (Map 2.6), is about half an hour north of Christchurch, while Hanmer Springs is a further hour north of Amberley. Lake Sumner (within the Southern Alps) is two and a half hours north-west of Christchurch.

• Waimakariri (Map 2.7) borders Christchurch but is accessed via bridges across the Waimakariri River: two on the coast, and one inland (north of Sheffield). The area units which make up the minor urban areas of Kaiapoi and Woodend are very close to the coastal bridges and are effectively suburbs of Christchurch. Woodend consists of three area units: Ravenswood, Woodend and Woodend West. Located 17 kilometres north of the centre of Christchurch city, Kaiapoi consists of eight area units: Silverstream, Kaiapoi North West, Kaiapoi North East, Kaiapoi West, Kaiapoi East, Kaiapoi South, Mansfield and Courtney. In 2013 Kaiapoi had a population of 9,252 down from its 2006 population of 10,437 due to the 2010 earthquake which necessitated demolition of many houses and the out- migration of people from Kaiapoi East and Courtney. Although the area units in the northern part of Kaiapoi have grown, this has not matched the halving of the Kaiapoi East and Courtney populations. Because Statistics NZ regards Kaiapoi as a satellite town of Christchurch, it includes Kaiapoi as part of Christchurch urban area for statistical purposes (despite correctly listing it within Waimakariri Territorial Authority’s dataset), so it is not included in Statistics NZ’s list of minor urban areas.

Meanwhile, Pegasus district has profited from the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquakes and has shot up from 33 people in 2006 to 1050 people in 2013, placing it in the minor urban category in 2013. Lake Pearson, a tiny settlement to the north-west in Okuku, is just over one and a half hours from Christchurch.

• Gore (Map 2.8): Gore MUA (which is larger than Waitara but smaller than Hawera) is made up of five area units: North, East, Central, West and South. Gore MUA is just under an hour from Invercargill (a city of around the same size as New Plymouth).

Map 2.2 Area units Taranaki’s three territorial authorities

Okoki-Okau Urenui

Lepperton Waitara

NEW PLYMOUTH

Egmont Village

Okato Whangamomona Kaimata

Kaitake Inglewood

Douglas Midhirst

Rahotu Toko Pembroke Stratford

Kahui Mangatoki-Moeroa

Kapuni Ohangai Whenuakura Opunake

Manaia Makakaho Kaponga

Patea Okaiawa Tawhiti Waverley

Normanby Hawera Waitotara

Waingongoro Ohawe Beach Eltham WHANGANUI

Taharoa Map 2.3 Waitomo area units

Te Kuiti Marokopa

Pio Pio Waipa Valley

Mokauiti Tiroa Mahoenu i

Map 2.4 Central Hawke’s Bay area units

Tikokino

Waipawa Otane

Takapau

Waipukurau

Elsthorpe-Flemington

Porangahau

Map 2.5 South Wairarapa area units

Greytown

Featherston

Martinborough

Kahutara

Tuturumuri

Map 2.6 Hurunui area Lake Tennyson units

Hanmer Springs

Waiau Amuri

Parnassus Culverden

Cheviot Hurunui

Leithfield Amberley

Map 2.7 Waimakariri area units

Okuku Loburn

RANGIORA Sefton

Ashley Coldstream

Mairaki Waikuku Ashley Gorge Cust Woodend

Oxford Pegasus Fernside Woodend Beach

West Eyreton Tuahiwi Camside

Eyrewell Pines-Kairaki Beach Kaiapoi

Clarkville Mandeville Ohoka

Map 2.8 Gore area units

Chatton

Charlton Gore

Kaiwera

Mataura

Map 2.9 Southland area units

Milford

Nightcaps

Mararoa River

Te Anau Manapouri Waikaia

Mossburn

Balfour Fiordland Wairio Riversdale

Kaweku Ohai

Te Waewae Hokonui Makarewa North

Tuatapere Dacre Edendale

Wyndham Otautau Fairfax Riverton INVERCARGILL Woodlands Winton Toetoes Waianiwa Wallacetown Waituna

• Southland (Map 2.9) surrounds Invercargill territorial authority and city. Its most distant area unit is Milford to the north-west, three and a half hours from Invercargill by car. Riverton minor urban area is made up of two area units: Riverton East and Riverton West. Because they are only accessible by sea or air, offshore islands such as Steward Island (while part of Southland) have also been excluded from this analysis. While Makarewa North is effectively a suburb of Invercargill, it closely resembles Mandeville in Waimakariri TA with its myriad small lifestyle blocks. The area units of Fordland (Southland, Map 2.9), Ravenswood (north of Woodend, Waimakariri, Map 2.7), Camside (east of Kaiapoi, Waimakariri, Map 2.7), and Lake Tennyson (Hurunui, Map 2.6) have generally been excluded due to their tiny usually resident populations (12, 12, 27 and 0 respectively in 2013). For privacy reasons, Statistics NZ rightly does not provide data, other than population counts, for such small area units. Inlets and inland waterways are also excluded for this reason.

Chapter 3: Population change in the ten study areas

As background to the ten areas studied in this report, Map 3.1 shows provides an overview of the location and size of New Zealand’s urban centres. These strongly impact on the employment opportunities of, and service delivery to, the people living in their rural catchments.

MAP 3.1: Location of New Zealand’s main urban centres

From New Zealand in profile: 2015 http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-in- profile-2015/population.aspx

Map 3.2 summarises the change in population which has occurred across all settlement types between the 2001 and 2013 censuses.

Map 3.2: Population change in urban and rural centres and territorial authorities 2001-13 (Source: Garden and Nel, 2016)

MINOR URBAN AREAS (MUAs)

Fig 3.1 Usually resident population minor urban areas

Pegasus PATEA Riverton Martinborou… Mataura Amberley Oxford Te Anau OPUNAKE ElTHAM Waipawa 2013 Greytown 2006 Winton 2001 1996 Featherston Woodend INGLEWOOD Waipukurau Te Kuiti STRATFORD WAITARA Gore HAWERA Kaiapoi

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

The minor urban areas in each graph are ordered from the smallest to largest. In 2013, Taranaki’s minor urban areas (listed in capital letters, Fig 3.1) were of similar (variable) size compared to those from other territorial authorities in this study. Around 40% of the minor urban areas in this study were around 2,000 people. Kaiapoi, Hawera and Gore were the largest with over 7,000 people each. Kaiapoi’s former growth was cut off by the 2010 earthquake, when people either chose, or had, to move elsewhere. Eleven (48%) of the 23 minor urban areas in this study had fewer people than in 1996 (but several while still below their 1996 level, had gained population since 2001). Two were static and ten grew (including Pegasus which experienced exponential growth due to the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquakes). Four of the growing minor urban areas are in North Canterbury, part of Christchurch’s commuter-belt.

RURAL CENTRES

The population of several of the rural centres analysed here (Fig 3.2) fall below the threshold of 300 people. These include Midhurst and Waitotara in Taranaki, Waiau in North Canterbury (Hurunui), and Manapouri and Balfour in Southland. They are included here because they are small discrete area units made up of houses, some commercial and public premises (schools, shops, pubs), but very little open countryside (and probably historically met the threshold definition).

Fig 3.2 Usually resident population rural centres

WAITOTARA Balfour Community Manapouri MIDHURST Waiau Nightcaps Ohai KAPONGA Cheviot Riversdale Community Piopio Lumsden Community Culverden 2013 URENUI 2006 Takapau 2001 Wyndham 1996 Otane Edendale Community Tuatapere OKATO Wallacetown Otautau WAVERLEY Hanmer Springs NORMANBY Waikuku MANAIA

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Around 63 percent of the 27 rural centres in this study had a population of 400 or more people in 2013. (Less than half of the centres had a population over 500 people). Nineteen (70%) of the rural centres lost people after 1996 (though two of these grew after 2001, but are not yet back to 1996 numbers).

Taranaki’s industrial rural centres had the largest population in the rural centre range, followed by the Southland rural centres which were former industrial centres. The tourist town of Hanmer Springs, followed by Waikuku (coastal Waimakariri) had the strongest consistent growth since the 1996 census.

RURAL DISTRICTS

Rural districts are area units outside centres of 300 or more population. They are predominantly open countryside, although some have small population settlements (e.g. Egmont Village, Porangahau, Cust). Of the 71 districts in this study, 38 (54%) grew and 33 (46%) declined between 1996 and 2013.

Fig 3.3a Usually resident population North Island rural districts

W = Waitomo Tiroa W CHB = Central Hawke's Bay WHANGAMOMONA SW = South Wairarapa Porangahau CHB Taranaki districts are capitalised Taharoa W RAHOTU Tuturumuri SW WAINGONGORO Mahoenui W OKAIAWA OHANGAI EGMONT VILLAGE OHAWE BEACH TAWHITI DOUGLAS 2013 MAKAKAHO 2006 Mokauiti W 2001 Waipa Valley W 1996 WHENUAKURA TOKO PEMBROKE KAPUNI Marokopa W MANGATOKI-MOEROA OKOKI-OKAU LEPPERTON KAHUI Tikokino CHB KAIMATA KAITAKE Elsthorpe-Flemington CHB Kahutara SW

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Fig 3.3b Usually resident population South Island rural districts

Milford S H = Hurunui Mossburn S W =Waimakariri Woodlands S G = Gore Makarewa North S S = Southland Cust W Pines-Kairaki Beach W Mairaki W Woodend Beach W Coldstream W Kaweku S Sefton W Okuku W Charlton G Kaiwera G Parnassus H Wairio S Ashley W Ohoka W Tuahiwi W 2013 Clarkville W 2006 West Eyreton W 2001 Eyrewell W 1996 Te Waewae S Mararoa River S Dacre S Amuri H Toetoes S Chatton G Waikaia S Waituna S Ashley Gorge W Fernside W Fairfax S Waianiwa S Loburn W Mandeville W Hurunui H Leithfield H Hokonui S

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Figures 3.4 and 3.5a & b show the impact of tourism. In these snap shot pictures, comparing a March census night population with those usually resident, Hanmer Springs, Te Anau and Milford are supporting very much larger populations than that suggested by their rating-base. 19

Fig 3.4 Usually resident compared with census night populations in the study area's rural centres and minor urban areas, 2013

WAITOTARA Balfour Community Manapouri MIDHURST Waiau Nightcaps Ohai KAPONGA Cheviot Riversdale Community Piopio Lumsden Community Culverden URENUI Takapau Wyndham Otane Edendale Community Tuatapere OKATO Wallacetown Otautau WAVERLEY Hanmer Springs NORMANBY Waikuku MANAIA Pegasus PATEA Riverton Martinborough Mataura Amberley Oxford Te Anau OPUNAKE ElTHAM Waipawa Greytown Winton Featherston Woodend INGLEWOOD Waipukurau Te Kuiti STRATFORD WAITARA Gore HAWERA Kaiapoi 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

census night population usually resident population

While the March census date may not be the best indicator of tourist numbers the population structure of tourist hot spots may be somewhat different to that suggested by the resident population structure. Tourist hot spots are obvious among the minor urban areas and rural centres, but are less so in rural districts.

Fig 3.5a North Island rural districts, census night compared with usually resident population, 2013

Tiroa W WHANGAMOMONA Porangahau CHB Taharoa W RAHOTU Tuturumuri SW WAINGONGORO Mahoenui W OKAIAWA OHANGAI EGMONT VILLAGE OHAWE BEACH TAWHITI DOUGLAS MAKAKAHO Mokauiti W Waipa Valley W WHENUAKURA TOKO PEMBROKE KAPUNI Marokopa W MANGATOKI-MOEROA OKOKI-OKAU LEPPERTON KAHUI Tikokino CHB KAIMATA KAITAKE Elsthorpe-Flemington CHB Kahutara SW

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

census night population usually resident population

With the exception of Milford (which, while covering a very large area, has its population predominantly located at the head of the fjord, and is to all intents and purposes a rural centre), it is not obvious why there were large transient populations at the March census date in some of the rural districts such as Tikokino (Central Hawkes Bay) and Marokopa (Waitomo) in the North Island or, in the South Island, Mararoa River (Southland) and Amuri (Hurunui). Mararoa River does attract tourists who are keen fishers. Fiordland had

21 a usually resident population of 12 in 2013, but some 87 people worked there, and the area also attracts tourists (as can be seen in Fig 3.5b. Its numbers were too small to be graphed in Fig 3.8b).

Fig 3.5b South Island rural districts, census night compared with usually resident population, 2013

Fiordland S Milford S Mossburn S Woodlands S Makarewa North S Cust W Pines-Kairaki Beach W Mairaki W Woodend Beach W Coldstream W Kaweku S Sefton W Okuku W Charlton G Kaiwera G Parnassus H Wairio S Ashley W Ohoka W Tuahiwi W Clarkville W West Eyreton W Eyrewell W Te Waewae S Mararoa River S Dacre S Amuri H Toetoes S Chatton G Waikaia S Waituna S Ashley Gorge W Fernside W Fairfax S Waianiwa S Loburn W Mandeville W Hurunui H Leithfield H Hokonui S

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

census night population usually resident population

Fig 3.6 Number of employed people resident Fig 3.7 Number employed people in minor urban areas compared to the number resident in rural centres compared of people working there, 2013 to nos. working there, 2013

Pegasus Balfour Manapouri PATEA MIDHURST Riverton Waiau Martinborough Nightcaps Mataura Ohai Amberley KAPONGA Oxford Cheviot Te Anau Riversdale OPUNAKE Piopio ElTHAM Lumsden Culverden Waipawa URENUI Greytown Takapau Winton Wyndham Featherston Otane Woodend Edendale INGLEWOOD Tuatapere Waipukurau OKATO Te Kuiti Wallacetown STRATFORD Otautau WAVERLEY WAITARA Hanmer… Gore NORMANBY HAWERA Waikuku Kaiapoi MANAIA

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 200 400 600 Number of workers LIVING in area unit Number of workers LIVING in area unit Number of people WORKING in area unit Number of people WORKING in area unit

The set of graphs at Fig 3.6, 3.7, 3.8a & b show marked discrepancies between the numbers of employed people who live in each rural area unit and the numbers who work there. For the most part, more people leave the minor urban and rural centres to work elsewhere, than work in these centres. Of the 49 centres, 39 centres (80%) can be regarded as commuter towns with 15 of these having over half their workers going elsewhere to work (usually to a nearby main urban area). Three minor urban areas and two rural centres had the same numbers of people working in the area as lived there, while four centres and one minor urban area attracted workers. These were Eltham (cheese factory, South Taranaki), Cheviot and Culverden (small tourist/ State Highway food stops in Hurunui), Edendale (milk processing and cheese factory, Southland) and Nightcaps (a former coal mining centre now a State Highway food stop, also in Southland).

Figures 3.8a & b show that residents of many rural districts also commute elsewhere to work. Almost 80% of the 71 districts have more employed people living in the area unit than work there, which means a lot of people are commuting to work elsewhere. Nine districts attracted workers. These are (in Taranaki) Ohawe Beach (Fonterra, 23 milk processing plant), Tawhiti (which has a strong manufacturing and utilities base), Kapuni (on-shore oil and gas industry) and Makakaho (logging/tourism?); also, Tikokino in CHB, Tiroa and Waipa Valley in Waitomo, Charlton in Gore district, and Waianiwa in Southland. Around six districts are in equilibrium with more or less equivalent numbers working in the area as are resident. They include Milford and Mossburn (Southland), Taharoa (Waitomo), Porangahau (CHB), Rahotu and Whangamomona in Taranaki.

Fig 3.8a Number of employed people Fig 3.8b Numbers of employed people resident North Island rural districts resident South Island rural districts compared to nos. working there, 2013 compared to nos. working there, 2013

Tiroa W Milford S WHANGAMOMONA Mossburn S Woodlands S Porangahau CHB Makarewa North S Taharoa W Cust W RAHOTU Pines-Kairaki Beach W Tuturumuri SW Mairaki W Woodend Beach W WAINGONGORO Coldstream W Mahoenui W Kaweku S OKAIAWA Sefton W OKATO Okuku W OHANGAI Charlton G Kaiwera G EGMONT VILLAGE Parnassus H OHAWE BEACH Wairio S TAWHITI Ashley W DOUGLAS Ohoka W MAKAKAHO Tuahiwi W Clarkville W Mokauiti W West Eyreton W Waipa Valley W Eyrewell W WHENUAKURA Te Waewae S TOKO Mararoa River S Dacre S PEMBROKE Amuri H KAPUNI Toetoes S Marokopa W Chatton G MANGATOKI-MOEROA Waikaia S OKOKI-OKAU Waituna S Ashley Gorge W LEPPERTON Fernside W KAHUI Fairfax S Tikokino CHB Waianiwa S KAIMATA Loburn W Mandeville W KAITAKE Hurunui H Elsthorpe-Flemington… Leithfield H Kahutara SW Hokonui S 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Number of workers LIVING in area unit Number of workers LIVING in area unit Number of people WORKING in area unit Number of people WORKING in area unit

Chapter 4: Age Structure

Except for Te Kuiti (which had a, comparatively, very youthful median age of 36 years), the median age of people living in minor urban areas was over 39 years in 2013. The median of all the median ages of the minor urban areas was 43.2 years. The median age of the rural centres was also predominantly over 39 years (78% of centres), while the median of all rural centres’ median ages was 40.9 years (Figures 4.1a and b). on the other hand, tended to be younger, with Fig 4.1a Median age in years, usually Fig 4.1b Median age in years, usually only 5 resident population minor urban areas resident population rural centres 2013 2013 WAITOTARA Pegasus Balfour PATEA Manapouri Riverton MIDHURST Martinborough Waiau Nightcaps Mataura Ohai Amberley KAPONGA Oxford Cheviot Te Anau Riversdale OPUNAKE Piopio ElTHAM Lumsden Waipawa Culverden URENUI Greytown Takapau Winton Wyndham Featherston Otane Woodend Edendale INGLEWOOD Tuatapere Waipukurau OKATO Te Kuiti Wallacetown Otautau STRATFORD WAVERLEY WAITARA Hanmer Springs Gore NORMANBY HAWERA Waikuku Kaiapoi MANAIA

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Median age Median age

The median age of those living in rural districts was younger than the centres, with 51 percent of the districts having a median age under 40 years (the median of the district medians was 39.8 years). Figure 4.1 c. and d. shows that despite the relative youthfulness of the rural districts, two had medians over 50 years: Clarkville in Waimakariri and Porangahau in Central Hawke’s Bay. The latter has characteristics of a rural centre whilst the former is in the overspill area of Kaiapoi.

Figure 4.2a shows Cheviot and Amberley in Hurunui territorial authority have the highest proportion of people in the 65+ years age group, followed by Greytown (South Wairarapa) and Winton (Southland).

Fig 4.1c Median age in years, usually Fig 4.1d Median age in years, usually resident pop North Island rural resident pop South Island rural districts, 2013 districts, 2013

Tiroa W Milford S WHANGAMOMONA Mossburn S Woodlands S Porangahau CHB Makarewa North S Taharoa W Cust W RAHOTU Pines-Kairaki Beach W Mairaki W Tuturumuri SW Woodend Beach W WAINGONGORO Coldstream W Mahoenui W Kaweku S OKAIAWA Sefton W Okuku W OHANGAI Charlton G EGMONT VILLAGE Kaiwera G OHAWE BEACH Parnassus H TAWHITI Wairio S Ashley W DOUGLAS Ohoka W MAKAKAHO Tuahiwi W Mokauiti W Clarkville W Waipa Valley W West Eyreton W Eyrewell W WHENUAKURA Te Waewae S TOKO Mararoa River S PEMBROKE Dacre S KAPUNI Amuri H Toetoes S Marokopa W Chatton G MANGATOKI-MOEROA Waikaia S OKOKI-OKAU Waituna S Ashley Gorge W LEPPERTON Fernside W KAHUI Fairfax S Tikokino CHB Waianiwa S KAIMATA Loburn W Mandeville W KAITAKE Hurunui H Elsthorpe-Flemington… Leithfield H Kahutara SW Hokonui S

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Median age (years) Median age

Minor urban areas and centres with a high proportion of children include Balfour and Ohai (Southland), Okato, Normanby, Manaia, and Kaponga (Taranaki), Takapau (Central Hawke’s Bay), Pegasus (Waimakariri), and Te Kuiti (Waitomo) (Fig 4.2a).

Fig 4.2a Age profile usually resident population rural centres and minor urban areas, 2013

WAITOTARA Balfour Comty Manapouri MIDHURST Waiau Nightcaps Ohai KAPONGA Cheviot Riversdale Comty Piopio Lumsden Comty Culverden URENUI Takapau Wyndham Otane Edendale Comty Tuatapere OKATO Wallacetown Otautau WAVERLEY Hanmer Springs NORMANBY 0-14 yrs Waikuku 15-64 yrs MANAIA Pegasus 65+ yrs PATEA Riverton Martinborough Mataura Amberley Oxford Te Anau OPUNAKE ElTHAM Waipawa Greytown Winton Featherston Woodend INGLEWOOD Waipukurau Te Kuiti STRATFORD WAITARA Gore HAWERA Kaiapoi 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

As would be expected from the median age data, a consistent key difference in the age profile between centres and districts is the proportion of people in the 65+ year’s age group. Centres have more, while rural districts fewer, people in this group. 27

Likewise while the minor urban areas and rural Fig 4.2c Age profile usually resident centres tend to have relatively few children 0-14 population South Island years (only 44% of the MUAs and rural centres have rural districts, 2013 more than 20% of their population in the age group Milford S 0-14 years), most districts have a high proportion of Mossburn S children (72% of rural districts). Interestingly, 80 Woodlands S percent of the North Island districts have over 20 Makarewa… percent of their population in the 0-14 years’ Cust W category Fig 4.2b Age profile usually resident Pines-Kairaki… population North Island Mairaki W rural districts, 2013 Woodend… Coldstream W WHANGAMOMONA Kaweku S Porangahau CHB Sefton W Taharoa W Okuku W RAHOTU Charlton G Tuturumuri SW Kaiwera G WAINGONGORO Parnassus H Mahoenui W Wairio S OKAIAWA Ashley W OHANGAI Ohoka W EGMONT VILLAGE Tuahiwi W OHAWE BEACH Clarkville W TAWHITI West Eyreton… DOUGLAS Eyrewell W MAKAKAHO Te Waewae S Mokauiti W Mararoa River S Waipa Valley W Dacre S WHENUAKURA Amuri H TOKO Toetoes S PEMBROKE Chatton G KAPUNI Waikaia S Marokopa W Waituna S MANGATOKI-MOEROA Ashley Gorge W OKOKI-OKAU Fernside W LEPPERTON Fairfax S KAHUI Waianiwa S Tikokino CHB Loburn W KAIMATA Mandeville W KAITAKE Hurunui H Elsthorpe-Flemington CHB Leithfield H Kahutara SW Hokonui S

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0-14 yrs 15-64 yrs 65+ yrs 0-14 yrs 15-64 yrs 65+ yrs

category (Fig 4.2b. and c.). The proportion of children falls below 20% in the same places where there are more elderly people: Porangahau (CHB) and Clarkville, but also Pines-Kairaki Beach (mostly red-zoned post the 2010 earthquake), Woodend Beach and Cust (all in Waimakariri), while Milford has only working age people. 28

Chapter 5: Employment, labour force and occupation

Occupational structure

Figure 5.1 shows labourers form the largest single group within the various occupations of people living in minor urban areas (MUAs), followed by technicians/trade workers, professionals and managers.

Fig 5.1 Occupational structure usually resident employed population 15+yrs minor urban areas, 2013

Pegasus PATEA Riverton Martinborough Mataura Managers Amberley

Oxford Professionals Te Anau Technicians and trades OPUNAKE workers ElTHAM Community and personal Waipawa service workers Greytown Clerical and administrative workers Winton Sales workers Featherston Woodend Machinery operators and INGLEWOOD drivers Waipukurau Labourers Te Kuiti Not elsewhere included STRATFORD WAITARA Gore HAWERA Kaiapoi

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The occupational structure of the rural centres (Fig 5.2) is similar to that of the MUAs (Fig 5.1), with labourers dominating. This occupation is even more important in rural centres than MUAs reflecting the dominance of manufacturing in rural centres (see Chapter 6 below). Other key occupations in the rural centres are managers, technicians/trade workers and then professionals. The smallest proportion of workers in the rural centres is in sales, whereas the smallest group in MUAs is machinery operators and drivers. This is most clearly presented in the summary of occupations by settlement type, Figure 5.4.

Figures 5.2 and 5.4 show that machinery operators and drivers tend to live in the rural centres, a reflection both of the location of industries which employ those workers as well as being the residence of self employed heavy equipment operators and freight haulers (such as sheep truck drivers) who provide services in the rural districts.

Fig 5.2 Occupational structure usually resident employed population 15+yrs rural centres, 2013

WAITOTARA Balfour Com Manapouri MIDHURST Waiau Nightcaps Ohai Managers KAPONGA Cheviot Professionals Riversdale Com Technicians and trades Piopio workers Lumsden Com Community and personal Culverden service workers URENUI Clerical and administrative workers Takapau Sales workers Wyndham Otane Machinery operators and Edendale Com drivers Tuatapere Labourers OKATO Not elsewhere included Wallacetown Otautau WAVERLEY Hanmer Springs NORMANBY Waikuku MANAIA

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

In contrast to MUAs and centres, the dominant occupation of people living in rural districts (Figures 5.3a and b, and also Fig 5.4) is manager. This category includes farmers and farm managers. The next major occupational grouping is labourers, then professionals and technicians/trades workers.

The smallest occupational groupings in rural districts are: sales workers, machinery operators and drivers, and community and personal service workers (see also Fig 5.4).

FIg 5.3a Occupational structure usually resident employed population 15+yrs, North Island rural districts, 2013

Tiroa W

WHANGAMOMONA W = Waitomo Porangahau CHB CHB = Central Hawke's Bay Taharoa W SW = South Wairarapa RAHOTU Taranaki districts are Tuturumuri SW capitalised WAINGONGORO

Mahoenui W

OKAIAWA

OKATO Managers

OHANGAI

EGMONT VILLAGE Professionals

OHAWE BEACH Technicians and trades TAWHITI workers DOUGLAS Community and personal MAKAKAHO service workers Mokauiti W Clerical and Waipa Valley W administrative workers WHENUAKURA Sales workers TOKO

PEMBROKE Machinery operators and KAPUNI drivers Marokopa W Labourers MANGATOKI-…

OKOKI-OKAU Not elsewhere included LEPPERTON

KAHUI

Tikokino CHB

KAIMATA

KAITAKE

Elsthorpe-…

Kahutara SW

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fig 5.3b Occupational structure usually resident employed population 15+yrs, South Island rural districts, 2013

Milford S H =Hurunui Mossburn S W = Waimakariri G = Gore Woodlands S S = Southland Makarewa North S Cust W Pines-Kairaki… Mairaki W Woodend Beach W Managers Coldstream W Kaweku S Professionals Sefton W Okuku W Technicians and Charlton G trades workers Kaiwera G Parnassus H Community and personal service Wairio S workers Ashley W Clerical and Ohoka W administrative workers Tuahiwi W Sales workers Clarkville W West Eyreton W Machinery operators Eyrewell W and drivers Te Waewae S Mararoa River S Labourers Dacre S Amuri H Not elsewhere Toetoes S included Chatton G Waikaia S Waituna S Ashley Gorge W Fernside W Fairfax S Waianiwa S Loburn W Mandeville W Hurunui H Leithfield H Hokonui S

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fig 5.4 Comparison of occupational distribution 10 TAs by settlement type, 2013 100% Not elsewhere included 90% Labourers 80%

70% Machinery operators and drivers

60% Sales workers

50% Clerical and administrative 40% workers Community and personal service 30% workers Technicians and trades workers 20%

10% Professionals

0% Managers MUAs Rural centres Rural districts

Fig 5.5 Comparison of employment status by settlement type, 2013 100% 90% 80% Not stated 70% 60% Unpaid family worker 50% Self-employed, no employees 40% 30% Employer 20% 10% Paid employee 0% MUAs Rural centres Rural districts

Fig 5.6 Comparison of labour force status 10 TAs by settlement type, 2013 100% 90% Work and labour force status 80% unidentifiable 70% Not in the labour force 60% 50% Unemployed 40% 30% Employed part-time 20% 10% Employed full-time 0% MUA Rural centres Rural districts

Employment Status

Fig 5.7 Employment status usually resident population, 15+ yrs rural centres and minor urban areas, 2013

WAITOTARA Balfour Manapouri MIDHURST Waiau Nightcaps Ohai KAPONGA Cheviot Riversdale Piopio Lumsden Culverden URENUI Takapau Wyndham Otane Paid employee Edendale Tuatapere Employer OKATO Wallacetown Otautau Self-employed without WAVERLEY employees Hanmer Springs NORMANBY Unpaid family worker Waikuku MANAIA Pegasus Not stated PATEA Riverton Martinborough Mataura Amberley Oxford Te Anau OPUNAKE ElTHAM Waipawa Greytown Winton Featherston Woodend INGLEWOOD Waipukurau Te Kuiti STRATFORD WAITARA Gore HAWERA Kaiapoi 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

There is little difference in the employment status of those living in MUAs compared to those living Fig 5.8b Employment status usually res pop Sth Is rural districts, 2013 in rural centres (Fig 5.7): between 60% and 80% Milford S of working residents over 15 years living in MUA Mossburn S and rural centres of the ten TAs are employees. Woodlands S The exceptions are the work-forces of Greytown, Makarewa North S Martinborough, Hanmer Springs, Culverden, Cust W Pines-Kairaki Beach W xxxxx Fig 5.8a Employment status usually res Mairaki W pop Nth Is rural districts, 2013 Woodend Beach W Coldstream W Tiroa W Kaweku S WHANGAMOMONA Sefton W Porangahau CHB Okuku W Taharoa W Charlton G RAHOTU Kaiwera G Tuturumuri SW Parnassus H WAINGONGORO Wairio S Mahoenui W Ashley W OKAIAWA Ohoka W OHANGAI Tuahiwi W EGMONT VILLAGE Clarkville W OHAWE BEACH West Eyreton W TAWHITI Eyrewell W DOUGLAS Te Waewae S MAKAKAHO Mararoa River S Mokauiti W Waipa Valley W Dacre S WHENUAKURA Amuri H TOKO Toetoes S PEMBROKE Chatton G KAPUNI Waikaia S Marokopa W Waituna S MANGATOKI-MOEROA Ashley Gorge W OKOKI-OKAU Fernside W LEPPERTON Fairfax S KAHUI Waianiwa S Tikokino CHB Loburn W KAIMATA Mandeville W KAITAKE Hurunui H Elsthorpe-Flemington… Leithfield H Kahutara SW Hokonui S 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Paid employee Paid employee Employer Employer Self-employed, without employees Self-employed, without employees Unpaid family worker Unpaid family worker Not stated Not stated

Urenui, Balfour and Waitotara, which have a high proportion of employers/self-employed (between 25- 35%). (See discussion in Chapter 6 for possible reasons for this).

Rural districts have comparatively few employees (most have under 60% of their working residents over 15 years in this category), and more employers/self-employed (23% to 44%)(Fig 5.8a and b). The exceptions are districts adjacent to urban areas: Makarewa North (Invercargill), Pines-Kairaki Beach (Kaiapoi/Christchurch), Ohawe Beach (Hawera). Milford is itself effectively a rural centre, while workers from the small, remote Tiroa district (Waitomo) mostly commute elsewhere for work (see Fig 3.8a).

Labour force status

Fig 5.9 Labour force status usually resident population 15+ yrs rural centres and minor urban areas, 2013

WAITOTARA Balfour Manapouri MIDHURST Waiau Nightcaps Ohai KAPONGA Cheviot Riversdale Piopio Lumsden Culverden URENUI Takapau Wyndham Otane Edendale Tuatapere OKATO Wallacetown Employed full-time Otautau WAVERLEY Hanmer Springs Employed part-time NORMANBY Waikuku Unemployed MANAIA Pegasus PATEA Not in the labour force Riverton Martinborough Mataura Work and labour force status Amberley unidentifiable Oxford Te Anau OPUNAKE ElTHAM Waipawa Greytown Winton Featherston Woodend INGLEWOOD Waipukurau Te Kuiti STRATFORD WAITARA Gore HAWERA Kaiapoi

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The labour force status of people over 15 years living in minor urban areas and rural centres are very similar - but not identical (Figs 5.6 and 5.9). Most people are employed full time, but MUAs have slightly fewer 36

full-time workers compared to rural centres, and more people in the category ‘Not in the Fig 5.10b Labour force status usually labour force’. Rural districts (Figs 5.6, 5.10a resident population 15+yrs South Island rural districts, 2013 and b) have the highest proportion of full-time

workers (predominantly over 50% of Milford S employed residents over 15 years) and the Mossburn S fewest ‘not in the labour force’ (mostly below Woodlands S 25%). Porangahau (Central Hawke’s Bay) and Makarewa North S Cust W Fig 5.10a Labour force status usually Pines-Kairaki Beach W resident population 15 yrs+ North Mairaki W Island rural districts, 2013 Woodend Beach W Coldstream W WHANGAMOMONA Kaweku S Porangahau CHB Sefton W Taharoa W Okuku W RAHOTU Charlton G Tuturumuri SW Kaiwera G WAINGONGORO Parnassus H Mahoenui W Wairio S OKAIAWA Ashley W OHANGAI Ohoka W EGMONT VILLAGE Tuahiwi W OHAWE BEACH Clarkville W TAWHITI West Eyreton W DOUGLAS Eyrewell W MAKAKAHO Te Waewae S Mokauiti W Mararoa River S Waipa Valley W Dacre S WHENUAKURA Amuri H TOKO Toetoes S PEMBROKE Chatton G KAPUNI Waikaia S Marokopa W Waituna S MANGATOKI-MOEROA Ashley Gorge W OKOKI-OKAU Fernside W LEPPERTON Fairfax S Waianiwa S KAHUI Loburn W Tikokino CHB Mandeville W KAIMATA Hurunui H KAITAKE Leithfield H Elsthorpe-Flemington CHB Hokonui S Kahutara SW 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Employed full-time Employed full-time Employed part-time Employed part-time Unemployed Unemployed Not in the labour force Not in the labour force Work and labour force status unidentifiable Work and labour force status unidentifiable

Rahotu (South Taranaki) both have larger proportions of their resident populations who are not in the labour force. As noted previously, this is because these area units are small and contain village-like communities which have many of the characteristics of rural centres.

Chapter 6: Industry

Fig 6.1 Industry of usually resident employed population 15+ yrs comparing settlement types, ten TAs, 2013 100% 90% Not elsewhere included 80% Arts, recr & other serives

70% Govt services (public admin, safety, health, educ)

60% Admin & support services

50% Professional, scientific, technical services 40% Financial & business services 30% Transport & communication services 20% Trade, accommodation & food services 10% SECONDARY 0% MUAs Rural centres Rural districts PRIMARY

Fig 6.2 Industry of employed usually resident population 15+yrs living in minor urban areas, 2013

Pegasus PATEA Riverton Martinborough Mataura PRIMARY

Amberley SECONDARY Oxford Te Anau Trade, accommodation & OPUNAKE food services Transport & communication ElTHAM services Waipawa Financial & business services Greytown Winton Professional, scientific, technical services Featherston Admin & support services Woodend INGLEWOOD Govt services (public admin, Waipukurau safety, health, educ) Arts, recr & other serives Te Kuiti STRATFORD Not elsewhere included WAITARA Gore HAWERA Kaiapoi

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figures 6.1 and 6.2 show that primary industry is of little significance for people living in the minor urban areas of the ten territorial authorities, and is only important for people living in a few of the rural centres: Ohai, Balfour and to a lesser extent Waiau, Tuatapere, Culverden and Riversdale (Fig 6.3).

Fig 6.3 Industry of employed usually resident population 15+yrs living in rural centres, 2013

WAITOTARA PRIMARY Balfour Manapouri MIDHURST SECONDARY Waiau

Nightcaps Trade, accommodation & Ohai food services KAPONGA Transport & communication Cheviot services Riversdale Piopio Financial & business Lumsden services Culverden Professional, scientific, URENUI technical services Takapau Wyndham Admin & support services Otane Edendale Govt services (public admin, Tuatapere safety, health, educ) OKATO Arts, recr & other serives Wallacetown Otautau WAVERLEY Not elsewhere included Hanmer Springs NORMANBY Waikuku MANAIA

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Instead, residents of minor urban and rural centres are predominantly engaged in secondary industry, trade accommodation and food services, and government services. Secondary industry, is however, predominantly manufacturing based on primary production. It is especially critical (over 40% of the employed usually resident population) in Eltham, South Taranaki (dairy and meat processing); Mataura, Gore (meat processing and fibreboard manufacture); Takapau, Central Hawke’s Bay (meat processing); Manaia, South Taranaki (export bakery); and Waitotara, South Taranaki (meat processing).

Those currently engaged in agriculture in Ohai (a former coal mining town) are likely to be involved in shearing or dairy farming. Balfour community is based on agriculture: sheep, beef, deer and dairying.

While the food and accommodation sector is particularly important in Te Anau, Manapouri and Hanmer Springs, the sector features in all minor urban and rural centres. Government services are also important with most of those working in this sector (and living in minor urban and rural centres) engaged in health and educational services.

Surprisingly, Figures 6.4a and b show that even in some rural districts fewer than half of the usually resident employed population is engaged in primary industry. Proximity to an urban location has a significant impact on the industry participation of employed people living in rural districts. Primary industry predominates in the districts that are furthest from urban areas. Secondary industries, followed by the service industries, are strong in rural districts neighbouring (or within commuting distance) of urban centres. Thus, districts

Fig 6.4a Industry of employed population 15+ yrs usually resident in North Island rural districts CHB = Central Tiroa W Hawke's Bay WHANGAMOMONA SW = South Porangahau CHB Wairarapa W = Waitomo Taharoa W Taranaki districts RAHOTU are capitalised Tuturumuri SW WAINGONGORO PRIMARY Mahoenui W

OKAIAWA SECONDARY OHANGAI EGMONT VILLAGE Trade, OHAWE BEACH accommodation & TAWHITI food services DOUGLAS Transport & MAKAKAHO communication services Mokauiti W Financial & business Waipa Valley W services WHENUAKURA TOKO Professional, PEMBROKE scientific, technical services KAPUNI Admin & support Marokopa W services MANGATOKI-MOEROA OKOKI-OKAU Govt services (public admin, safety, LEPPERTON health, educ) KAHUI Arts, recr & other Tikokino CHB serives KAIMATA KAITAKE Not elsewhere included Elsthorpe-Flemington… Kahutara SW

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fig 6.4b Industry of employed population 15+ yrs usually resident in South Island rural districts

Milford S H = Hurunui Mossburn S W= Waimakariri Woodlands S G = Gore Makarewa North S S = Southland Cust W Pines-Kairaki… Mairaki W PRIMARY Woodend Beach W Coldstream W Kaweku S SECONDARY Sefton W Okuku W Charlton G Trade, accommodation & Kaiwera G food services Parnassus H Wairio S Transport & Ashley W communication services Ohoka W Tuahiwi W Financial & Clarkville W business services West Eyreton W Eyrewell W Professional, Te Waewae S scientific, technical services Mararoa River S Dacre S Admin & support Amuri H services Toetoes S Chatton G Govt services Waikaia S (public admin, Waituna S safety, health, educ) Ashley Gorge W Arts, recr & other Fernside W serives Fairfax S Waianiwa S Not elsewhere Loburn W included Mandeville W Hurunui H Leithfield H Hokonui S

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

where fewer than 20% of the usually resident employed population 15+ years is engaged in primary industry include Egmont Village, and two of the three districts surrounding Hawera (Tawhiti and Ohawe Beach), while those in the South Island are all in Waimakariri, Christchurch’s commuter belt (Fig 6.4b).

As noted above, where secondary industries dominate rural districts they tend to be those which relate to processing primary products such as meat or dairy processing. Government services (predominantly education), and trade (retail and food/accommodation) are also important in rural districts. 41

To give an indication of the amount of commuting which is occurring in rural New Zealand, Figures 6.5 through to 6.7 provide a comparison between the proportions of people in each industry sector who live in each area unit (or territorial authority in the case of the rural districts) with those who work in those places. The ten graphs in Figure 6.8 compare the numbers of people working, versus those usually resident, in each territorial authority’s combined rural districts.

Fig 6.5a Percentage of employed people by industry division, comparing residents, with those working in North Island minor urban areas

PATEA working PATEA living Agriculture, forestry, and fishing Martinborough working Mining Martinborough living Manufacturing OPUNAKE working OPUNAKE living Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Construction ElTHAM working ElTHAM living Wholesale trade

Waipawa working Retail trade Waipawa living Accommodation and Greytown working food services Greytown living Transport, postal, and warehousing Featherston working Information media and Featherston living telecommunications Financial and insurance INGLEWOOD working services Rental, hiring, and real INGLEWOOD living estate services Professional, scientific, Waipukurau working and technical services Waipukurau living Administrative and support services Te Kuiti working Public administration Te Kuiti living and safety Education and training STRATFORD working STRATFORD living Health care and social assistance WAITARA working Arts and recreation WAITARA living services Other services HAWERA working Not elsewhere included HAWERA living 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Whether the locations are minor urban areas, rural centres or rural districts, there are considerable differences between the range of industries residents work in, and the range of industries available in their places of residence. For example, while 44% of the people working in Featherston are engaged in construction, only 8% of those living there work in that sector. Similarly, many people come to Eltham to work in the manufacturing sector (78% of Eltham’s workers), but only 42% of Eltham’s employed residents engage in manufacturing. Tourist centres like Martinborough, Greytown, Pegasus and Te Anau also attract more people to work in their accommodation and food services than live in those MUAs. Since Canterbury’s 2010-11 earthquakes, Woodend and Pegasus have both attracted many construction workers (Woodend

42 for the rebuild and Pegasus as a new town providing accommodation for Christchurch’s earthquake ‘refugees’), as is Featherston. A good proportion of people engaged in health care services in Waipukurau, Oxford and Riverton are likely to be commuting from Napier/Hastings, Christchurch and Invercargill respectively.

Fig 6.5b Percentage of employed people by industry division, comparing residents, with those working in South Island minor urban areas, 2013

Pegasus working Agriculture, forestry, and fishing Pegasus living Mining Riverton working Manufacturing Riverton living Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Mataura working Construction Mataura living Wholesale trade

Amberley working Retail trade Amberley living Accommodation and food services Oxford working Transport, postal, and Oxford living warehousing Information media and telecommunications Te Anau working Financial and insurance services Te Anau living Rental, hiring, and real estate services Professional, scientific, and Winton working technical services Winton living Administrative and support services Public administration and safety Woodend working Woodend living Education and training

Health care and social assistance Gore working Gore living Arts and recreation services Other services Kaiapoi working Not elsewhere included Kaiapoi living

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The wide range of industries in which the usually resident populations of the minor urban areas engage suggests that many people leave their place of residence and commute elsewhere for work. This is particularly so for those living in Pegasus, Woodend, Kaiapoi (Waimakariri); Featherston (South Wairarapa); Waitara, and Inglewood (Taranaki).

The key industries for which locals commute elsewhere to work are: manufacturing (74% of the MUAs), construction (78%), retail services (30%), and health care services (35%). People also commute to work in the agricultural sector from Amberley, Waipukurau and Waipawa, Oxford, Greytown and Featherston, Waitara, Riverton and Winton. (These make up 39% of the MUAs). On the other hand, while people commute away from their MUA to work in retail, elsewhere people are commuting to various MUAs (57%) to work in retail, and (as noted above) a few MUAs also attract heath care service workers.

As noted previously, Mataura and Eltham both buck the general trend of outward commuting for engagement in manufacturing. These two towns each attract several hundred commuting workers daily.

Fig 6.6a Percentage of employed people by industry division, comparing residents, with those working, in North Island rural centres, 2013

MIDHURST working Agriculture, forestry, and MIDHURST living fishing Mining KAPONGA working Manufacturing KAPONGA living Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Piopio working Construction Piopio living Wholesale trade

URENUI working Retail trade URENUI living Accommodation and food services Takapau working Transport, postal, and Takapau living warehousing Information media and telecommunications Otane working Financial and insurance Otane living services Rental, hiring, and real estate services OKATO working Professional, scientific, and technical services OKATO living Administrative and support services WAVERLEY working Public administration and safety WAVERLEY living Education and training

NORMANBY working Health care and social assistance NORMANBY living Arts and recreation services Other services MANAIA working MANAIA living Not elsewhere included 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Most of the rural centres, like the MUAs, experience considerable commuting. For the most part people living in rural centres are engaged in almost all the industry groups, but not in their home location. The centres are different in terms of the industries which attract people. People come to Midhurst, Piopio Takapau, Okato, Balfour, Waiau, Culverden, Lumsden, Wyndham and Wallacetown to teach; to Waikuku, Waiau, Wallacetown and Kaponga for construction work; to Ohau and Nightcaps for mining; to Normanby and Edendale for manufacturing; to Manapouri for transportation, and to Hanmer Springs and Urenui for accommodation and food services. (Manapouri is a terminus for workers and tourists travelling across Lake Manapouri to the Manapouri Power Station – there is no road access, and tourists going to Doubtful Sound). 44

Fig 6.6b Percentage of employed people by industry division, comparing residents, with those working, in South Island rural centres, 2013

Balfour working Balfour living Agriculture, forestry, and fishing Manapouri working Mining Manapouri living Manufacturing Waiau working Waiau living Electricity, gas, water, Nightcaps working and waste services Nightcaps living Construction

Ohai working Wholesale trade Ohai living

Cheviot working Retail trade Cheviot living Accommodation and Riversdale working food services Riversdale living Transport, postal, and warehousing Culverden working Information media and Culverden living telecommunications Lumsden working Financial and insurance Lumsden living services Rental, hiring, and real Wyndham working estate services Wyndham living Professional, scientific, and technical services Edendale working Administrative and Edendale living support services Tuatapere working Public administration Tuatapere living and safety Education and training Wallacetown… Wallacetown living Health care and social assistance Otautau working Arts and recreation Otautau living services Hanmer Springs… Other services Hanmer Springs living Not elsewhere included Waikuku working Waikuku living 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

As is to be expected, agriculture, forestry and fishing is the dominant industry in which working age people resident in all rural districts, apart from Waimakariri, engage (Fig 6.7). Of interest is the number of people who commute into these rural districts to work in this industry sector compared to those already living there. This is reflected in the next set of graphs (Fig 6.8a-j) which shows actual numbers for the combined rural districts of each territorial authority. Many lifestyle and small-holders who do not principally work in the primary industry sector live in Waimakariri‘s rural districts.

Fig 6.7 Percentage employed people each industry division comparing those who live, with those who work, in the rural districts of the ten TAs, 2013 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Waitomo working Agriculture, forestry, and fishing Waitomo living Mining

NP (excl city) working Manufacturing

NP (excl city) living Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Construction Stratford working

Stratford living Wholesale trade

Retail trade Sth Taranaki working

Sth Taranaki living Accommodation and food services Transport, postal, and CHB working warehousing CHB living Information media and telecommunications Sth Wairarapa Financial and working insurance services Sth Wairarapa living Rental, hiring, and real estate services Professional, scientific, Hurunui working and technical services Hurunui living Administrative and support services Public administration Waimakariri working and safety Waimakariri living Education and training

Health care and social Gore working assistance Gore living Arts and recreation services Other services Southland working Southland living Not elsewhere included

Mining (which includes oil and gas), appears in Waitomo, New Plymouth, South Taranaki and Gore rural districts. This industry attracts people who commute from elsewhere.

The location of meat and dairy processing plants in rural districts attracts commuters, and this is particularly evident in Waitomo, South Taranaki, Central Hawkes Bay, Gore and Southland (and see also Figs 6.8a, d, e, i, and j respectively).

Alongside South Wairarapa’s wine industry is a small but significant food and accommodation industry. This attracts commuters to South Wairarapa’s rural districts to work alongside residents in this industry.

Fig 6.8a Comparison by industry division of employed people who live in Waitomo's rural districts versus those who work there, 2013

Not elsewhere included Other services Arts and recreation services Health care and social assistance Education and training Public administration and safety Administrative and support services Professional, scientific, and technical… Rental, hiring, and real estate services Financial and insurance services Information media and telecommunications Transport, postal, and warehousing Accommodation and food services Retail trade Wholesale trade Construction Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, forestry, and fishing

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Waitomo working Waitomo living

Fig 6.8b Comparison by industry division of employed people living in New Plymouth's rural districts with those working there, 2013

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

New Plymoputh (excl city) working New Plymouth (excl city) living

Fig 6.8c Comparison by industry division of employed people living in Stratford's rural districts with those working there, 2013

Not elsewhere included Other services Arts and recreation services Health care and social assistance Education and training Public administration and safety Administrative and support services Professional, scientific, and technical services Rental, hiring, and real estate services Financial and insurance services Information media and telecommunications Transport, postal, and warehousing Accommodation and food services Retail trade Wholesale trade Construction Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, forestry, and fishing

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Stratford working Stratford living

Fig 6.8d Comparison by industry division of employed people living in South Taranaki's rural districts with those working there, 2013 Not elsewhere included Other services Arts and recreation services Health care and social assistance Education and training Public administration and safety Administrative and support services Professional, scientific, and technical… Rental, hiring, and real estate services Financial and insurance services Information media and telecommunications Transport, postal, and warehousing Accommodation and food services Retail trade Wholesale trade Construction Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, forestry, and fishing

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 South Taranaki working South Taranaki living

Fig 6.8e Comparison by industry division of employed residents, CHB's rural districts, with those working there, 2013 Not elsewhere included Other services Arts and recreation services Health care and social assistance Education and training Public administration and safety Administrative and support services Professional, scientific, and technical services Rental, hiring, and real estate services Financial and insurance services Information media and telecommunications Transport, postal, and warehousing Accommodation and food services Retail trade Wholesale trade Construction Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, forestry, and fishing

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Central Hawke's Bay working Central Hawke's Bay living

Fig 6.8f Cf. by industry division employed residents South Wairarapa rural districts, with those working there, 2013

South Wairarapa working South Wairarapa living

Fig 6.8g Comparison by industry division of employed residents of Hurunui's rural districts, with those working there, 2013 Not elsewhere included Other services Arts and recreation services Health care and social assistance Education and training Public administration and safety Administrative and support services Professional, scientific, and technical services Rental, hiring, and real estate services Financial and insurance services Information media and telecommunications Transport, postal, and warehousing Accommodation and food services Retail trade Wholesale trade Construction Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, forestry, and fishing

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Hurunui working Hurunui living

Fig 6.8h Comparison by industry division employed residents Waimakariri's rural districts, with those working there, 2013

Not elsewhere included Other services Arts and recreation services Health care and social assistance Education and training Public administration and safety Administrative and support services Professional, scientific, and technical services Rental, hiring, and real estate services Financial and insurance services Information media and telecommunications Transport, postal, and warehousing Accommodation and food services Retail trade Wholesale trade Construction Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, forestry, and fishing

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Waimakariri working Waimakariri living

Fig 6.8i Comparison by industry division of employed residents of Gore's rural districts, with those working there, 2013

Not elsewhere included Other services Arts and recreation services Health care and social assistance Education and training Public administration and safety Administrative and support services Professional, scientific, and technical services Rental, hiring, and real estate services Financial and insurance services Information media and telecommunications Transport, postal, and warehousing Accommodation and food services Retail trade Wholesale trade Construction Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Gore working Gore living

Fig 6.8j Comparison by industry division of employed residents of Southland's rural districts, with those who work there, 2013

Not elsewhere included Other services Arts and recreation services Health care and social assistance Education and training Public administration and safety Administrative and support services Professional, scientific, and technical… Rental, hiring, and real estate services Financial and insurance services Information media and… Transport, postal, and warehousing Accommodation and food services Retail trade Wholesale trade Construction Electricity, gas, water, and waste services Manufacturing Mining Agriculture, forestry, and fishing

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500

Southland working Southland living

Chapter 7: Socio-economic status

The level of deprivation is taken from the New Zealand Index of Deprivation (NZDep2013). Fig 7.2 Deprivation Index rural centres 2013 The higher the score, the greater the level of deprivation. There is considerable variation WAITOTARA between MUAs (Fig 7.1) in terms of level of Balfour Community deprivation, but 70% have a deprivation score above five. Manapouri Fig 7.1 Deprivation Index minor MIDHURST urban areas, 2013 Waiau Pegasus Nightcaps PATEA Ohai Riverton KAPONGA Martinborough Cheviot Mataura Riversdale Community Amberley Piopio Oxford Lumsden Community Te Anau Culverden OPUNAKE URENUI ElTHAM Takapau Waipawa Wyndham Greytown Otane Winton Edendale Community Featherston Tuatapere Woodend OKATO INGLEWOOD Wallacetown Waipukurau Te Kuiti Otautau STRATFORD WAVERLEY WAITARA Hanmer Springs Gore NORMANBY HAWERA Waikuku Kaiapoi MANAIA

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Dep score (the higher the score, the higher Dep score (the higher the score, the higher the the level of deprivation) level of deprivation)

above five. Similarly, 74% of the rural centres have deprivation scores above five. Amongst the MUAs the most deprived are Patea, Waitara and Te Kuiti, followed by Mataura, Opunake, Eltham and Featherston. Ohai is the most deprived of the rural centres, followed by Nightcaps, Kaponga, Takapau, Waverley and Manaia. These places tend to be places where manufacturing or mining dominate.

In contrast, the rural districts have low deprivation scores. Only 23% have scores over five. Intriguingly, the South Island’s rural districts have very low deprivation scores: 93% have a score between one and five. 52

Districts with the lowest deprivation are: Cust, Fig 7.3b Deprivation Index rural Mairaki, Ohoka, West Eyreton, Fernside, Loburn districts South Island 2013 and Mandeville (all in Waimakariri); Mararoa River (Southland) and Chatton (Gore). This is Fiordland S probably due to employment opportunities Milford S innea Mossburn S Fig 7.3a Deprivation Index rural Woodlands S Makarewa North S districts North Island 2013 Cust W Pines-Kairaki Beach W Tiroa W Mairaki W WHANGAMOMONA Woodend Beach W Porangahau CHB Coldstream W Taharoa W Kaweku S RAHOTU Sefton W Tuturumuri SW Okuku W WAINGONGORO Charlton G Mahoenui W Kaiwera G OKAIAWA Parnassus H Wairio S OHANGAI Ashley W EGMONT VILLAGE Ohoka W OHAWE BEACH Tuahiwi W TAWHITI Clarkville W DOUGLAS West Eyreton W MAKAKAHO Eyrewell W Mokauiti W Te Waewae S Waipa Valley W Mararoa River S WHENUAKURA Dacre S TOKO Amuri H PEMBROKE Toetoes S KAPUNI Chatton G Marokopa W Waikaia S MANGATOKI-MOEROA Waituna S Ashley Gorge W OKOKI-OKAU Fernside W LEPPERTON Fairfax S KAHUI Waianiwa S Tikokino CHB Loburn W KAIMATA Mandeville W KAITAKE Hurunui H Elsthorpe-Flemington… Leithfield H Kahutara SW Hokonui S 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Dep score (the higher the score, the higher the Dep score (the higher the score, the higher the level of deprivation) level of deprivation)

in nearby urban areas: Christchurch for the Waimakariri districts, and in Gore for Chatton residents. While Mararoa River is remote and dependent on primary industry, 50% of its employed population are managers or professionals. It is likely that tourism brings extra income into this area. Certainly, deprivation scores and income levels (Figs 7.4 and 7.5) are closely associated. The MUAs and rural centres with their high levels of deprivation have, unsurprisingly, few people in the top personal income category. Pegasus has the highest proportion of people with a high level of personal income, followed by Edendale (Fig 7.4). Ohai and Patea have the lowest proportion of people in this top category. Only Pegasus, Wallacetown,

Fig 7.4 Personal income usually resident population 15+ yrs rural centres and minor urban areas, 2013

WAITOTARA Balfour Manapouri MIDHURST Waiau Nightcaps Ohai KAPONGA Cheviot Riversdale Piopio Lumsden Culverden URENUI Takapau Wyndham Otane Edendale Tuatapere OKATO Wallacetown Otautau $5,000 or less WAVERLEY $5,001 - $10,000 Hanmer Springs $10,001 - $20,000 NORMANBY Waikuku $20,001 - $30,000 MANAIA $30,001 - $50,000 Pegasus PATEA $50,001 or more Riverton Not stated Martinborough Mataura Amberley Oxford Te Anau OPUNAKE ElTHAM Waipawa Greytown Winton Featherston Woodend INGLEWOOD Waipukurau Te Kuiti STRATFORD WAITARA Gore HAWERA Kaiapoi 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Riversdale and Waikuku have half or more of their populations with personal incomes over $30,000. Altogether, only 50 percent of the MUAs and rural centres have at least 40 percent of their people with a personal income over $30,000. 54

Personal incomes are much higher in the rural Fig 7.5b Personal income usually districts. All but three have at least 40% of their resident population 15+ yrs South people with personal incomes over $30,000. Those Island rural districts, 2013 that didn’t were Whangamomona (Taranaki), Porangahau (CHB) and Mahoenui (Waitomo), all Milford S North Island districts. Mossburn S Woodlands S Fig 7.5a Personal income usually Makarewa North S resident population 15+ yrs North Island Cust W rural districts, 2013 Pines-Kairaki…

Tiroa W Mairaki W WHANGAMOMONA Woodend Beach W Porangahau CHB Coldstream W Taharoa W Kaweku S RAHOTU Sefton W Tuturumuri SW Okuku W WAINGONGORO Charlton G Mahoenui W Kaiwera G OKAIAWA Parnassus H OHANGAI Wairio S EGMONT VILLAGE Ashley W OHAWE BEACH TAWHITI Ohoka W DOUGLAS Tuahiwi W MAKAKAHO Clarkville W Mokauiti W West Eyreton W Waipa Valley W Eyrewell W WHENUAKURA Te Waewae S TOKO Mararoa River S PEMBROKE Dacre S KAPUNI Amuri H Marokopa W Toetoes S MANGATOKI-MOEROA Chatton G OKOKI-OKAU Waikaia S LEPPERTON Waituna S KAHUI Tikokino CHB Ashley Gorge W KAIMATA Fernside W KAITAKE Fairfax S Elsthorpe-Flemington CHB Waianiwa S Kahutara SW Loburn W

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Mandeville W Hurunui H $5,000 or less $5,001 - $10,000 Leithfield H $10,001 - $20,000 $20,001 - $30,000 Hokonui S $30,001 - $50,000 $50,001 or more Not stated 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Home ownership

Fig 7.6 Proportion of households living Some 61 percent of New Zealand households live in a house they own/partly own, rural in a home which they either own outright, partly centres and minor urban areas, 2013 own or which is owned by a family trust.

WAItOTARA While households may not have fully paid their Balfour mortgages, the majority of households in rural Manapouri MIDHURST New Zealand live in their ‘own’ home (or a home Waiau owned by the family trust). In 82 percent of minor Nightcaps urban areas and rural centres, at least 60 percent Ohai KAPONGA of households lived in their own homes. In a few Cheviot locations, the proportion of households in this Riversdale category is over 75 percent. These are (in Piopio Lumsden Southland) Wallacetown (84%), Manapouri (77%) Culverden and Riversdale (75%); and (in Waimakariri) URENUI Woodend (82%), Oxford (78%), and Pegasus Takapau Wyndham (77%). Otane Edendale Two-thirds of rural districts have 60 percent or Tuatapere more of their households living in their own home. OKATO Wallacetown However, in almost half of these districts more Otautau than three-quarters of the households owned WAVERLEY Hanmer Springs their own home. The two districts in the North NORMANBY Island are both in Taranaki: Egmont Village (79%) Waikuku and Tawhiti (78%). The South Island districts with MANAIA Pegasus more than 75 percent home ownership are in PATEA Waimakariri (13 districts), two each in Southland Riverton and Gore, and one in Hurunui (Fig 7.7b). Martinborough Mataura Amberley Because a proportion of households in rural Oxford districts receive accommodation as part of their Te Anau employment package (this is particularly the case OPUNAKE ElTHAM for farm workers) some rural districts have a very Waipawa low proportion of their households who own the Greytown house they live in. Nevertheless, two districts Winton Featherston stand out. These districts are: Milford (Southland) Woodend where only nine percent of households own their INGLEWOOD Waipukurau own home (Fig 7.7b), and Taharoa (in remote Te Kuiti Waitomo) where a quarter of households own STRATFORD their own home (Fig 7.7a). WAITARA Gore HAWERA Kaiapoi 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

H-hld lives in own home

Fig 7.7a Proportion of households Fig 7.7b Proportion of households living living in a house they own/partly own, in a house they own/partly own, South North Island rural districts, 2013 Island rural districts, 2013

Tiroa W Milford S WHANGAMOMONA Mossburn S Woodlands S Porangahau CHB Makarewa North S Taharoa W Cust W RAHOTU Pines-Kairaki Beach W Tuturumuri SW Mairaki W WAINGONGORO Woodend Beach W Mahoenui W Coldstream W Kaweku S OKAIAWA Sefton W OHANGAI Okuku W EGMONT VILLAGE Charlton G OHAWE BEACH Kaiwera G TAWHITI Parnassus H Wairio S DOUGLAS Ashley W MAKAKAHO Ohoka W Mokauiti W Tuahiwi W Waipa Valley W Clarkville W WHENUAKURA West Eyreton W Eyrewell W TOKO Te Waewae S PEMBROKE Mararoa River S KAPUNI Dacre S Marokopa W Amuri H MANGATOKI-MOEROA Toetoes S Chatton G OKOKI-OKAU Waikaia S LEPPERTON Waituna S KAHUI Ashley Gorge W Tikokino CHB Fernside W KAIMATA Fairfax S Waianiwa S KAITAKE Loburn W Elsthorpe-Flemington… Mandeville W Kahutara SW Hurunui H Leithfield H 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Hokonui S H-hld lives in own home 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Education

There is often an association between Fig 7.8 Highest education qualification educational qualifications, level of income usually resident population 15+ yrs, rural centres and minor urban areas, 2013 and median age. Today’s very elderly (those in their eighties or older) did not Waitotara have the opportunities to acquire Balfour educational qualifications which are Manapouri available today, and this was particularly MIDHURST Waiau true of those living in rural locations. Given Nightcaps that rural centres and minor urban areas Ohai tend to have higher median ages and higher KAPONGA proportions of their populations in Cheviot Riversdale retirement ages than the rural districts, it is Piopio unsurprising that these population centres Lumsden generally had more people without Culverden URENUI qualifications in 2013 compared to the Takapau districts. Wyndham Otane All but four minor urban areas (Pegasus, Edendale Greytown, Te Anau and Martinborough), Tuatapere OKATO and three rural centres (Hanmer Springs, Wallacetown Waikuku and Okato) have a very poor Otautau record in terms of numbers of people with WAVERLEY qualifications (Figure 7.8). In comparison to Hanmer Springs NORMANBY the national benchmark of 21 percent of Waikuku the population having no qualifications, the MANAIA worst records of centres in the study were Pegasus held by Mataura (40%), Nightcaps (46%), PATEA Riverton Waitotara (44%), and Piopio (39%). Martinborough Mataura Pegasus and Hanmer Springs have only a Amberley small proportion of their populations Oxford lacking qualifications (13% and 15% Te Anau OPUNAKE respectively). Pegasus has a high ElTHAM proportion of people with degrees (19%), Waipawa as do Greytown (20%) and Martinborough Greytown Winton (18%). These centres either match or are Featherston close to the national benchmark (20% of Woodend New Zealanders had a Batchelor or higher INGLEWOOD degree in 2013). Waipukurau Te Kuiti STRATFORD Figure 7.9a shows that while only five North WAITARA Island districts have fewer than 21 percent Gore of their populations with no qualifications, HAWERA most districts are close to this national Kaiapoi benchmark. Almost half of the South Island 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% districts (Figure 7.9b) have fewer Bachelor degree or above No qualification unqualified people than occur nationally.

The North Island districts with a high proportion of unqualified people are: Porangahau (40%) and Fig 7.9b Highest qualification usually resident population 15+ yrs South Fig 7.9a Highest qualification usually Island rural districts, 2013 resident population 15+ yrs Milford S North Island rural districts, 2013 Mossburn S Woodlands S Tiroa W Makarewa North S WHANGAMOMONA Cust W Porangahau CHB Pines-Kairaki Beach W Taharoa W Mairaki W Woodend Beach W RAHOTU Coldstream W Tuturumuri SW Kaweku S WAINGONGORO Sefton W Mahoenui W Okuku W OKAIAWA Charlton G Kaiwera G OHANGAI Parnassus H EGMONT VILLAGE Wairio S OHAWE BEACH Ashley W TAWHITI Ohoka W DOUGLAS Tuahiwi W MAKAKAHO Clarkville W West Eyreton W Mokauiti W Eyrewell W Waipa Valley W Te Waewae S WHENUAKURA Mararoa River S TOKO Dacre S PEMBROKE Amuri H KAPUNI Toetoes S Chatton G Marokopa W Waikaia S MANGATOKI-MOEROA Waituna S OKOKI-OKAU Ashley Gorge W LEPPERTON Fernside W KAHUI Fairfax S Tikokino CHB Waianiwa S Loburn W KAIMATA Mandeville W KAITAKE Hurunui H Elsthorpe-Flemington CHB Leithfield H Kahutara SW Hokonui S

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Bachelor degree or above No qualification Bachelor degree or above No qualification

Rahotu (37%), and in the South, Mossburn (38%). Porangahau has the highest median age of the North Island rural districts (Fig 4.1c). Mossburn too has a high median age although not the highest of the South Island districts, and Rahotu’s median age is somewhat on the young-side (though it has a relatively high proportion of its population over 65 years). Nevertheless, there does seem to be some correlation between age structure and formal qualifications.

Rural districts with tertiary qualified populations at or close to the national benchmark include: Ohoka (21%), Loburn (18%), Mairaki (18%) and Mandeville (17%) in Waimakariri; and Kahutara in South Wairarapa (18%).

Unpaid work

Fig 7.10 Unpaid activites usually resident Most people living in MUAs, rural centres and population 15+ yrs, rural centres and rural districts participate in voluntary work minor urban areas, 2013 (Figures 7.10 and 7.11a and b). Nationally, 14% of WAITOTARA us undertake voluntary work for an organisation, Balfour group or marae. In comparison, among the MUAs Manapouri only Waipukurau in Central Hawke’s Bay has a MIDHURST Waiau higher proportion than the national benchmark Nightcaps of people working unpaid in the voluntary sector. Ohai KAPONGA Waitotara has the highest median age of all the Cheviot centres and districts, so the high proportion of it’s Riversdale Piopio usually resident population over 15 years who do Lumsden not undertake unpaid work is likely to be age Culverden related. Despite this, Waitotara people do engage URENUI in voluntary work in the same proportions as the Takapau Wyndham rest of New Zealand. Otane Edendale Rural centres where there is a very strong Tuatapere engagement in voluntary work were, in 2013: OKATO Balfour Community, Riversdale Community, Wallacetown Otautau Edendale Community (all Southland), Cheviot in WAVERLEY North Canterbury, and Piopio in Waitomo. Hanmer Springs NORMANBY Compared to New Zealand levels of unpaid work Waikuku activity, people living in rural districts are highly MANAIA Pegasus active. Figure 7.11a and b shows that in one third PATEA of the rural districts, many more people Riverton undertake voluntary work for an organisation, Martinborough group or marae than do so nationally. This is Mataura Amberley voluntary work which is over and above the Oxford caring work people do in their own homes or in Te Anau other people’s homes. OPUNAKE ElTHAM In the North Island, it’s the people living in more Waipawa Greytown remote districts such as Taharoa and Tiroa in Winton Waitomo, Porangahau (Central Hawke’s Bay) and Featherston Whangamomona (Stratford), who have a high Woodend proportion of volunteers (Fig 7.11a). People INGLEWOOD Waipukurau engage in voluntary activity alongside other Te Kuiti unpaid work for their own and other households STRATFORD in most South Island districts (especially WAITARA Southland, Gore and Hurunui) (Fig 7.11b). Gore HAWERA Kaiapoi 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Other helping or voluntary work for or through any organisation, group or marae No activities

Fig 7.11a Unpaid activites usually Fig 7.11b Unpaid activities usually resident population 15+ yrs, resident population 15+ yrs, North Island rural districts, 2013 South Island rural districts, 2013

Milford S Tiroa W Mossburn S WHANGAMOMONA Woodlands S Porangahau CHB Makarewa North S Taharoa W Cust W

RAHOTU Pines-Kairaki Beach W Mairaki W Tuturumuri SW Woodend Beach W WAINGONGORO Coldstream W Mahoenui W Kaweku S

OKAIAWA Sefton W Okuku W OHANGAI Charlton G EGMONT VILLAGE Kaiwera G OHAWE BEACH Parnassus H TAWHITI Wairio S

DOUGLAS Ashley W Ohoka W MAKAKAHO Tuahiwi W Mokauiti W Clarkville W Waipa Valley W West Eyreton W

WHENUAKURA Eyrewell W Te Waewae S TOKO Mararoa River S PEMBROKE Dacre S KAPUNI Amuri H Marokopa W Toetoes S

MANGATOKI-MOEROA Chatton G Waikaia S OKOKI-OKAU Waituna S LEPPERTON Ashley Gorge W KAHUI Fernside W

Tikokino CHB Fairfax S Waianiwa S KAIMATA Loburn W KAITAKE Mandeville W Elsthorpe-Flemington CHB Hurunui H Kahutara SW Leithfield H Hokonui S 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30%

Other helping or voluntary work for or through any Other helping or voluntary work for or through any organisation, group or marae organisation, group or marae No activities No activities

Ethnicity and birthplace

Fig 7.12 Ethnicity and birthplace usually resident population rural centres and minor urban areas, 2013

WAITOTARA Balfour Manapouri MIDHURST Waiau Nightcaps Ohai KAPONGA Cheviot Riversdale Piopio Lumsden Culverden URENUI Takapau Wyndham Otane Edendale Tuatapere OKATO Wallacetown Otautau WAVERLEY Hanmer Springs NORMANBY Waikuku MANAIA Pegasus PATEA Riverton Martinborough Mataura Amberley Oxford Te Anau OPUNAKE ElTHAM Waipawa Greytown Winton Featherston Woodend INGLEWOOD Waipukurau Te Kuiti STRATFORD WAITARA Gore HAWERA Kaiapoi 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

People born overseas Maori descent

While there is a strong Māori presence in many minor urban areas and rural centres (Māori comprise over 15% of more than half of these settlements’ populations) (Fig 7.12) and in some North Island rural districts (Figs 7.13a), they are not all necessarily mana whenua (i.e. not all are the traditional owners of the land they are living on, but have moved from elsewhere in New Zealand for work opportunities).

Few South Island rural districts are the home of people of Māori descent (Fig 7.13b). In South Island rural districts, Māori are generally strongly outnumbered by people who were born overseas. This is the reverse of the North Island situation (Fig 7.13a).

Fig 7.13a Ethnicity and birthplace usually resident population North Island rural districts, 2013

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

People born overseas Maori descent

People born overseas are more likely to locate in minor urban and rural centres than the rural districts. The exception is Milford. Almost 60 percent of the people living in the tourist district of Milford are from

63 overseas. While a quarter of New Zealand’s population is overseas-born, Pegasus is the only other centre with 25 percent or more of its people from offshore. There are comparatively large contingents of overseas born people living in the tourist centres of Hanmer Springs, Te Anau and Oxford, and in the South Island rural districts of Eyrewell and Mairaki (both in Waimakariri). North Island districts have few overseas born residents.

Fig 7.13b Ethnicity and birthplace usually resident population South Island rural districts, 2013

Milford S Mossburn S Woodlands S Makarewa North S Cust W Pines-Kairaki Beach W Mairaki W Woodend Beach W Coldstream W Kaweku S Sefton W Okuku W Charlton G Kaiwera G Parnassus H Wairio S Ashley W Ohoka W Tuahiwi W Clarkville W West Eyreton W Eyrewell W Te Waewae S Mararoa River S Dacre S Amuri H Toetoes S Chatton G Waikaia S Waituna S Ashley Gorge W Fernside W Fairfax S Waianiwa S Loburn W Mandeville W Hurunui H Leithfield H Hokonui S

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

People born overseas Maori descent

Telecommunications and internet access

Fig 7.14 % of households with no Fig 7.15 % of households with no access access to telecommunications or to telecommunications or motor- motor-vehicle, minor urban areas vehicle, rural centres, 2013

Pegasus WAITOTARA

PATEA Balfour

Riverton Manapouri

Martinborough MIDHURST Waiau Mataura Nightcaps Amberley Ohai Oxford KAPONGA

Te Anau Cheviot

OPUNAKE Riversdale Piopio ElTHAM Lumsden Waipawa Culverden Greytown URENUI

Winton Takapau

Featherston Wyndham

Otane Woodend Edendale INGLEWOOD Tuatapere Waipukurau OKATO

Te Kuiti Wallacetown

STRATFORD Otautau

WAVERLEY WAITARA Hanmer Springs Gore NORMANBY HAWERA Waikuku

Kaiapoi MANAIA

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

No motor vehicle No motor vehicle No access to the Internet No access to the Internet No access to a cellphone/mobile phone No access to a cellphone/mobile phone No access to telecommunication systems No access to telecommunication systems

Some 27 percent of New Zealand households living in private dwellings do not have access to the internet. Households living in most minor urban areas, rural centres and rural districts have an even worse connectivity issue (Figs 7.14-16). Pegasus is an outlier having only eight percent of its households without access, whilst 83 percent of people in Tiroa (Waitomo) do not have access to the internet (or cell-phones). Milford has no cell-phone access. In 78 percent of minor urban areas and 85 percent of rural centres more than 27 percent of the households have no internet access. More than half the households in Patea, Te Kuiti, Waverley, Waitotara, Takapau, Ohai and Nightcaps have no internet access. Because families running their own business in the rural districts often access the internet via expensive satellite systems, only 46 percent of the districts have more households than the national benchmark without internet access. Nevertheless, in all but seven districts (one North Island and six South Island) one or more out of five households has no internet.

Fig 7.16a Proportion of households with no access to telecommunications or motor-vehicle, North Island rural districts, 2013

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No motor vehicle No access to the Internet No access to a cellphone/mobile phone No access to telecommunication systems

Fig 7.16b Proportion of households with no access to telecommunications or motor-vehicle, South Island rural districts, 2013 Milford S Mossburn S Woodlands S Makarewa North S Cust W Pines-Kairaki Beach W Mairaki W Woodend Beach W Coldstream W Kaweku S Sefton W Okuku W Charlton G Kaiwera G Parnassus H Wairio S Ashley W Ohoka W Tuahiwi W Clarkville W West Eyreton W Eyrewell W Te Waewae S G = Gore Mararoa River S H = Hurunui Dacre S S = Southland Amuri H W = Waimakariri Toetoes S Chatton G Waikaia S Waituna S Ashley Gorge W Fernside W Fairfax S Waianiwa S Loburn W Mandeville W Hurunui H Leithfield H Hokonui S

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No motor vehicle No access to the Internet No access to a cellphone/mobile phone No access to telecommunication systems

A small but significant set of households in Milford, Waitotara, Porangahau, Woodend Beach, Pines-Kairaki Beach have no telecommunications systems (landline, cell-phone or internet). While most households have a motor vehicle (especially in the rural districts), Milford and Tiroa have a relatively high proportion of households without. Altogether, 34 percent of minor urban areas and rural centres have more than eight percent of households (the national benchmark) lacking a motor vehicle. 67

Chapter 8: Summary of the rural components of ten territorial authorities

There is marked variation between the size of the rural settlements in the ten territorial authorities in this study, whether minor urban areas, rural centres or rural districts, and considerable variation in the pattern of growth and/or decline between the area units in each settlement type. Nevertheless, over half of the minor urban areas and rural districts grew (or held steady) between 1996 and 2013 (52 and 54 percent respectively), while 70 percent of the rural centres declined in numbers.

The median age of the New Zealand population was 38 years in 2013. While the median age in the study areas’ rural locations was older than the New Zealand median, people living in the rural districts were younger than those living in minor urban areas and rural centres (and similarly have fewer people in the 65+ years age group). The median of the median ages of rural districts was 39.8 whilst that of rural centres was 40.9 and minor urban areas 43.2 years. Minor urban areas’ and rural centres’ age medians are raised by the retirement to these centres of older people from the districts. The exceptions are the districts of Porangahau and Clarkville which both had median ages over 50 years.

There is considerable variation in the numbers of employed people who were usually resident in the rural districts and settlements compared to those who worked there. Large proportions of people commuted elsewhere for work: sometimes from a centre to a rural district, but usually to larger settlements. Some key locations attract people. These were predominantly the location of meat or dairy processing plants. The dominant occupation of people living in minor urban areas and rural centres was labourer due to the dominance of manufacturing in those locations. Managers (a group which includes farmers and farm managers) dominate in rural districts. Rural districts had fewer paid employees and more employers/self- employed than the minor urban areas and rural centres. Unsurprisingly, given their higher proportion of retired people, minor urban areas and rural centres had more people who were not in the labour force, compared to rural districts.

Residents of minor urban areas and rural centres were predominantly engaged in secondary industry (mostly processing primary products), trade accommodation and food services, and government services (especially educational services). For those living in rural districts proximity to an urban location/population centre has a significant impact on the range of industries in which people engage. In all territorial authorities except Southland less than half of the usually resident rural district populations over 15 years engaged in primary industry. The more remote a rural district, the greater the importance of primary sector industries. The primary industry workforces of districts closer to urban or rural centres was augmented by people from those centres. People commuted from minor urban areas to work in construction, retail and health care (in both other urban centres and rural districts and centres). People commuted to rural centres to teach, for construction work and to specific centres to provide transportation, accommodation and food services. Because there is no industry specification for people engaged in tourism it is difficult to determine the impact of engagement in this industry sector, other than by inference.

The series of graphs (Figures 6.8a-j) comparing the industry engagement of the usually resident population with that of people working in the rural districts is instructive in terms of showing the differences in the size of each territorial authorities’ rural district workforce. Southland had the largest rural workforce with around 10,300 people working in the rural districts (6,000 of whom were engaged in ‘agriculture, forestry and fishing’), compared to 11,000 employed people who were usually resident in Southland’s rural districts. While Waimakariri is the next largest in terms of usually resident employed people (10,700), it had a workforce of only 3,400 people (implying a very large commuter population). While there was considerable variation in the industries people actually engaged in, the usually resident employed population and the numbers of workers match reasonably closely in Southland, Gore, Waitomo, Central Hawke’s Bay, and

South Taranaki. The greatest mismatches occur in Waimakariri, New Plymouth, Stratford, Hurunui, and South Wairarapa. Stratford had the smallest number of workers (just under 800 people), while Central Hawke’s Bay was unusual in that it had more people working in its rural districts (almost 4,000) than employed people usually resident there (3,300).

Most rural districts and some rural centres had a high proportion of people who undertook unpaid voluntary work.

People living in rural districts had relatively high personal incomes and low levels of socio-economic deprivation. They also had fewer people with no qualifications, and a higher proportion with tertiary qualifications, compared to those living in minor urban areas and rural centres. While households may not have fully paid their mortgages, most households in rural New Zealand lived in their ‘own’ home (or a home owned by the family trust).

North Island centres and districts had a high proportion of Māori, and were mostly above the national benchmark. In the South Island the situation was reversed with some exceptions like Mataura and Riverton where work opportunities have attracted North Island iwi.

Except for Milford, rural districts had few overseas born compared with minor urban areas and rural centres. North Island rural districts had the fewest overseas born residents.

Internet and telecommunication access were still problematic for rural people in 2013. In 78 percent of the minor urban areas and 85 percent of the rural centres in this study more than 27 percent of the households have no internet access (nationally, 27 percent of households living in private dwellings had no internet access). Seven centres and three districts had half or more of their households without internet access. Internet access was better in South Island districts. Nevertheless, even there, in 30 districts (more than three-quarters), 20 percent or more households had no internet access.

Many households in rural locations did not have cell-phone access. This ranges from Milford with no coverage, to districts with virtually no coverage (Porangahau, Whangamomona and Tiroa). In seven North Island districts, over half the households had no cell or mobile phone.

Chapter 9: Comparing Taranaki’s territorial authorities with seven others

Map 1.1 showed that between 2001 and 2013 the three Taranaki territorial authorities had different growth trajectories. One grew slightly (New Plymouth); one more or less stayed the same (Stratford); and one lost a small proportion of its population (South Taranaki). The territorial authorities chosen to compare with Taranaki reflect the same range except for Waimakariri which had strong growth (influenced not only by Christchurch but also by the Canterbury earthquakes), and Hurunui which had moderate growth. Both Waitomo and Gore lost a small proportion of their populations, Central Hawke’s Bay was stable, while Southland and South Wairarapa had slight growth. The Taranaki centres and districts vary in size, as do those in the comparable territorial authorities.

Like most centres and districts without significant tourism sectors, Taranaki’s census night populations were similar to their usually resident populations. Of interest is the difference between the numbers of usually resident employed people over 15 years and the numbers of people who work in minor urban areas, rural centres and rural districts. Like the other seven territorial authorities, most of Taranaki’s centres and districts had more employed people living in each area unit than people working in those area units, indicating that there is considerable commuting of residents elsewhere. On the other hand, locations with major manufacturing (especially meat or dairy processing plants) attracted workers. Thus, Taranaki’s Eltham and rural districts Tawhiti and Ohawe Beach attract additional people to work in these locations, as does Edendale in Southland.

The Taranaki centres and districts had similar age structures to those in equivalent locations in the other territorial authorities. Taranaki’s minor urban areas and rural centres tended to have slightly fewer people in the 65+ years age group.

In terms of occupational structure, Taranaki’s minor urban areas, rural centres and rural districts were similar to those elsewhere, with three exceptions. Taranaki’s rural districts had more managers and fewer professionals, and its minor urban centres had more labourers. This is explained by the differences between Taranaki residents’ choice of industry engagement. Taranaki’s districts had a greater proportion of people engaged in primary industry (hence more managers). More people in Taranaki’s minor urban areas and rural centres engaged in manufacturing than is usual in most other centres (hence the additional proportion of people who were in the category ‘labourer’). While the minor urban areas and rural centres had more people engaged in manufacturing, there were fewer people compared to the other centres engaged in ‘trade, accommodation and food services’. Taranaki’s rural centres also had fewer people engaged in primary industry compared to other rural centres and more people whose industry engagement was unspecified. While Taranaki’s districts had more people engaged in primary industry (as noted) there were, like the centres, fewer engaged in ‘trade, accommodation and food services’.

In terms of the size of territorial authorities’ rural district workforces, South Taranaki, which had just under 5,300 workers, had the second largest workforce of the ten study areas, while Stratford (with under 800 workers) was smallest. There were 800 more employed people resident in South Taranaki than actually worked there, while Stratford and New Plymouth had more than double the number of usually resident employed people than people who worked in their respective territorial authorities’ rural districts.

Taranaki’s minor urban areas had higher deprivation scores than the other minor urban areas (an average index of 9 for the Taranaki minor urban areas compared to a score of 6 for the others). Taranaki’s rural centres had slightly higher deprivation scores than the other rural centres (averaging 7.5 compared to 6), while the rural districts all had a similar range of scores (averaging 4).

The high deprivation scores experienced in Taranaki’s minor urban areas is reflected in the level of income. On average 35 percent of people over 15 years usually resident in Taranaki’s minor urban areas had an income over $30,000 compared with 41 percent of the people in the other minor urban areas. The proportions of people with an income over $30,000 was closer in the rural centres, although Taranaki’s rural centres had a slightly lower proportion of usually resident people in this top income bracket (36% compared to 39% or people usually resident in other rural centres). There was no difference between Taranaki’s districts and other rural districts: half of the people usually resident in a rural district had an income over $30,000.

The proportion of the populations without qualifications was higher in each settlement type in all three Taranaki territorial authorities, compared to the others, but not significantly.

Some 10% of households in Taranaki’s minor urban areas had no access to a motor vehicle compared to 6% of households living in the other minor urban areas. Access to a motor car was the same in Taranaki’s rural centres and rural districts compared to other locations.

Access to the internet was poorer in all of Taranaki’s settlement types compared to other locations. In Taranaki’s minor urban areas, 43 percent of households had no internet access compared to 32 percent of the households in the other minor urban areas. In rural centres the proportions were 44 percent and 38 percent respectively, and in rural districts 30 percent and 27 percent respectively.

References

Garden, Chris and Etienne Nel (2016) Maps of population change in rural areas and territorial authorities Department of Geography, University of Otago, Dunedin

NZDep2013 New Zealand Index of Deprivation NZ Dep 2013 Census Area Unit Data [MS Excel file] http://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/departments/publichealth/research/hirp/otago020194.html

Statistics NZ (n.d.) Defining urban and rural New Zealand http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/Maps_and_geography/Geographic-areas/urban-rural- profile/defining-urban-rural-nz.aspx [cited May 2017]

Statistics NZ (2013) Geographic Definitions http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/info-about- 2013-census-data/2013-census-definitions-forms/definitions/geographic.aspx [cited May 2017]

Abbreviations and definitions

CHB Central Hawke’s Bay G Gore H Hurunui MUAs Minor urban areas S Southland SW South Wairarapa TAs Territorial authorities W Waitomo (North Island districts) W Waimakariri (South Island districts)

Minor urban areas Populations centres or settlements with a population of 1,000 < 10,000

Rural centres Settlements with 300 to 999 people

Rural districts Areas outside population centres of 300 or more people, within Statistics NZ defined areas units

International standard classification of occupations: • Legislators, administrators, managers: includes managing directors, chief executives, senior officials in central/local government, business managers (including hotels, restaurants etc) • Professionals and technicians: includes scientist, engineers, planners, doctors, nurses, vets, teachers/lecturers, financiers, legal, marketing and PR, librarians, authors, telecommunications technicians, software and IT, pharmaceutical, sports and fitness workers, artists • Agriculture, forestry and fishery workers: includes market gardeners, crop/livestock farmers, forestry workers, fishers, hunters/trappers [Note: Statistics NZ have extracted ‘Agriculture and Fishery workers’ from the major group Manager – all farmers and farm managers come under Manager; while farm workers, pickers etc, forestry workers, hunters, fishing hands and deck hands, would usually be classified under major group Labourers. Shearers are listed under Technicians and Trade workers. Master Fishers are usually listed under major group Professionals. Forestry workers operating equipment are listed under major group Machinery Operators and Drivers (mobile plant operators).] • Clerks: includes general office workers, secretaries, keyboard operators, tellers • Service and sales: includes personal care services, travel attendants, guides, cooks, waiters, hairdressers, housekeepers, retail and sales, child care • Trades; includes builders, cabinet makers, painters, metal workers, toolmakers, printing trade workers, electronics workers, electricians, telecommunications installers/repairers, mechanics, food processors/garment manufacturing • Plant and machinery operators and assemblers: includes mining plant operators, mineral processing, metal processing, chemical plant operators, textiles /paper / food machinery operators, assemblers, vehicle /heavy equipment drivers • Service and sales: includes personal care services, travel attendants, guides, cooks, waiters, hairdressers, housekeepers, retail and sales, child care • Trades; includes builders, cabinet makers, painters, metal workers, toolmakers, printing trade workers, electronics workers, electricians, telecommunications installers/repairers, mechanics, food processors/garment manufacturing

• Plant and machinery operators and assemblers: includes mining plant operators, mineral processing, metal processing, chemical plant operators, textiles /paper / food machinery operators, assemblers, vehicle /heavy equipment drivers • Elementary occupations: includes cleaners, packers, freight handling and goods delivery, construction labourers, manufacturing and other manual work including food preparation.