Canterbury Wellbeing Survey Report June 2019

THE CANTERBURY WELLBEING SURVEY JUNE 2019

REPORT PREPARED BY NIELSEN FOR THE CANTERBURY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD AND PARTNERING AGENCIES

CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 2. BACKGROUND ...... 13 3. NOTES TO REPORT ...... 18 4. QUALITY OF LIFE ...... 21 5. COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS ...... 38 6. HEALTH AND WELLBEING ...... 53 7. THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES ...... 80 8. CONDITION OF DWELLINGS AND INSURANCE CLAIMS ...... 94 9. DECISION MAKING BY CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ...... 101 10. GROUPS OF INTEREST ...... 106 APPENDIX I – RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 110 APPENDIX 2 – QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 120 APPENDIX 3 – SAMPLE PROFILE ...... 134 APPENDIX 4 – WEIGHTING DETAILS ...... 10

OPINION STATEMENT

Nielsen certifies that the information contained in this report has been compiled in accordance with sound market research methods and principles, as well as proprietary methodologies developed by, or for, Nielsen. Nielsen believes that this report represents a fair, accurate and comprehensive analysis of the information collected, with all sampled information subject to normal statistical variance.

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) and the agencies partnering for the Canterbury Wellbeing Survey. It presents a high-level overview of results from a survey of residents of greater Christchurch, conducted in May and June 2019. The Canterbury Wellbeing Survey, formerly known as the CERA Wellbeing Survey, was developed by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) together with a multiagency working group in 2012. The survey’s purpose was to inform the monitoring of earthquake recovery by collecting data from greater Christchurch residents on self-reported wellbeing, impacts of the earthquakes, and perceptions of the recovery. With the disestablishment of CERA in April 2016, the Ministry of Health inherited responsibility for this work, which was subsequently delegated to the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB). The June 2019 study is the twelfth Wellbeing Survey. The initial survey was conducted in September 2012 with subsequent six-monthly measures. From June 2017 the survey has been conducted annually. As time has passed since the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, the emphasis of the survey has shifted to incorporate a broader focus on wellbeing and factors that influence wellbeing, with reduced emphasis on earthquake impacts. On 15 March 2019, there were shootings during Friday Prayer at two Christchurch mosques: the Al Noor Mosque in Riccarton and the Linwood Islamic Centre. Fifty-one people were killed and more than 50 others injured. Fieldwork for the 2019 survey was undertaken from early May until late June, two months after these tragic events.

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

METHOD This survey was undertaken using a self-completion methodology. A random selection of residents of greater Christchurch was made from the Electoral Roll and respondents either completed the survey online or via a hard copy questionnaire posted to them. The table below outlines the fieldwork dates, number of completed questionnaires and the final response rate for each of the surveys.

Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept June May June 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fieldwork 29 Aug - 21 Mar - 23 Aug - 19 Mar - 28 Aug - 11 Mar - 2 Sep - 30 Mar - 14 Sep - 30 May - 11 April - 9 May – dates 15 Oct 5 May 6 Oct 4 May 15 Oct 5 May 21 Oct 18 May 11 Nov 21 July 27 May 29 June

Completed: Total 2381 2438 2476 2511 2738 2550 2526 3100 2514 2549 2895 2649 Chch City 1156 1210 1240 1276 1401 1327 1213 1452 1170 1291 1504 1323 Selwyn Dst 618 621 640 633 642 590 645 834 631 652 716 634 Waimakariri 607 607 596 602 695 633 668 814 713 606 675 692

Response 52% rate: *no TLA 48% 43% 38% 39% 36% 34% 41% 37% 37% 39% 40% Total calcul- Chch City ation in 48% 42% 39% 39% 38% 35% 40% 35% 36% 39% 39% Selwyn Dst Sept 48% 44% 40% 38% 34% 33% 43% 39% 38% 39% 40% Waimakariri 2012 48% 42% 36% 38% 33% 33% 40% 36% 38% 39% 43%

OVERALL OBSERVATIONS The 2019 results are positive overall, with key wellbeing indicators continuing to improve or remaining stable. The measures of sense of wellbeing and personal safety within the survey do not appear to be negatively impacted by the March mosque attacks. Residents’ self-reported quality of life has increased and is at the highest level since September 2012,with nearly nine in ten (86%) rating their quality of life positively. Over a quarter rate their quality of life as extremely good. Emotional wellbeing (as measured by the WHO-5 wellbeing index) appears stable, and the frequency of experiencing stress continues to decline. Residents’ ratings of their health have improved, with nearly half now rating it as excellent or very good. Feelings of social connection have plateaued, with around 48% agreeing that they feel a sense of community with others in their neighbourhood (down from the high point of 55% back in September 2012). But there has been no increase the proportion of residents feeling lonely or isolated always or most of the time. Satisfaction with aspects of everyday life has improved, with increases in satisfaction with the quality of their home and a minor increase in satisfaction that total household income meets everyday needs. Satisfaction with access to transport to daily activities has improved since 2018, and increases are also apparent for access to the natural environment and local community facilities.

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Greater Christchurch residents have a generally positive feeling about their personal identity and their safety. Most respondents believe they are free to be themselves, while about half feel that they would be able to talk to someone if feeling down. Most greater Christchurch residents feel safe in their homes after dark and in their city/town centre during the day, although less confident about their safety in their city/town after dark (particularly among Christchurch City residents). There continues to be opportunity for improvement in confidence in central and local government. Less than half of greater Christchurch residents are confident that central and local government decisions are made in the best interests of their city or district, and only about one in four feel that they are able to have enough of a say in what central and local government do. Differences continue to be seen across the three districts. Selwyn District residents generally have more positive scores on key wellbeing indicators, while scores among Christchurch City residents tend to be lower, for example, for the quality of their home, and their sense of community with their neighbourhood. To some extent these differences will be a function of the different demographic profiles of the three districts, for example in relation to household income. However, views among Christchurch City residents are generally improving, in particular for factors like access to transport and local community facilities. Waimakariri District residents lag behind on a few measures (for example, the extent to which their household meets their everyday needs and their health-related ability to manage various activities). These differences may be a function of the older age profile of residents in this district.

QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS Key quality of life indicators are moving in a positive direction. QUALITY OF LIFE Quality of life ratings have reached the highest level ever since surveying started, with over eight in ten (86%) greater Christchurch residents rating their quality of life positively in June 2019. Over one in four (27%) rate it as extremely good, up from 24% doing so in May 2018. The proportion rating their quality of life negatively has also declined to a new low point. In June 2019, only two percent indicate that their quality of life is poor (extremely poor or poor), compared with 5% doing so in May 2018.

86 % GOOD OR 82 82 82 81 79  EXTREMELY GOOD 77 77 76 75 74 73 Significant increase from Sept 2012 to June 2019

Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept May May Jun 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019

Increases in quality of life are apparent among Christchurch City residents (86% in June 2019, up from 79% rating it as good or extremely good in May 2018) and Waimakariri District residents (87% up from

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

82% a year ago). Their quality of life ratings are now nearing those of Selwyn District residents (89% of whom rate their quality of life positively). Good health/wellbeing, financial wellbeing, strong relationships, good quality or cost of housing, positive employment prospects/opportunities and enjoyable hobbies or leisure activities are the main reasons given for having a good or extremely good quality of life. Poor health/wellbeing and financial wellbeing are the two most common themes among those who rate their quality of life as poor or extremely poor. Housing and work-related comments such as employment prospects/opportunities are also made. Mention of earthquake and EQC/insurance related issues was minimal in 2019, with only one mention.

ASPECTS OF EVERYDAY LIFE Greater Christchurch residents were asked about satisfaction with five aspects of their everyday life. Satisfaction has increased on all five.  Nearly seven in ten (69%) are satisfied that their total household income meets their everyday needs, while 11% express dissatisfaction. There has been a minor increase in satisfaction, as 67% were satisfied in 2017 and 2018.  Eight in ten (80%) are satisfied with the overall quality of the home in which they live. Less than one in ten (7%) express dissatisfaction. Satisfaction has increased significantly since June 2017 (from 74% to 80%).  Three in four (75%) are satisfied with local community facilities, an increase from the 69% observed in May 2018. A small minority (3%) express dissatisfaction.  Eight in ten (80%) are satisfied with their ease of access to transport to daily activities, while 6% are dissatisfied with this. This has rebounded from the 2018 result of 73%.  Over eight in ten (84%) are satisfied with their ease of access to the natural environment, while 4% express dissatisfaction. Satisfaction has increased from 80% in 2018.

SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS AND SAFETY IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS Just under half (48%) of those living in greater Christchurch feel a sense of community with others in their neighbourhood in June 2019, while just under one in six (16%) do not. Since September 2012, there has been an overall downward trend in the proportion agreeing that they feel a sense of community, but the proportion disagreeing with this statement is also declining (16% disagreeing down from 20% in September 2015). There has been a corresponding increase in the proportion giving neutral ratings. The sense of community with others is stronger among Selwyn District residents (54%) and Waimakariri District residents (56%) than among Christchurch City residents (46%). However a decline in this sense of community is apparent among Selwyn District residents (with agreement declining from 59% in 2018 to 54% in 2019).

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

% STRONGLY 55 52  51 50 AGREE 47 49 46 49  49 47 49 48 OR AGREE

19 20 19 15 16 18 18 16 18 18 17 16 % STRONGLY DISAGREE OR DISAGREE Significant decrease in ‘strongly agree or agree’ from Sept 2012 to June 2019 Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept June May June 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019

Just under four in five (79%) find it easy or very easy to be themselves in New Zealand. This proportion differs significantly by ethnicity, with those of European ethnicity being more likely to find it easy (82%) and those of Māori (71%) or Pacific/Asian/Indian (53%) ethnicity being less likely to find it easy. In June 2019, greater Christchurch residents were asked how how easy or hard it would be to talk to someone if they felt down or a bit depressed, and wanted to talk to someone about it. Nearly half of greater Christchurch residents (48%) think they would find it easy or very easy to talk to someone if they felt down or a bit depressed, while one in eight (12%) say they would find it hard or very hard to talk to someone if they felt down or a bit depressed.

SAFETY IN THE COMMUNITY Residents were asked how safe they feel in different settings and times of day in 2018 and 2019.  Over nine in ten (95%) say they feel safe in their home after dark (73% feeling very safe), while just 4% feel unsafe.  However, when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark just under seven in ten (69%) feel safe (only 26% feeling very safe) and 26% feel unsafe.  Over nine in ten residents (94%) feel safe in their city/town centre during the day (66% feeling very safe), while 4% feel unsafe.  However, only half (54%) feel safe in their city/town centre after dark (13% feeling very safe) with 40% feeling very or a bit unsafe. Residents of Selwyn and Waimakariri Districts feel safer in these settings than Christchurch City residents.

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

LOCAL AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Nearly four in ten (39%) of greater Christchurch residents have confidence that central and local government decisions are made in the best interests of their city or district, who while just under a quarter (23%) do not. Confidence is highest among residents of Selwyn District (47%) and lower among Christchurch City and Waimakariri District residents (37% and 43%, respectively). However, disagreement that they can have enough say in the actions taken by central and local government outweighs agreement. A quarter (25%) of greater Christchurch residents agree, while a higher proportion (33%) disagree. Selwyn and Waimakariri District residents (31% and 29%) are more likely to agree than Christchurch City residents (24%).

HEALTH AND WELLBEING STRESS Just over two in three (68%) greater Christchurch residents have experienced stress at least some of the time in the past 12 months that has had a negative effect on them (the proportion has been declining gradually since the September 2012 survey). Just over one in six (16%) say that they experience this stress most or all of the time.

80 77 78 76 73 75 73 73 72 71 68 68 % AT LEAST SOME OF THE TIME Significant overall decrease from Sept 2012 to June 2019

Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept June May June 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019

HEALTH Nearly one in two greater Christchurch residents (49%) rate their health as excellent or very good, while 15% rate it as fair or poor. The proportion rating their health positively has increased since 2018, from 44% giving an excellent or very good rating.

LONELINESS AND ISOLATION Nearly two in three residents (64%) say they have rarely or never felt lonely or isolated over the past 12 months. A small proportion (6%) say they have felt lonely and isolated always or most of the time. There has been no change in this metric since 2017.

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WHO-5 WELLBEING INDEX The WHO-5 is a self-rated measure of emotional wellbeing with possible scores ranging from 0-25, with 25 being the most positive result. Results indicate that the emotional wellbeing of greater Christchurch residents has improved overall, with scores increasing since April 2013. After minor fluctuations during 2013 and 2014, the overall mean WHO-5 score has increased, reaching the highest mean scores of 15.4 in May 2018 and 15.3 in June 2019.

April Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept June May June 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019

MEAN 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.9 14.2 14.1 14.4 14.4 14.7 15.4 15.3 SCORE: Significant overall increase from April 2013 to May 2018

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY The New Zealand Physical Activity Guidelines recommend that adults do 30 minutes of moderate activity (that is, activity that caused a slight, but noticeable, increase in breath and heart rate) or 15 minutes of vigorous activity (that is, activity that had them out of breath) on at least five days a week. Just over two in five (42%) greater Christchurch residents indicate that they have done the required amount of physical activity in the last seven days, to be meeting these guidelines.

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION For females, the Ministry of Health recommends having no more than 10 standard drinks per week, whereas for males, the recommendation is to have no more than 15. Nine percent of females and 8% of males report exceeding their recommended amount in an average week.

SMOKING Six percent of greater Christchurch residents indicate that they regularly smoke tobacco cigarettes (that is, one or more a day - excluding cigars and e-cigarettes).

HEALTH PROBLEMS CAUSING DIFFICULTY WITH CERTAIN ACTIVITIES Greater Christchurch residents were asked about the level of difficulty they have with certain activities (based on a question from the 2018 Census). The four main health problems, which are experienced at least some of the time by between one in five and one in four residents, are:  Remembering or concentrating (24%)  Seeing even if wearing glasses (22%)  Walking or climbing stairs (19%) and  Hearing, even if using a hearing aid (18%).

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AWARENESS AND OPINION OF THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN: Respondents were asked about awareness and attitudes toward the All Right? campaign (aimed at helping people think about their mental health and wellbeing) and six community initiatives based in central Christchurch.

In June 2019, about six in ten (59%) of all respondents were aware of the All Right? campaign, which has been running since 2013. This is the highest level of awareness observed since April 2013.

Of the six community initiatives, the City Promenade is most widely known (with 67% awareness). The Festival of Transitional Architecture, conducted at Labour weekends is least well known (15%).

The majority of those aware of each initiative have a favourable attitude toward it. Levels of negative opinion are less than five percent.

The following chart summarises levels of awareness and favourability for these.

% Aware % Favourable

The All Right? campaign (n=2641) 59 81

The City Promenade (n=2640) 67 85

Laneways and gathering areas (n=2637) 48 81

The Super Street Arcade (n=2638) 47 67

The Dance-O-Mat (n=2635) 41 71

The Detour Snake Run (n=2636) 32 72

The Festival of Transitional Architecture (n=2638) 15 70

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Awareness of each initiative is higher among residents of Christchurch City than those in Selwyn or Waimakariri Districts.

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STATUS OF DWELLINGS AND INSURANCE CLAIMS CONDITION OF DWELLING All respondents were asked to identify the current condition of their dwelling (whether or not they own it) in relation to damage caused by any earthquakes that affected the greater Christchurch region. Key results are outlined below:

 Six in ten (62%) of all respondents’ dwellings have been or are currently being repaired or rebuilt, compared with 60% in May 2018.  Of the properties that have been repaired, 15% have required re-repairs (9% of all dwellings). One in four of those needing re-repairs have had the repairs completed.

 Seven percent of the dwellings damaged by earthquakes have not yet been repaired or rebuilt.  Twenty four percent of all dwellings have been unaffected (either because the dwelling was not damaged in earthquakes (13%) or the dwelling was built after the 4 September 2010 earthquake (11%)).

STATUS OF INSURANCE CLAIM Of the 56% of greater Christchurch property owners who made an insurance claim on the property they own and usually live in, 5% of claims remain unresolved. This is half the proportion observed in 2018, when 10% remained unresolved.

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND The Canterbury Wellbeing Survey, formerly known as the CERA Wellbeing Survey, was developed by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) together with a multiagency working group in 2012. The survey’s purpose was to inform the monitoring of earthquake recovery by collecting data from greater Christchurch residents on self-reported wellbeing, impacts of the earthquakes and perceptions of the recovery. With the disestablishment of CERA in April 2016, the Ministry of Health inherited responsibility for this work, subsequently delegating it to the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB). The CDHB is partnered by Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and the University of Canterbury to run the Canterbury Wellbeing Survey. Nielsen was commissioned to conduct this research. As time has passed since the Canterbury earthquakes of September 2010 and February 2011, the emphasis of the survey has shifted to incorporate a broader focus on wellbeing and factors that influence wellbeing and reduce specific focus on the earthquake impacts. On 15 March 2019, there were shootings during Friday Prayer at two Christchurch mosques: the Al Noor Mosque in Riccarton and the Linwood Islamic Centre. Fifty-one people were killed and more than 50 others injured. The June 2019 study is the twelfth Wellbeing Survey. The initial survey was conducted in September 2012 with subsequent six-monthly measures. From June 2017 the survey has been conducted annually. This report provides a high-level overview of the survey results. Comparisons have been made with the results of the previous surveys where possible, to determine the extent to which change is occurring. Nielsen would like to sincerely thank the residents of greater Christchurch who took the time to respond to this survey. ETHICS APPROVAL The Survey Working Group determined at baseline that the method and content of the Canterbury Wellbeing Survey did not require review by a Health and Disability Ethics Committee. This was re- confirmed for the May 2018 survey. In light of changes to both the membership of the Survey Working Group and the survey questionnaire, the May 2018 survey was reviewed and granted approval by the University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT A draft questionnaire was prepared by the survey partners in consultation with their internal stakeholders before the September 2012 survey. This questionnaire was amended following consultation with Nielsen and pre-tested face-to-face on a small number of residents of greater Christchurch. The questionnaire was designed to be repeatable for subsequent surveys in order to track progress accurately over time. The core questionnaire has been kept largely the same, with some questions removed to make way for other questions that are of interest at the time. In June 2019, the focus was on

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

general wellbeing and influencers of wellbeing with questions about earthquake-specific impacts removed. An outline of the key changes made is included in Appendix 1.

OVERVIEW OF METHOD AND SAMPLE The target population for this research was people aged 18 years and over who currently reside in greater Christchurch. The Electoral Roll was used as the sampling frame as it is the most comprehensive database of individuals in New Zealand. This survey used a self-completion methodology, with respondents being encouraged to complete the survey online before being provided with a paper questionnaire. An overview of the research process is shown below:

•Sample was selected from the Electoral Roll. Predictive modelling based on previous experience was used to oversample the hard-to- Electoral reach groups. Roll

•Invitation letters were sent to named respondents introducing the research and inviting them to complete the survey online (or ring an Invitation 0800 number to receive a hard copy) Letters

•Seven days later, a reminder postcard was sent to those who had Reminder not completed the survey. Postcard 1

•A week after the reminder postcard, those who had not completed Survey were sent a hard copy questionnaire and a reply-paid envelope. Pack

•A final reminder was sent to those who had still not completed two Reminder weeks later. Postcard 2

The research took place between 9 May 2019, when the first invitation letters were sent, and 29 June 2019 when the survey closed. For more details about the methodology, please refer to Appendix 1.

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

RESPONSE TO SURVEY From 7,800 people selected randomly from the Electoral Roll, 2,649 completed questionnaires were received. The response rate for this survey was 40%. This is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires as a proportion of total number of selections minus exclusions based on known outcomes (e.g. death, moved out of region, gone no address). Please see Appendix 1 for detailed response rate calculations. The response rates for Waimakariri District, Selwyn District and for Christchurch City were 43%, 40% and 39% respectively.

No. of completed Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept June May June questionnaires: 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total 2381 2438 2476 2511 2738 2550 2526 3100 2514 2549 2985 2649 Christchurch City 1156 1210 1240 1276 1401 1327 1213 1452 1170 1291 1504 1323 Selwyn District 618 621 640 633 642 590 645 834 631 652 716 634 Waimakariri District 607 607 596 602 695 633 668 814 713 606 675 692

Response rate: 52% 48% 43% 38% 39% 36% 34% 41% 37% 37% 39% 40%

As an incentive to complete the survey a prize draw of a $500 Prezzy Card was offered to everyone who completed the survey. Seventy percent of questionnaires were completed online while 30% were completed in paper copy.

DATA ANALYSIS The sample design oversampled residents of the two districts with smaller populations to ensure that the sample size within each district was sufficient to allow reliable and robust analysis. At the analysis stage, the data was adjusted by a weighting process. This is commonly employed in surveys in order to adjust for discrepancies between the profile of people who completed the survey and the known profile of residents, in this case those of greater Christchurch. Population statistics are obtained from Statistics New Zealand data and are based on the latest population projections. Weighting increases the influence of some observations and reduces the influence of others. So, for example, while 634 or 24% of completed interviews came from Selwyn District, the population of Selwyn actually represents about 10% of greater Christchurch. Thus, the data were adjusted so that 10% of any ‘greater Christchurch’ result reported is based on the responses of Selwyn residents. Those of Māori ethnicity were oversampled in order to achieve a robust sample size for analysis. For more details about the weighting and data analysis, please refer to Appendix 1 and 4.

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

MARGIN OF ERROR All sample surveys are subject to sampling error. Based on a total sample size of 2649 respondents, the results shown in this survey are subject to a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 1.9% at the 95% confidence level. That is, there is a 95% chance that the true population value of a recorded figure of 50% actually lies between 48.1% and 51.9%. As the sample figure moves further away from 50%, the error margin will decrease. The maximum error margin for each of the territorial local authority areas is identified below.

Table: Sample Size (and maximum margin of error) by TLA Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept June May June 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019

CHRISTCHURCH CITY 1156 1210 1240 1276 1401 1327 1213 1452 1170 1291 1504 1323 (± 2.9) (± 2.8) (± 2.8) (± 2.7) (± 2.6) (± 2.7) (± 2.8) (± 2.6) (± 2.9) (± 2.7) (± 2.5) (± 2.7) SELWYN DISTRICT 618 621 640 633 642 590 645 834 631 652 716 634 (± 3.9) (± 3.9) (± 3.9) (± 3.9) (± 3.9) (± 4.0) (± 3.9) (± 3.4) (± 3.9) (± 3.8) (± 3.7) (± 3.9) WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT 607 607 596 602 695 633 668 814 713 606 675 692 (± 4.0) (± 4.0) (± 4.0) (± 4.0) (± 3.7) (± 3.9) (± 3.8) (± 3.4) (± 3.7) (± 4.0) (± 3.8) (± 3.7)

SECTION 3: NOTES TO THE REPORT

RESPONDENTS’ DISTRICT Where ‘greater Christchurch’ is referred to in this report, it includes Christchurch City, Selwyn District and Waimakariri District. Results are based on respondents’ self-reported district.

ROUNDING TO 100% At CERA’s request, from September 2012 until June 2017, the following rules were applied to all reports to ensure results added exactly to 100% (rather than 99% or 101% which can occur due to rounding):  If results added to 101% - the one that is rounded up the most was rounded down  If results add to 99% - the one that was rounded down the most one was round up Results reported for September 2012 to June 2017 still have this rounding applied. This approach was discontinued in May 2018. However, results for combined top two boxes are manually added from the individual data points when presented as charts.

QUESTION SAMPLE BASES A small number of respondents who completed the survey in hard copy skipped over one or more questions they were meant to answer. Therefore, the number of respondents who answered each question varies slightly. For each question, the number providing an answer to an individual question forms the base for analysis rather than the total sample of n=2649. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS When comparing the current June 2019 results with results from the previous surveys, statistically significant differences (at a 95% confidence interval) are highlighted in the following way:  Differences highlighted green and with a tick (  ) are identified as positive shifts  Those highlighted red and with a cross (  ) are negative shifts in the results  Differences that are in bold font with a dash ( - ) are significant changes that are neither positive nor negative (such as an increase in a midpoint). Linear regression analysis has been conducted on all time series charts showing the greater Christchurch results to test whether trends are statistically significant. Statistically significant trends are noted in the text and/or on the figures. Significance testing of time series has not taken place on any sub-group results or any tables unless this has been specified in the surrounding text. All differences commented on (over time or between sub-groups) are statistically significant. Only subgroups with differences of three percentage points or above the greater Christchurch resident total result have been included. Sub-group differences are presented on the basis of relevance to the question, rather than being exhaustive lists.

SECTION 3: NOTES TO THE REPORT

PRESENTATION OF ‘DON’T KNOW’ RESPONSES The September 2012 report presented results for questions measuring perceptions showing the proportion of respondents who responded with a ‘don’t know’ response. However, when measuring whether perceptions have improved or deteriorated over time, it is important to ensure that results cannot be impacted simply by an increase or decrease in the proportion of respondents choosing the ‘don’t know’ response. Thus, while the report notes the proportion of greater Christchurch residents who feel they don’t know enough to provide an opinion, comparison of perceptions between measures are based on the responses given by those who do express an opinion.

UNRESOLVED CLAIMS Due to the decreasing proportion of greater Christchurch residents who made a claim on the property they partly or jointly own and usually live in, those with unresolved claims have been combined into one group for sub-group analysis. ‘Unresolved claims’ is defined as those who own the property they usually live in and, received an offer on their claim but have not accepted it yet, have had an assessment on their claim from EQC or their private insurer but have not received an offer yet, those who are still waiting for an assessment from EQC or their private insurer, and those who said ‘other’ (comments mainly relate to the homeowners being in dispute over the value of the offer or quality of repairs undertaken).

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

INTRODUCTION Respondents were asked to rate their overall quality of life early in the survey, and to outline in free text why they provided that rating. Respondents were also asked about their satisfaction with aspects of their daily life including household income, housing quality, access to transport and access to the natural environment.

OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE Ratings of quality of life have reached the highest level ever since surveying started, with over eight in ten (86%) greater Christchurch residents rating their quality of life positively. Over one in four (28%) rate it as extremely good, up from 24% doing so in May 2018. The proportion rating their quality of life negatively has also declined to its lowest level. In June 2019, only 2% indicate that their quality of life is poor (extremely poor or poor), compared with 5% in 2018. Figure 4.1: Trend – Overall quality of life, over time (%)

The upward trend in the proportion of residents who say 86 82 82 82 81  their quality of life is good or 76 77 79 77 extremely good from 74 73 75 September 2012 to Jun 2019 is statistically significant (linear regression analysis)

7 6 6 7 6 6 5 5 5 4 5 2

Sep-12 Apr-13 Sep-13 Apr-14 Sep-14 Apr-15 Sep-15 Apr-16 Sep-16 May-17 May-18 Jun-19 (n=2362)(n=2431)(n=2464)(n=2501)(n=2727)(n=2538)(n=2520)(n=3092)(n=2498)(n=2542)(n=2888)(n=2647)

Extremely poor or poor Extremely good or good

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

A significant increase in quality of life is apparent among Christchurch City residents (86% in June 2019, up from 79% rating it as good or extremely good in May 2018) and Waimakariri District residents (87% up from 82% a year ago). Their quality of life is now nearing that of Selwyn District residents (90% of whom rate their quality of life positively).

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

Table: Trend – Overall quality of life by TLA over time (%) Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept June May June Rating 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Extremely good or 72 73 71 73 75 77 75 81 81 81 79 86 good Neither poor nor 21 20 22 19 18 17 19 14 - 14 15 15 12 - good Extremely poor or 7 7 7 8 7 6 6 5 5 4 6 2 poor SELWYN DISTRICT Extremely good or 85 85 86 89 89 90 86 89 90 86 90 90 good Neither poor nor 11 11 12 8 - 9 8 11 9 8 11 9 9 good Extremely poor or 4 4 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 poor WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Extremely good or 82 85 79 83 81 86 85 85 86 86 82 87 good Neither poor nor 14 12 16 - 14 15 12 11 11 10 11 13 10 good Extremely poor or 4 3 5 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 5 2 poor Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Christchurch City: Sept 2012 n= 1145; Apr 2013 n=1208; Sept 2013 n=1234; Apr 2014 n=1268; Sept 2014 n=1394; April 2015 n=1322; Sept 2015 n=1211; April 2016 n=1476; Sept 2016 n=1163; June 2017 n=1286;May 2018 n=1502; June 2019 n=1322 Selwyn District: Sept 2012 n= 614; Apr 2013 n=620; Sept 2013 n=638; Apr 2014 n=633, Sept 2014 n=641; April 2015 n=587; Sept 2015 n=643; April 2016 n=824; Sept 2016 n=627; June 2017 n=651; May 2018 n=715; June 2019 n=634 Waimakariri District: Sept 2012 n= 603; Apr 2013 n=603; Sept 2013 n=592; Apr 2014 n=600, Sept 2014 n=692; April 2015 n=629; Sept 2015 n=666; April 2016 n=792; Sept 2016 n=708; June 2017 n=605; May 2018 n=671; June 2019 n=691

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

Figure 4.2: Current result – Overall quality of life by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2647) 2 11 58 28

Christchurch City (n=1322) 2 12 58 28

Selwyn District (n=634) 1 9 58 31

Waimakariri District (n=691) 2 10 60 27

Extremely poor Poor Neither poor nor good Good Extremely good

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to rate their overall quality of life positively (86%) are:  From a household with an income of $100,001 to $200,000 (97%) or more than $200,000 (96%)  Those who rate their health as very good or excellent (97%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated rarely or never (94%)  Those not living with a health condition or disability (91%)  Those who have accepted an offer on the insurance claim on the property they own and usually live in (91%)  Those who have not needed to make an insurance claim on the property they own and usually live in (89%).

Those less likely to rate their overall quality of life positively (86%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (43%), or sometimes (80%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (50%)  Those living with a health condition or a disability (69%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (71%) or $30,001 to $60,000 (81%)  Of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity (71%)  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (76%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (77%).

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

REASONS FOR QUALITY OF LIFE RATING Respondents were asked the reasons for their quality of life rating. Health and wellbeing, financial wellbeing and relationships with family and friends are the key reasons given for a positive rating. Table: Current result – Positive themes for Quality of Life Rating by ratings (%)

Rated their Rated their Greater quality of quality of Christ- life as good Grouped Net Responses life as church / extremely neutral (n=2298) good (n=234) (n=2002) Health and wellbeing 43 49 5 Financial wellbeing 37 42 6 Relationships 30 34 7 Work related (job, vocation, prospects) 27 39 7 Housing quality 21 24 3 Lifestyle (activities and interests) 20 23 4 Local community/area aspects 11 12 1 Aspects of natural environment 4 4 1 Other positive 2 3 0

Health and wellbeing, and financial wellbeing are also key reasons for those who rate their quality of life negatively, along with work-related issues. In June 2019, there was one reference to ongoing issues with EQC/insurance among the responses from the 60 residents who gave negative ratings.

Rated Rated their Greater quality of quality of Christ- life as poor Grouped Net Responses life as church / extremely neutral (n=2298) poor (n=234) (n=60) Poor health and wellbeing 10 33 70 Financial wellbeing 7 29 39 Work related 4 15 17 Housing quality 4 16 18 Relationships 3 9 9 Local community/area aspects * 2 0 Poor living conditions 1 2 7 House repairs / rebuild issues * 1 2 Ongoing problems with 0.5 2 2 EQC/insurance companies Other negative 3 13 25

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

*=less than 0.25%

A selection of comments from residents is included below, to provide a sense of the factors that residents weigh up in their self-assessment of their quality of life.

VERBATIMS FROM RESIDENTS GIVING POSITIVE RATINGS “Because I've travelled a lot and appreciate how fortunate we are in NZ. Myself and my family are generally healthy.” “I have a loving family and friends and community. I am in full physical health with no injuries or illnesses. I have a good education and purpose in life. I have my faith in Christianity and hope and purpose spiritually. I live in a safe country and city. I have a home to live in. arm clothes. No real problems in my life.”

“Very recently retired from full time employment and adjusting to the change of pace. I'm fortunate enough to own my own home and have family living in Christchurch.”

“Generally enjoy good health and enough in the way of resources to make life comfortable. Relationships with others both family and friends is at a very good level.”

“I have support from my parents and friends and I have a job which I can choose what days I can work as I am a casual worker.”

“New Zealand is paradise! We live in a lovely district, have good schools nearby and every recreational desire on our doorstep!”

“I take care of my wellbeing every day. As a result I feel happy, I keep very good health, I am active and participate in activities that I enjoy and socialise. I am very aware about addressing my mental, physical wellbeing everyday.”

“We have a nice, cosy, well insulated house on a pleasant section. With careful budgeting we are able to pay mortgage, insurances, and the daily necessities. We have a most efficient log-burner, which has a wet-back so warmth AND hot water require only one energy in-put during winter. We also have children and their families in the city, plus other family and friends. We have our own vehicle, which gives us the freedom to do our own shopping, visiting, following grandchildren's activities, and pursuing our own interests. A bit more money and a few less years would upgrade us to 'extremely good'!!”

VERBATIMS FROM RESIDENTS GIVING NEUTRAL RATINGS “The Selwyn district is RAPIDLY changing in many ways, very different from when we moved here. Not a rural area anymore.” “Sometimes life is good and sometimes it is not. Everyone has good and bad days.”

“Reasonably happy. Poor quality accommodation. No income.”

“My family and I are in good health. We have enough to eat and pay the bills. not enough for the big extras like a holiday (anywhere) or a new car.”

“Not enough income to stay ahead is stressful and stops us from doing things we would enjoy.”

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

“I struggle daily to find peace and employment.”

“Some health issues that affect me, but reasonable.”

VERBATIMS FROM RESIDENTS GIVING NEGATIVE RATINGS “Have run out of options to get a decently paid job due to old age/physical limitations. I'm living in a world where governments won't offer their people realistic options to save the planet.” “Depressed. Poor. No support. Just trying to live.”

“I earn just above minimum wage, 40 hours a week. In a physically demanding job. I’m a single mum with 2 children and my wages are topped up from working for families and Work and Income. And yet I struggle to make ends meet weekly. …. We don't have spare money to play sports or save for activities for quality of life looking foward to something.”

“Apart from my wife and son, I have no family or friends close to me. My mental health is challenged as a result.”

“Suffer from depression and anxiety. Limited finances. High stress levels from university.”

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

SATISFACTION WITH ASPECTS OF EVERYDAY LIFE: TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME MEETS EVERYDAY NEEDS When asked if their total household income meets their everyday needs (for things such as accommodation, food, clothing and other necessities), nearly seven in ten (69%) greater Christchurch residents say they are satisfied that it does meet everyday needs, while 11% say they are dissatisfied. These results are more positive than in 2017 or 2018, with a significant shift among Waimakariri District residents (64% to 67% positive) and a more positive result among Christchurch City residents. Table: Trend –Satisfaction with household income meeting needs by TLA over time (%)

June 2017 May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Very satisfied or satisfied 67 67 69 Neutral 19 19 19 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 14 13 11 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Very satisfied or satisfied 67 68 70 Neutral 18 19 19 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 15 13 11 SELWYN DISTRICT Very satisfied or satisfied 72 71 72 Neutral 18 18 17 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 10 10 11 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Very satisfied or satisfied 64 64 67 Neutral 22 22 20 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 14 15 13

Greater Christchurch: June 2017 n=2531; May 2018 n=2876; June 2019 n=2646 Christchurch City: June 2017 n=1283; May 2018 n=1494; June 2019 n=1321 Selwyn District: June 2017 n=649; May 2018 n=709; June 2019 n=633 Waimakariri District: June 2017 n=599; May 2018 n=673; June 2019 n=692

Those living in Selwyn District (72%) are more likely to be satisfied that their total household income meets their everyday needs, than residents of Waimakariri District (67%) and Christchurch City (70%).

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

Figure 4.3: Current result – How well total household income meets everyday needs by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2646) 3 8 19 43 26

Christchurch City (n=1321) 3 8 19 43 26

Selwyn District (n=633) 3 8 17 43 29

Waimakariri District (n=692) 2 10 20 43 24

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to be satisfied that their total household income meets their everyday needs (69%) are:  From a household with an income of more than $200,000 (97%), between $150,001 to $200,000 (93%) or between $100,001 to $150,000 (84%)  Those who have not needed to make an insurance claim on the property they own and usually live in (76%)  Aged 65 plus years (75%)  Those who have accepted an offer on the insurance claim on the property they own and usually live in (75%)  Those who own the dwelling in which they are living (74%).

Those more likely to be dissatisfied that their total household income meets their everyday needs (11%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (37%) or sometimes (17%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (27%) or between $30,001 to $60,000 (15%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (24%) or good (15%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (22%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (20%)  Aged 50 to 64 years (14%).

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

OVERALL QUALITY OF HOME When asked about their satisfaction with the overall quality of the home in which they live (in terms of warmth, insulation, heating, moisture levels, weather tightness), four in five (80%) greater Christchurch residents say they are very satisfied or satisfied with the overall quality. One in fourteen (7%) expresses dissatisfaction. These results are stable compared to May 2018, the result for Christchurch City having improved significantly between June 2017 and May 2018. Christchurch City residents’ satisfaction with the overall quality of their home still lags well behind that of residents of Selwyn District (89%) and Waimakariri District (85%). Table: Trend – Satisfaction with overall quality of home by TLA over time (%)

June 2017 May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Very satisfied or satisfied 74 79 80 Neutral 13 12 12 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 13 10 7 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Very satisfied or satisfied 72 77 78 Neutral 14 13 13 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 14 10 8 SELWYN DISTRICT Very satisfied or satisfied 87 90 89 Neutral 7 5 7 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 6 6 4 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Very satisfied or satisfied 84 85 85 Neutral 9 9 9 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 7 6 6

Greater Christchurch: June 2017 n=2535; May 2018 n=2876; June 2019 n=2648 Christchurch City: June 2017 n=1287; May 2018 n=1495; June 2019 n=1322 Selwyn District: June 2017 n=650; May 2018 n=709; June 2019 n=634 Waimakariri District: June 2017 n=598; May 2018 n=672; June 2019 n=692

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

Figure 4.4: Current result – Satisfaction with overall quality of home by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2648) 2 6 12 39 42

Christchurch City (n=1322) 2 6 13 40 39

Selwyn District (n=634) 13 7 32 57

Waimakariri District (n=692) 2 4 9 37 49

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to be satisfied with their overall quality of home (80%) are:  From a household with an income of more than $200,000 (93%) or $100,000 to $200,000 (88%)  Aged 65 plus years (88%)  Those who have not needed to make an insurance claim on the property they own and usually live in (86%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated rarely or never (85%)  Those who own the dwelling in which they are living (84%)  Those who have accepted an offer on the insurance claim on the property they own and usually live in (84%).

Those less likely to be satisfied with their overall quality of home (80%) are:  Those who have an unresolved insurance claim on the property they own and usually live in (55%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (57%) or sometimes (74%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (61%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (65%) or good (77%)  Of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity (65%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (67%)  Aged 25 to 34 years (72%) or 35 to 49 years (77%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (73%)  Those who plan to move within the district (73%).

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

EASE OF ACCESS TO SUITABLE TRANSPORT TO DAILY ACTIVITIES When asked about their satisfaction with their ease of access to suitable transport to daily activities, four in five (80%) greater Christchurch residents express satisfaction, while fewer than one in ten (6%) express dissatisfaction. Satisfaction has increased significantly since 2018 and is back to the levels observed in June 2017. Increases are apparent among Christchurch City residents (74% up to 82%) and Waimakariri District residents (64% up to 73%). Table: Trend –Satisfaction with ease of access to suitable transport by TLA over time (%) June 2017 May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Very satisfied or satisfied 80 73 80 Neutral 14 20 - 14 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 6 8 6 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Very satisfied or satisfied 81 74 82 Neutral 14 19 - 13 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 5 7 5 SELWYN DISTRICT Very satisfied or satisfied 78 69 70 Neutral 13 20 - 19 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 9 12 11 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Very satisfied or satisfied 75 64 73 Neutral 17 26 - 17 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 8 10 10

Greater Christchurch: June 2017 n=2530; May 2018 n=2869; June 2019 n=2644 Christchurch City: June 2017 n=1284; May 2018 n=1494; June 2019 n=1320 Selwyn District: June 2017 n=649; May 2018 n=707; June 2019 n=633 Waimakariri District: June 2017 n=597; May 2018 n=668; June 2019 n=691

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

Residents of Waimakariri District (73%) and Selwyn District (70%) are less satisfied with the ease of access to suitable transport to daily activities (cf. 82% among Christchurch City residents). Figure 4.5: Current result – Satisfaction with ease of access to suitable transport by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2644) 1 5 14 45 35

Christchurch City (n=1320) 14 13 46 36

Selwyn District (n=633) 3 8 19 39 31

Waimakariri District (n=691) 3 7 17 41 32

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to be satisfied with their ease of access to suitable transport to daily activities (80%) are:  Aged 65 to 74 years (88%)  From a household with an income of more than $100,000 (85%)  Those who rate their health as very good or excellent (84%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated rarely or never (84%).

Those less likely to be satisfied with their ease of access to suitable transport to daily activities (80%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (62%), or sometimes (75%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (65%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (70%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (74%).

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

EASE OF ACCESS TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT When asked about their satisfaction with their ease of access to the natural environment (rivers, lakes, beaches, wildlife areas, parks, walking tracks), over eight in ten residents (84%) express satisfaction, while a small minority (4%) express dissatisfaction.

Satisfaction with ease of access to the natural environment has increased since June 2017, led by increased satisfaction among Christchurch City residents (up from 80% in 2018 to 84% in 2019) and Selwyn District residents (up from 78% to 82%). Table: Trend –Satisfaction with ease of access to the natural environment by TLA over time (%) June 2017 May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Very satisfied or satisfied 81 80 84 Neutral 14 15 12 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 5 5 4 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Very satisfied or satisfied 81 80 84 Neutral 14 15 12 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 5 5 3 SELWYN DISTRICT Very satisfied or satisfied 80 78 82 Neutral 14 17 14 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 6 6 4 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Very satisfied or satisfied 84 87 87 Neutral 12 10 10 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 4 3 3

Greater Christchurch: June 2017 n=2528, May 2018 n=2871; June 2019 n=2648 Christchurch City: June 2017 n=1283, May 2018 n=1495; June 2019 n=1322 Selwyn District: June 2017 n=649, May 2018 n=707; June 2019 n=634 Waimakariri District: June 2017 n=596, May 2018 n=669; June 2019 n=692

Residents of Waimakariri District (86%) have the highest level of satisfaction with their ease of access to the natural environment (cf. 82% among Selwyn District residents and 84% among Christchurch City residents).

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

Figure 4.6: Current result – Satisfaction with ease of access to the natural environment by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2648) 13 12 45 39

Christchurch City (n=1322) 13 12 45 39

Selwyn District (n=634) 13 14 47 35

1 Waimakariri District (n=692) 2 10 41 46

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to be satisfied with their access to the natural environment (84%) are:  From a household with an income of more than $200,000 (95%) or between $100,001 to $150,000 (92%)  Aged 35 to 49 years (87%) or 50 to 64 years (87%)  Living with children in the household (87%).

Those less likely to be satisfied with their access to the natural environment (84%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (56%) or sometimes (80%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (65%)  Those who have an unresolved insurance claim on the property they own and usually live in (69%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (70%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (72%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (78%)  Aged 65 plus years (78%).

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES This question was first asked in May 2018. There has been a significant improvement in satisfaction with local community facilities, with three in four (75%) greater Christchurch residents expressing satisfaction in 2019, compared with 69% doing so in 2018. A small proportion (3%) express dissatisfaction. This increase is led by an increase in satisfaction among Christchurch City residents, up from 67% to 75% in 2019. Satisfaction has declined among Waimakariri District residents (from 78% to 75%). Table: Trend –Satisfaction with local community facilities by TLA over time (%) May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Very satisfied or satisfied 69 75 Neutral 25 22 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 5 3 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Very satisfied or satisfied 67 75 Neutral 27 23 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 6 2 SELWYN DISTRICT Very satisfied or satisfied 75 76 Neutral 21 19 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 4 5 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Very satisfied or satisfied 78 75 Neutral 19 22 Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied 3 3

Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2870; June 2019 n=2644 Christchurch City, May 2018 n=1491; June 2019 n=1318 Selwyn District: May 2018 n=707; June 2019 n=634 Waimakariri District: May 2018 n=672; June 2019 n=692

SECTION 4: QUALITY OF LIFE

Overall satisfaction levels are consistent across the districts, although Waimakariri District residents were more likely to be very satisfied (30%) with local community facilities than Christchurch City residents (24%). Figure 4.7: Current result – Satisfaction with local community facilities by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2644) 12 22 50 25

Christchurch City (n=1318) 11 23 51 24

Selwyn District (n=634) 14 19 49 27

1 Waimakariri District (n=692) 2 22 45 30

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to be satisfied with their local community facilities (75%) are:  Living with children in the household (80%)  From a household with an income of more than $100,000 (79%).

Those less likely to be satisfied with their local community facilities (75%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (56%) or sometimes (72%)  Those who plan to move to another district in greater Christchurch (57%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (62%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (67%).

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

INTRODUCTION

A number of community and social connectedness questions are included in the survey. These are:  The extent to which residents feel a sense of community with others in their neighbourhood.  How easy or difficult they find it being themselves in New Zealand which has many different lifestyles, cultures and beliefs (added in May 2018).  How easy or hard they would find talking to someone if they were feeling down or a bit depressed (added in June 2019).  How safe residents felt in their homes after dark; walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark; in their city/town centre during the day; and in their city/town centre at night (added in May 2018).

SENSE OF COMMUNITY Just under half (48%) of those living in greater Christchurch agree (strongly agree or agree) that they feel a sense of community with others in their neighbourhood in June 2019, while just under one in six (16 %) do not. Since September 2012, there has been an overall downward trend in the proportion agreeing that they feel a sense of community with others in their neighbourhood (down from 55% agreeing in September 2012 to 48% agreeing in June 2019). There has been a corresponding increase in neutral ratings. The proportion disagreeing that they feel a sense of community with others has fluctuated over time, but is at the lowest level since September 2015 (16% disagreeing cf. 20% in September 2015).

Figure 5.2: Trend – Sense of community with others in neighbourhood, over time (%)

The downward trend in the proportion of 55 residents who feel a sense of 52 51 49 50 49 49 49 community with others in their 47 46 47 48 neighbourhood from September 2012 to Jun 2019 is statistically significant (linear regression analysis)

19 20 19 15 16 18 18 16 18 18 17 16

Sep-12 Apr-13 Sep-13 Apr-14 Sep-14 Apr-15 Sep-15 Apr-16 Sep-16 May-17 May-18 Jun-19 (n=2343)(n=2420)(n=2456)(n=2500)(n=2711)(n=2521)(n=2512)(n=3086)(n=2502)(n=2544)(n=2875)(n=2648)

Strongly disagree or disagree Strongly agree or agree

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

Selwyn District residents (54%) and Waimakariri District residents (56%) are still more likely to have a sense of community with others in their neighbourhood, while the sense of community is lower among Christchurch City residents (46%). However, Selwyn District residents’ sense of community with others in their neighbourhood has declined from 59% in 2018 to 54% in 2019. Table: Trend – Sense of community with others in neighbourhood by TLA over time (%)

Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept June May June Rating 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019

CHRISTCHURCH CITY Strongly agree or 53 51 49 47 48 46 47 45 48 46 agree 45 43 Neither agree nor 31 32 32 36 - 33 34 35 34 34 34 34 37 disagree Strongly disagree 15 17 19 19 20 18 22 20 19 21 18 17 or disagree SELWYN DISTRICT Strongly agree or 63 59 62 64 63 59 59 59 61 56 59 agree 54 Neither agree nor 28 29 29 28 27 31 30 30 29 32 32 35 disagree Strongly disagree 9 12 9 8 10 10 11 11 10 12 9 or disagree 12 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Strongly agree or 56 56 58 59 53 54 54 59 59 52 55 56 agree Neither agree nor 31 32 30 30 33 33 34 28 - 29 33 33 31 disagree Strongly disagree 13 12 12 11 14 13 12 13 12 15 12 12 or disagree Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Christchurch City: Sept 2012 n= 1135; April 2013 n=1201; Sept 2013 n= 1232; April 2014 n= 1270; Sept 2014 n= 1388; April 2015 n=1310, Sept 2015 n=1205; April 2016 n=1475; Sept 2016 n=1164; June 2017 n=1289; May 2018 n=1497; June 2019 n=1322 Selwyn District: Sept 2012 n= 610; April 2013 n=616; Sept 2013 n= 638; April 2014 n= 631; Sept 2014 n= 637; April 2015 n=584, Sept 2015 n=643; April 2016 n=822; Sept 2016 n=629; June 2017 n=650; May 2018 n=709; June 2019 n=634 Waimakariri District: Sept 2012 n= 598; April 2013 n=603; Sept 2013 n= 586; April 2014 n= 599; Sept 2014 n= 686; April 2015 n=627, Sept 2015 n=664; April 2016 n=789; Sept 2016 n=709; June 2017 n=605; May 2018 n=669; June 2019 n=692

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

Figure 5.3: Current result – Sense of community with others in neighbourhood by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2648) 3 13 36 39 9

Christchurch City (n=1322) 3 14 37 37 9

Selwyn District (n=634) 3 9 35 44 10

Waimakariri District (n=692) 3 9 31 46 10

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to agree that they feel a sense of community with others in their neighbourhood (48%) are:  Aged 65 to 74 years and 75 plus years (62%) or 50 to 64 years (52%)  From a household with an income of more than $200,000 (60%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated rarely or never (56%)  Those who rate their health as very good or excellent (54%)  Living with children in the household (52%)  Those with no plans to move in the next 5 years (52%).

Those less likely to agree that they feel a sense of community with others in their neighbourhood (48%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (24%) or sometimes (35%)  Those who plan to move to another district in greater Christchurch (25%) or within their district (43%)  Aged 18 to 24 years (29%) or 25 to 34 years (35%)  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (29%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (33%).

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

EASE OF EXPRESSING THEMSELVES IN NEW ZEALAND Just under four in five (79%) greater Christchurch residents say they find it easy or very easy to be themselves in New Zealand. Three percent say they find it hard or very hard. The remaining 16% sometimes find it easy and sometimes find it hard. Table: Trend – Whether find it easy or difficult to be themselves in New Zealand byTLA over time (%) May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Very easy or easy 80 79 Sometimes easy sometimes hard 16 17 Very hard or hard 3 3 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Very easy or easy 81 79 Sometimes easy sometimes hard 17 17 Very hard or hard 3 3 SELWYN DISTRICT Very easy or easy 86 81 Sometimes easy sometimes hard 12 14 Very hard or hard 3 3 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Very easy or easy 81 78 Sometimes easy sometimes hard 14 19 Very hard or hard 5 3

Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2863; June 2019 n=2648 Christchurch City, May 2018 n=1486; June 2019 n=1323 Selwyn District: May 2018 n=711; June 2019 n=634 Waimakariri District: May 2018 n=666; June 2019 n=692

Reported ease of being themselves among Selwyn District residents (81%) in 2019 is at a level more consistent with that expressed by residents in Christchurch City and Waimakariri District (79% and 78% respectively).

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

Figure 5.4: Current result – Whether find it easy or difficult to be themselves in New Zealand by TLA (%)

1 Greater Christchurch (n=2648) 12 17 36 44

1 Christchurch City (n=1323) 12 17 36 43

1 Selwyn District (n=634) 12 14 35 46

1 Waimakariri District (n=691) 12 19 36 42

Don't know Very hard Hard Sometimes easy, sometimes hard Easy Very easy

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to say that they find it easy to be themselves in New Zealand (79%) are:  Aged 75 plus years (92%) or 65 to 74 years (86%)  From a household with an income of $100,001 to $150,000 (89%) or more than $200,000 (88%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated rarely or never (86%)  Those who rate their health as very good or excellent (85%)  European (82%)  Those with no plans to move in the next five years (82%).

Those less likely to say that they find it easy to be themselves in New Zealand (79%) are:  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (47%)  Of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity (53%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (54%) or sometimes (70%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (64%)  Those who plan to move outside of greater Christchurch (69%)  Of Māori ethnicity (71%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (72%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (73%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (73%)  Aged 18 to 24 years (74%) or 35 to 49 years (75%).

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

EASE OF TALKING TO SOMEONE IF FEELING A BIT DOWN In June 2019, greater Christchurch residents were asked how how easy or hard it would be to talk to someone if they felt down or a bit depressed, and wanted to talk to someone about it. Nearly half the residents (48%) reported they would find it easy or very easy to talk to someone, while one in eight (12%) reported they would find it hard or very hard to talk to someone if they felt down or a bit depressed. Results were consistent across greater Christchurch. Figure 5.5: Current result – Agreement that it would be easy or hard to talk to someone if feeling down or a bit depressed by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2643) 2 4 3 9 33 27 21

Christchurch City (n=1321) 2 4 3 9 33 27 22

Selwyn District (n=633) 3 3 4 8 35 27 19

Waimakariri District (n=689) 3 4 4 9 33 29 18

Don’t know I would not talk to anyone Very hard Hard Sometimes easy, sometimes hard Easy Very easy

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to say that they would find it easy to talk to someone (48%) are:  From a household with an income of more than $200,000 (62%)  Aged 75 plus years (57%) or 65 to 74 years (52%). Those more likely to say that they would find it hard to talk to someone (12%) are:  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (22%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (18%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (16%).

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

FEELING SAFE IN THE COMMUNITY From May 2018, new questions were asked about how safe residents feel in their homes after dark; walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark; in their city/town centre during the day; and in their city/town centre at night. The proportion who state they don’t know varies substantially across the four questions so has been included to aid comparison.

FEELING SAFE AT HOME AFTER DARK The vast majority (95%) of greater Christchurch residents feel safe in their homes after dark, with 73% saying they feel very safe. Only 4% feel very or a bit unsafe. Table: Trend – Feelings of safety at home after dark byTLA over time (%) May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Very safe 72 73 Fairly safe 22 22 A bit unsafe 3 3 Very unsafe 2 1 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Very safe 71 72 Fairly safe 23 23 A bit unsafe 4 3 Very unsafe 2 1 SELWYN DISTRICT Very safe 79 80 Fairly safe 16 16 A bit unsafe 2 3 Very unsafe 1 1 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Very safe 74 75 Fairly safe 19 20 A bit unsafe 2 3 Very unsafe 4 2

Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2878; June 2019 n=2646 Christchurch City, May 2018 n=1498; June 2019 n=1322 Selwyn District: May 2018 n=712; June 2019 n=634 Waimakariri District: May 2018 n=668; June 2019 n=690

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

As in 2018, Selwyn District residents feel safer than residents of other areas, with 80% feeling very safe at home after dark.

Figure 5.6: Current result – Feelings of safety at home after dark by TLA (%)

1 Greater Christchurch (n=2646) 1 3 22 73

1 Christchurch City (n=1322) 1 3 23 72

Selwyn District (n=634) 13 16 80

Waimakariri District (n=690) 23 20 75

Don't know Very unsafe A bit unsafe Fairly safe Very safe

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to feel unsafe in their home after dark (4%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (15%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (8%)  Aged 65 to 74 years (8%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (7%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (7%).

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

FEELING SAFE WALKING ALONE IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD AFTER DARK

Just under seven in ten (69%) greater Christchurch residents say they feel safe walking around their neighbourhood after dark, although only 26% feel very safe. Over a quarter (26%) say they feel unsafe, (6% feeling very unsafe). There has been no change since 2018.

Table: Trend – Feelings of safety walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark byTLA over time (%) May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Very safe 27 26 Fairly safe 41 43 A bit unsafe 19 20 Very unsafe 7 6 Don’t know 6 5 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Very safe 24 24 Fairly safe 42 43 A bit unsafe 21 22 Very unsafe 8 7 Don’t know 5 4 SELWYN DISTRICT Very safe 39 39 Fairly safe 40 40 A bit unsafe 10 14 Very unsafe 3 2 Don’t know 7 5 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Very safe 34 32 Fairly safe 40 42 A bit unsafe 13 16 Very unsafe 5 4 Don’t know 8 6

Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2866; June 2019 n=2640 Christchurch City, May 2018 n=1493; June 2019 n=1319 Selwyn District: May 2018 n=709; June 2019 n=631 Waimakariri District: May 2018 n=664; June 2019 n=690

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

Residents of Selwyn District (79%) and Waimakariri District (74%) are more likely to say they feel safe walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark (cf. 66% among Christchurch City residents).

Figure 5.7: Current result – Feelings of safety walking alone in neighbourhood after dark by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2640) 5 6 20 43 26

Christchurch City (n=1319) 4 7 22 43 24

Selwyn District (n=631) 5 2 14 40 39

Waimakariri District (n=690) 6 4 16 42 32

Don't know Very unsafe A bit unsafe Fairly safe Very safe

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to feel unsafe walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark (26%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (52%) or sometimes (33%)  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (40%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (39%)  Female (38%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (38%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (35%)  Aged 18 to 24 years (33%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (31%).

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

FEELING SAFE IN THEIR CITY/TOWN CENTRE DURING THE DAY Over nine in ten (94%) greater Christchurch residents say they feel safe walking around their city/town centre during the day, with two in three (66%) saying they feel very safe. Only 4% say they feel unsafe. Table: Trend – Feelings of safety in city/town centre during the day byTLA over time (%) May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Very safe 66 66 Fairly safe 27 28 A bit unsafe 3 3 Very unsafe 3 1 Don’t know 2 2 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Very safe 64 65 Fairly safe 28 29 A bit unsafe 4 3 Very unsafe 2 1 Don’t know 2 2 SELWYN DISTRICT Very safe 72 73 Fairly safe 22 23 A bit unsafe 3 2 Very unsafe 1 1 Don’t know 2 1 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Very safe 73 73 Fairly safe 19 21 A bit unsafe 3 2 Very unsafe 3 2 Don’t know 3 2

Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2870; June 2019 n=2642 Christchurch City, May 2018 n=1496; June 2019 n=1319 Selwyn District: May 2018 n=708; June 2019 n=634 Waimakariri District: May 2018 n=666; June 2019 n=689

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

Selwyn District (73%) and Waimakariri District (73%) residents are more likely to say they feel very safe walking in their town centre during the day (cf. 65% among Christchurch City residents). Figure 5.8: Current result – Feelings of safety in city/town centre during the day by TLA (%)

1 Greater Christchurch (n=2642) 2 3 28 66

1 Christchurch City (n=1319) 2 3 29 65

1 Selwyn District (n=634) 12 23 73

Waimakariri District (n=689) 222 21 73

Don't know Very unsafe A bit unsafe Fairly safe Very safe

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to feel unsafe in their city/town centre during the day (4%) are:  Those who plan to move to another district in greater Christchurch (11%)  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (10%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (10%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (9%)  Of Māori ethnicity (9%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (8%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (8%).

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

FEELING SAFE IN THEIR CITY/TOWN CENTRE AT NIGHT Just over half (54%) of greater Christchurch residents say they feel safe walking around their city/town centre at night, with 13% feeling very safe. Over four in ten (40%) feel unsafe, with 11% feeling very unsafe. Table: Trend – Feelings of safety in city/town centre after dark byTLA over time (%) May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Very safe 11 13 Fairly safe 38 41 A bit unsafe 31 29 Very unsafe 11 11 Don’t know 9 6 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Very safe 9 11 Fairly safe 37 39 A bit unsafe 33 32 Very unsafe 12 12 Don’t know 9 6 SELWYN DISTRICT Very safe 21 20 Fairly safe 39 48 A bit unsafe 25 20 Very unsafe 7 6 Don’t know 8 7 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Very safe 20 19 Fairly safe 43 45 A bit unsafe 20 22 Very unsafe 8 7 Don’t know 9 7

Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2867; June 2019 n=2644 Christchurch City, May 2018 n=1493; June 2019 n=1321 Selwyn District: May 2018 n=708; June 2019 n=633 Waimakariri District: May 2018 n=660; June 2019 n=633

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

Residents of Selwyn District (68%) Waimakariri District (64%) are more likely to say they feel safe walking in their city/town centre after dark than Christchurch City residents (50%). Figure 5.9: Current result – Feelings of safety in city/town centre at night by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2644) 6 11 29 41 13

Christchurch City (n=1321) 6 12 32 39 11

Selwyn District (n=633) 7 6 20 48 20

Waimakariri District (n=690) 7 7 22 45 19

Don't know Very unsafe A bit unsafe Fairly safe Very safe

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to feel unsafe in their city/town centre after dark (40%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (62%) or sometimes (49%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (55%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (53%)  Female (51%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (48%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

INTRODUCTION Two health and wellbeing questions have been included in the survey since the survey’s inception in 2012. The first question asks about frequency of experiencing stress, while the second is an internationally used set of questions that measure emotional wellbeing (the WHO-5). Since June 2017, residents have been asked three additional health-related behaviour questions about physical activity, alcohol consumption and smoking. In May 2018, an additional question (based on the 2018 Census question) was added about health problems that mean residents have trouble with certain activities.

LEVELS OF STRESS Levels of stress have been showing a gradual decline since September 2012. In June 2019, just over two-thirds (68%) of greater Christchurch residents have experienced stress at least sometimes in the past 12 months that has had a negative effect on them. The proportion reporting stress at this frequency has reduced from 80% in September 2012 to 68% in June 2019. The proportion saying stress has not (‘never’) had a negative effect in the last 12 months is at 5%. Figure 6.1: Trend – Whether experienced stress in the past 12 months that has had a negative effect, over time (%)

Jun 19 (n=2639) 5 27 52 14 2 May 18 (n=2874) 7  25 51 14 3 Jun 17 (n=2524) 5 24 53 15 3 Sep 16 (n=2494) 5 23 52 16 4 Apr 16 (n=3072) 4 23 52 18 3 Sep 15 (n=2511) 5 22 53 17 3 Apr 15 (n=2532) 4 21 56 16 3 Sep 14 (n=2717) 4 23 52 18 3 Apr 14 (n=2493) 4 20 54 19 3 Sep 13 (n=2456) 3 19 56 19 3 Apr 13 (n=2418) 4 19 56 18 3 Sep 12 (n=2362) 3 17 57 19 4

Never Rarely Sometimes Most of the time Always

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

The proportion reporting that they experienced stress most or all of the time has declined significantly since September 2012 from 23% to 16%.

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Figure 6.2: Trend – Proportion reporting they experienced stress that has had a negative effect in the past 12 months, over time (%)

23 22 22 The downward trend in the 21 21 20 21 20 proportion of those who 19 18 17 16 experienced stress most of the time or always from September 2012 to Jun 2019 is statistically significant overall (linear regression analysis)

Sep-12 Apr-13 Sep-13 Apr-14 Sep-14 Apr-15 Sep-15 Apr-16 Sep-16 May-17 May-18 Jun-19 (n=2362)(n=2418)(n=2456)(n=2493)(n=2717)(n=2532)(n=2511)(n=3072)(n=2494)(n=2524)(n=2874)(n=2639) Most of the time or always

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

The prevalence of self-reported stress is higher among Waimakariri District residents (19% always or most of the time) than among Christchurch City (15%) and Selwyn District residents (14%). Table: Trend – Whether experienced stress in the past 12 months that has had a negative effect by TLA over time (%)

Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept June May June Rating 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Always or most 24 23 23 23 22 19 21 21 21 18 17 16 of the time Sometimes 57 56 56 54 52 57- 54 53 52 53 52 52 Rarely or never 19 21 21 23 26 24 25 26 27 29 31 32 SELWYN DISTRICT Always or most 17 17 13 16 15 16 16 15 14 15 14 of the time 13 Sometimes 58 54 57 55 54 55 52 51 53 56 51 56 Rarely or never 25 29 30 32 30 30 32 33 32 30 35 30 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Always or most 19 15 18 16 19 18 15 17 18 16 15 19 of the time Sometimes 56 58 53 56 51 51 52 53 52 50 50 51 Rarely or never 25 27 29 28 30 31 33 30 30 34 35 30 Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Christchurch City: Sept 2012 n=1145; April 2013 n=1200; Sept 2013 n=1230; April 2014 n=1264; Sept 2014 n=1392; April 2015 n=1317, Sept 2015 n=1207, April 2016 n=1464; Sept 2016 n=1158; June 2017 n=1278; May 2018 n=1494; June 2019 n=1319

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Selwyn District: Sept 2012 n=615; April 2013 n=616; September 2013 n=638; April 2014 n=630; Sept 2014 n=636; April 2015 n=586, Sept 2015 n=642, April 2016 n=820; Sept 2016 n=628; June 2017 n=649; May 2018 n=707; June 2019 n=631 Waimakariri District: Sept 2012 n=602; April 2013 n=602; Sept 2013 n=588; April 2014 n=599; Sept 2014 n=689; April 2015 n=629, Sept 2015 n=662; April 2016 n=788; Sept 2016 n=708; June 2017 n=597; May 2018 n=673; June 2019 n=689

Figure 6.3: Current result – Whether experienced stress in the past 12 months that has had a negative effect by TLA (%)

Those more likely to say they have experienced stress most or all of the time (16%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (62%) or sometimes (26%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (36%)  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (36%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (30%)  Aged 18 to 24 years (27%) or 25 to 34 years (20%)  Those who plan to move within the district (23%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (22%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (21%).

Those less likely to say they have experienced stress most or all of the time (16%) are:  Aged 65 plus years (7%)  Those who have accepted an offer on the insurance claim on the property they own and usually live in (12%)  From a household with an income of $60,001 to $100,000 (13%)  Male (13%)  Those with no plans to move in the next 5 years (13%) or in the next twelve months (15%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

HEALTH STATUS From June 2017, greater Christchurch residents were asked how they rate their health, in general. Nearly one in two residents (49%) rate their health as excellent or very good, while 15% rate it as fair or poor. These results have improved since May 2018. Table: Trend – Rating of health by TLA over time (%)

June 2017 May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH

Excellent or very good 44 44 49 Good 38 38 36 Fair or poor 18 18 15 CHRISTCHURCH CITY

Excellent or very good 44 43 49 Good 38 38 35 Fair or poor 18 18 16 SELWYN DISTRICT Excellent or very good 50 49 52 Good 36 38 38 Fair or poor 14 14 10 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Excellent or very good 44 43 46 Good 42 39 39 Fair or poor 14 18 16

Greater Christchurch: June 2017 n=2547; May 2018 n=2882; June 2019 n=2634 Christchurch City: June 2017 n=1291; May 2018 n=1497; June 2019 n=1317 Selwyn District: June 2017 n=651; May 2018 n=715; June 2019 n=632 Waimakariri District: June 2017 n=605; May 2018 n=670; June 2019 n=685

Residents of Selwyn District (52%) are more likely to rate their health as excellent or very good than Christchurch City (49%) or Waimakariri District residents (46%). There has been a significant increase in the proportion of Christchurch City residents rating their health as excellent or very good (from 43% in 2018 to 49% in June 2019).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Figure 6.4: Current result – Rating of health by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2634) 2 13 36 35 14

Christchurch City (n=1317) 2 14 35 35 14

Selwyn District (n=632) 3 8 38 38 14

Waimakariri District (n=685) 2 13 39 35 11

Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to rate their health as excellent or very good (49%) are:  From a household with an income of more than $200,000 (77%), with an income of $150,001 to $200,000 (61%) or $100,001 to $150,000 (58%)  Aged 18 to 24 years (59%) or 25 to 34 years (55%)  Those who live with children in the household (55%).

Those less likely to rate their health as excellent or very good (49%) are:  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (16%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (16%) or sometimes (39%)  Those who smoke regularly (27%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (32%) or between $30,001 to $60,000 (42%)  Of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity (35%)  Aged 75 plus years (36%) or 50 to 64 years (44%)  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (38%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (43%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

FEELINGS OF LONELINESS AND ISOLATION From June 2019, greater Christchurch residents were asked how often they have felt lonely or isolated over the past twelve months. Nearly two in three residents (64%) say they have rarely or never felt lonely or isolated over the past twelve months. However, 6% say they have felt lonely and isolated always or most of the time. There has been little change in these overall results since June 2017. Table: Trend – Proportion who indicate they have rarely or never felt isolated during the last 12 months (%)

June 2017 May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Never or rarely 65 65 64 Sometimes 29 28 30 Always or most of the time 6 7 6 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Never or rarely 64 64 63 Sometimes 29 29 31 Always or most of the time 7 7 6 SELWYN DISTRICT Never or rarely 70 72 65 Sometimes 25 24 31 Always or most of the time 5 3 4 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Never or rarely 68 70 67 Sometimes 27 25 27 Always or most of the time 5 5 6

Greater Christchurch: June 2017 n=2543; May 2018 n=2877; June 2019 n=2641 Christchurch City: June 2017 n=1289; May 2018 n=1496; June 2019 n=1317 Selwyn District: June 2017 n=651; May 2018 n=709; June 2019 n=632 Waimakariri District: June 2017 n=603; May 2018 n=672; June 2019 n=692

Selwyn District residents are more likely to feel lonely or isolated than they were in 2017 or 2018, with ‘sometimes’ ratings increasing from 25% to 31% between 2017 and 2019, with a corresponding decrease in the proportion feeling lonely or isolated never or rarely (72% decreased to 65%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Figure 6.5: Current result – Frequency of feeling lonely and isolated over past 12 months by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2641) 1 5 30 36 28

Christchurch City (n=1317) 1 5 31 36 27

Selwyn District (n=632) 13 31 35 31

Waimakariri District (n=692) 1 5 27 36 31

Always Most of the time Sometimes Rarely Never

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to say they have rarely or never felt lonely or isolated (64%) are:  Aged 65 to 74 years (81%), 75 plus years (78%) or 50 to 64 years (68%)  From a household with an income of more than $200,000 (77%), between $150,001 and $200,000 (72%) or between $100,001 to $150,000 (69%)  Those who rate their health as very good or excellent (74%)  Male (71%)  Those with no plans to move in the next 5 years (68%).

Those more likely to say they have felt lonely or isolated always or most of the time (6%) are:  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (24%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (19%)  Aged 18 to 24 years (15%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (14%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (12%)  Those who plan to move within their district (10%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

LONG-TERM HEALTH CONDITION OR DISABILITY Since the survey’s inception, greater Christchurch residents have been asked if they have a long-term health condition or disability (lasting six months or more) that stops them from doing everyday things other people can do. Just under one in five (18%) indicate that they do. Table: Trend – Have a long-term health condition or disability (%) Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept June May June 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH

Yes 19 17 16 18 17 16 17 19 21 17 18 18

CHRISTCHURCH CITY

Yes 19 17 18 19 17 16 18 19 21 18 18 19

SELWYN DISTRICT

Yes 13 14 13 11 11 12 13 16 18 15 15 15

WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT

Yes 16 19 19 16 15 16 17 20 20 16 18 18 Base: All respondents, excluding not answered.

Greater Christchurch: Sept 2012 n= 2363; Apr 2013 n=2431; Sept 2013 n=2476; Apr 2014 n=2486; Sept 2014 n=2727; April 2015 n=2538; Sept 2015 n=2519; April 2016 n=3092; Sept 2016 n=2499; June 2017 n=24299 May 2018 n=2878, June 2019 n=2,634 Christchurch City: Sept 2012 n= 1145; Apr 2013 n=1208; Sept 2013 n=1234; Apr 2014 n=1268; Sept 2014 n=1394; April 2015 n=1322; Sept 2015 n=1211; April 2016 n=1476; Sept 2016 n=1163; June 2017 n=1286; May 2018 n=1502; June 2019 n=1322; Selwyn District: Sept 2012 n= 614; Apr 2013 n=620; Sept 2013 n=638; Apr 2014 n=633, Sept 2014 n=641; April 2015 n=587; Sept 2015 n=643; April 2016 n=824; Sept 2016 n=627; June 2017 n=651; May 2018 n=715; June 2019 n=634; May 2018 n=713, June 2019 n=630 Waimakariri District: Sept 2012 n= 603; Apr 2013 n=603; Sept 2013 n=592; Apr 2014 n=600, Sept 2014 n=692; April 2015 n=629; Sept 2015 n=666; April 2016 n=792; Sept 2016 n=708; June 2017 n=605; May 2018 n=671; June 2019 n=691; May 2018 n=671, June 2019 n=686

The proportion is lower among Selwyn District residents (15%). This may be a function of the age profile of Selwyn District compared to the other districts (only 15% are aged 65 plus years, compared with 19% across greater Christchurch).

Those more likely to have a long-term health condition or disability (18%) are:  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (54%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (42%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (36%)  Aged 75 plus years (35%) or 65 to 74 years (24%)  Of Māori ethnicity (25%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (24%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

HEALTH PROBLEMS CAUSING DIFFICULTY WITH CERTAIN ACTIVITIES Residents were asked how much difficulty they have with certain activities. This question was based on a question included in the 2018 national Census. The proportion meeting the Stats NZ criteria of ‘a lot of difficulty’ or ‘cannot do at all’ for at least one of the six activities has been calculated. Note that this question includes only aspects of physical and cognitive impairment.

In total, 8% of greater Christchurch residents have an impairment, in terms of having a lot of difficulty or being unable to do at least one of the six activities. Just under half (48%) have no difficulty at all with any of the nominated six activities.

Table: Current Result: have any or no difficulty with any activities (%)

June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH A lot of difficulty / cannot do - at 8 least one of the six activities No difficulty with any activity 48 CHRISTCHURCH CITY A lot of difficulty / cannot do - at 8 least one of the six activities No difficulty with any activity 48 SELWYN DISTRICT A lot of difficulty / cannot do - at 6 least one of the six activities No difficulty with any activity 50 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT A lot of difficulty / cannot do - at 7 least one of the six activities No difficulty with any activity 42

Greater Christchurch: (Excluding not answered); June 2019 n=2,614 Christchurch City: (Excluding not answered)June 2019 n=1,310 Selwyn District: (Excluding not answered)June 2019 n=624 Waimakariri District: (Excluding not answered)June 2019 n=680

The proportion having no difficulty with any of the nominated activities is slightly lower among Waimakariri District residents. This, and other differences noted below, may be a function of the older age profile of Waimakariri District compared to the other districts (51% are aged 50 plus years, compared with only 43% across greater Christchurch).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Results are shown for each of the individual difficulties below. At an individual difficulty level, results are similar in 2018 and 2019. Table: Trend – Have any difficulty with activities due to health problems over time (%) May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Seeing, even if wearing glasses 25 22 Remembering or concentrating 26 24 Hearing, even if using a hearing aid 20 18 Walking or climbing stairs 19 19 Communicating 8 7 Washing all over or dressing 5 4

Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2800-2818; June 2019 n=2572-2595

Difficulty remembering or concentrating (25%), seeing (23%), walking or climbing steps (19%) or hearing (19%) are the top four difficulties experienced due to health problems among greater Christchurch residents. Figure 6.6: Overall result – Whether have any difficulty with activities due to health problems (%) % at least some difficulty Seeing, even if wearing glasses 77 21 1 (n=2595) 22

Remembering or concentrating 75 22 2 (n=2582) 24

Hearing, even if using a hearing aid 81 17 1 (n=2586) 18

Walking or climbing steps (n=2594) 81 16 3 19

Communicating, using your usual language, for example understanding or 93 6 1 7 being understood by others (n=2572)

Washing all over or dressing (n=2573) 96 4 4

No difficulty Some difficulty A lot of difficulty Cannot do at all

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Note: for each activity above, a small minority say they are unable to do that activity at all. But since the percentage is less than 0.5% for each, the ‘cannot do’ figure does not appear on the charts.

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

DIFFICULTY SEEING Nearly one in four (22%) greater Christchurch residents say they have at least some difficulty seeing, even if wearing glasses. Table: Trend – have at least some difficulty seeing, even if wearing glasses over time (%)

May June Difficulty 2018 2019

Seeing, even if wearing glasses 25 22

Base:Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2818; June 2019 n=2595

The proportion is slightly higher among Waimakariri District residents. Figure 6.7: Result – Whether have any difficulty seeing by TLA (%) % at least some difficulty

Greater Christchurch (n=2595) 77 21 1 22

Christchurch City (n=1303) 78 20 1 21

Selwyn District (n=621) 77 22 1 23

Waimakariri District (n=671) 74 25 1 26

No difficulty Some difficulty A lot of difficulty Cannot do at all

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to have at least some difficulty seeing (22%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (39%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (38%) or good (26%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (38%)  Aged 50 to 64 years (33%)  Of Māori ethnicity (32%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

DIFFICULTY REMEMBERING OR CONCENTRATING Nearly a quarter (24%) of greater Christchurch residents say they have at least some difficulty with remembering or concentrating. Table: Trend – have at least some difficulty remembering or concentrating over time (%) May June Difficulty 2018 2019 Remembering or concentrating 26 24

Base:Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2808; June 2019 n=2582

The likelihood is slightly higher among Waimakariri District residents. Figure 6.8: Result – Whether have any difficulty remembering or concentrating by TLA (%) % at least some difficulty

Greater Christchurch (n=2582) 75 22 2 24

Christchurch City (n=1296) 76 22 2 24

Selwyn District (n=617) 77 21 2 23

Waimakariri District (n=669) 69 29 2 31

No difficulty Some difficulty A lot of difficulty Cannot do at all

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to have at least some difficulty remembering or concentrating (24%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (55%) or sometimes (31%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (47%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (46%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (36%) or an income of $30,001 to $60,000 (29%)  Aged 75 plus years (35%) or 65 to 74 years (30%)  Of Māori ethnicity (34%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (31%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

DIFFICULTY HEARING, EVEN WHEN USING A HEARING AID Nearly one in five (18%) greater Christchurch residents say they have at least some difficulty hearing, even when using a hearing aid. Table: Trend – have at least some difficulty hearing, even when using a hearing aid over time (%) May June Difficulty 2018 2019

Hearing, even when using a hearing aid 20 18

Base:Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2804; June 2019 n=2586

The proportion is slightly higher among Waimakariri District residents. Figure 6.9: Result – Whether have any difficulty hearing by TLA (%) % at least some difficulty

Greater Christchurch (n=2586) 81 17 1 18

Christchurch City (n=1292) 82 17 1 18

Selwyn District (n=620) 81 18 1 19

Waimakariri District (n=674) 75 23 2 25

No difficulty Some difficulty A lot of difficulty Cannot do at all

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to have at least some difficulty hearing (18%) are:  Aged 75 plus years (43%), 65 to 74 years (32%), or 50 to 64 years (23%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (35%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (27%)  From a household with an income of $30,001 to $60,000 (23%)  Male (23%)  Those who rate their health as good (22%)

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

DIFFICULTY WALKING OR CLIMBING STAIRS One in five (19%) greater Christchurch residents say they have at least some difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Table: Trend – have at least some difficulty walking or climbing stairs over time (%)

May June Difficulty 2018 2019

Walking or climbing stairs 19 19

Base:Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2814; June 2019 n=2594

Those living in Waimakariri District are more likely to say this is an issue for them (22%) than other greater Christchurch residents. Figure 6.10: Result – Whether have any difficulty walking or climbing stairs by TLA (%) % at least some difficulty

Greater Christchurch (n=2594) 81 16 3 19

Christchurch City (n=1301) 81 15 3 19

Selwyn District (n=620) 83 14 3 17

Waimakariri District (n=673) 78 19 3 22

No difficulty Some difficulty A lot of difficulty Cannot do at all

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to have at least some difficulty walking or climbing stairs (19%) are:  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (59%)  Aged 75 plus years (53%), 65 to 74 years (35%), or 50 to 64 years (23%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (52%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (37%) or $30,001 to $60,000 (23%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (33%)  Those who rate their health as good (23%)  Female (22%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

DIFFICULTY COMMUNICATING Fewer than one in ten (7%) greater Christchurch residents say they have at least some difficulty communicating (that is, using their usual language to understand or be understood by others). Table: Trend – have at least some difficulty communicating over time (%) May June Difficulty 2018 2019

Communicating 8 7

Base:Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2799; June 2019 n=2572

There is no difference by district. `Figure 6.11: Result – Whether have any difficulty communicating by TLA (%) % at least some difficulty

Greater Christchurch (n=2572) 93 6 1 7

Christchurch City (n=1291) 93 6 1 7

Selwyn District (n=618) 94 5 1 6

Waimakariri District (n=663) 94 6 6

No difficulty Some difficulty A lot of difficulty Cannot do at all

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to have at least some difficulty communicating (7%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (23%) or sometimes (9%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (18%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (16%)  Of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity (14%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (13%)  Aged 18 to 24 years (12%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (11%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

DIFFICULTY WASHING OR DRESSING A small minority (4%) of greater Christchurch residents say they have at least some difficulty washing all over or dressing. Table: Trend – have at least some difficulty washing or dressing over time (%) May June Difficulty 2018 2019

Washing or dressing 5 4

Base:Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2800; June 2019 n=2573

There are no differences by district. Figure 6.12: Result – Whether have any difficulty with washing all over or dressing by TLA (%) % at least some difficulty

Greater Christchurch (n=2573) 96 4 4

Christchurch City (n=1289) 95 4 5

Selwyn District (n=616) 97 3 3

Waimakariri District (n=668) 96 4 4

No difficulty Some difficulty A lot of difficulty Cannot do at all

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to have at least some difficulty washing all over or dressing (4%) are:  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (18%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (18%)  Aged 75 plus years (15%) or 65 to 74 years (9%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (13%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (12%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (7%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

WHO-5 WELLBEING INDEX The WHO-5 is a self-rated measure of emotional wellbeing. Respondents are asked to rate the extent to which each of five wellbeing indicators has been present or absent in their lives over the previous two- week period, using a six-point scale ranging from ‘all of the time’ to ‘at no time’. The five wellbeing indicators are:  I have felt cheerful and in good spirits  I have felt calm and relaxed  I have felt active and vigorous  I woke up feeling fresh and rested  My daily life has been filled with things that interest me

The WHO-5 is scored out of a total of 25, with 0 being the lowest level of emotional wellbeing and 25 being the highest level of emotional wellbeing. Scores below 13 (between 0 and 12) are considered indicative of poor emotional wellbeing and may indicate risk of poor mental health. The chart below shows the distribution of scores across the greater Christchurch area. The mean result for greater Christchurch is 15.3 (similar to the May 2018 score of 15.4), while the median result is 16. Just over a quarter (26%) of respondents scored below 13 (compared with 27% doing so in May 2018). Figure 6.13: Current result – WHO-5 raw score distribution for greater Christchurch (%) Median 11.4% 16 9.7% 13 9.6%

8.3% 7.5%7.6%

6.3%

4.6% 4.3% 4.0% 3.6% 3.1% 2.9% 2.0% 2.1% 1.9% 1.9% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.6% 0.7%0.9% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered on any statement (n=2575)

Please note: these results should be interpreted with caution, given the absence of New Zealand norms and no pre-quake data for greater Christchurch.

For further information about the WHO-5 Wellbeing Index, please see the paper by Bech, Gudex and Johansen. (Bech P, Gudex C, Johansen KS. The WHO (Ten) Well-Being Index: Validation in diabetes. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics. 1996;65(4):183-90. PubMed PMID: 8843498).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

With no New Zealand norms or pre-quake data, the April 2013 result provides a benchmark. After some minor fluctuations in the first three measurements, the overall mean WHO-5 score for greater Christchurch has increased slowly from September 2014 onwards. A drop is apparent in the mean WHO-5 score among those living in Selwyn District (from 16.1 in 2018 to 15.6), although it is still well ahead of the mean WHO-5 scores among Christchurch City and Waimakariri District residents (15.2 and 15.4 respectively). Table: Trend – WHO-5 raw score mean over time (Mean and margin of error (95% CI level)) April Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept June May June

2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.9 14.2 14.1 14.4 14.4 14.7 15.4 15.3 (± 0.22) (± 0.21) (± 0.22) (± 0.20) (± 0.21) (± 0.21) (± 0.18) (± 0.20) (± 0.20) (±0.20) (±0.20) n=2343 n=2398 n=2405 n=2658 n=2453 n=2445 n=2999 n=2438 n=2482 n=2788 n=2575 CHRISTCHURCH CITY 13.6 13.5 13.3 13.7 14.0 13.9 14.3 14.2 14.6 15.3 15.2 (± 0.31) (± 0.30) (± 0.30) (± 0.29) (± 0.29) (± 0.30) (± 0.26) (± 0.29) (± 0.28) (±0.25) (±0.27) n=1171 n=1204 n=1219 n=1359 n=1285 n=1178 n=1437 n=1134 n=1263 n=1454 n=1284 SELWYN DISTRICT 14.6 14.9 15.1 14.9 15.0 14.7 15.3 15.4 15.1 16.1 15.6 (± 0.41) (± 0.38) (± 0.41) (± 0.38) (± 0.40) (± 0.40) (± 0.35) (± 0.39) (± 0.38) (±0.37) (±0.37) n=599 n=628 n=610 n=629 n=571 n=626 n=800 n=616 n=643 n=687 n=620 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT 14.8 14.4 14.3 14.4 14.9 15.1 14.6 14.7 15.2 15.3 15.4 (± 0.43) (± 0.43) (± 0.43) (± 0.39) (± 0.40) (± 0.39) (± 0.36) (± 0.40) (± 0.40) (±0.37) (±0.37) n=573 n=566 n=576 n=670 n=597 n=641 n=762 n=688 n=576 n=647 n=671 Base: All respondents, excluding not answered at any of the five statements

Those more likely to have a raw score result above the greater Christchurch mean WHO-5 score of 15.3 (56%) are:  From a household with an income of more than $200,000 (73%), or more than $100,000 (59%)  Those who rate their health as very good or excellent (71%)  Aged 75 plus years (71%) or 65 to 74 years (68%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated rarely or never (71%)  Those not living with a health condition or disability (60%)  Male (60%).

Those more likely to have a raw score result below the greater Christchurch mean WHO-5 score of 15.3 (44%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (92%) or sometimes (66%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (80%) or good (51%)  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (68%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (63%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (53%)  Aged 18 to 24 years (52%) or 35 to 49 years (49%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (52%)  Female (48%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY In May 2018 and June 2019, greater Christchurch residents were asked on how many days in the last seven days they did the following: a) At least 30 minutes of moderate activity that caused a slight, but noticeable, increase in breath and heart rate, OR b) At least 15 minutes of vigorous activity that had you out of breath. The New Zealand Physical Activity Guidelines recommend that adults do 30 minutes of moderate activity (that is activity that caused a slight, but noticeable, increase in breath and heart rate) or 15 minutes of vigorous activity (that is activity that had them out of breath) on at least five days a week. Just over two in five (42%) greater Christchurch residents indicate that they have done the required amount of physical activity in the last seven days to be meeting these guidelines. This result is similar to that observed in 2018 and similar across the three districts. Table: Trend – Number of days in which have done 30 minutes of moderate or 15 minutes of vigorous activity over time (%) May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH 5-7 days 42 42 3-4 days 30 30 1-2 days 17 17 None 11 12

Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2874; June 2019 n=2648

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Figure 6.14: Current result – Number of days in which have done 30 minutes of moderate or 15 minutes of vigorous activity by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2648) 12 17 30 42

Christchurch City (n=1323) 12 17 30 41

Selwyn District (n=633) 9 18 28 44

Waimakariri District (n=692) 12 15 29 44

None 1 - 2 days 3 - 4 days 5 - 7 days

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to have done the stated amount of physical activity on at least 5 – 7 days a week (42%) are:  Those who rate their health as very good or excellent (48%)  Aged 50 to 64 years (46%)  Male (45%).

Those less likely to have done the stated amount of physical activity on at least 5 – 7 days a week (42%) are:  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (31%) or good (38%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (31%)  Of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity (32%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (34%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (36%)  Living with children in the household (38%)  Female (39%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION One in seven (14%) greater Christchurch residents has 11 or more standard drinks a week. There has been a reduction in the proportion of people (both female and male) consuming no alcohol since 2018 (reduced from 32% to 29%). Table: Trend – Number of standard drinks consumed in an average week over time (%) May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH 16 or more 6 6 11 to 15 7 8 6 to 10 16 16 1 to 5 40 42 None 32 29 FEMALES 16 or more 3 3 11 to 15 5 6 6 to 10 14 13 1 to 5 41 43 None 37 35 MALES 16 or more 9 8 11 to 15 9 10 6 to 10 17 18 1 to 5 39 41 None 26 23

Greater Christchurch, May 2018 n=2880; June 2019 n=2636

There is little difference in consumption by district.

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Figure 6.15: Current result – Number of standard drinks consumed in an average week by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2636) 29 42 16 8 6

Christchurch City (n=1318) 30 42 16 8 5

Selwyn District (n=631) 27 44 16 7 6

Waimakariri District (n=687) 29 42 15 8 6

None 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 or more

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

BY GENDER For females, the Ministry of Health recommends having no more than 10 standard drinks per week. Whereas for males, the recommendation is to have no more than 15. Nine percent of females and eight percent of males typically exceed the recommended amount for their gender in an average week. Two in three females (65%) in greater Christchurch typically have at least one standard drink in an average week. Nine percent of females typically exceed their recommended amount (no more than 10 standard drinks) in an average week. Figure 6.16: Current result – Number of standard drinks consumed in an average week by TLA – among females (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=1511) 35 43 13 6 3

Christchurch City (n=752) 36 43 13 6 3

Selwyn District (n=357) 33 47 11 5 3

Waimakariri District (n=402) 37 43 13 5 3

None 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 or more

Base: All female respondents, excluding not answered

Females who are more likely to have had 11 or more standard drinks in an average week (9%) are:  From a household with an income of more than $150,000 (15%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

Over three in four males (77%) in greater Christchurch typically have at least one standard drink in an average week. Eight percent of males typically exceed their recommended amount (no more than 15 standard drinks) in an average week. Figure 6.17: Current result – Number of standard drinks consumed in an average week by TLA – among males (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=1125) 23 41 18 10 8

Christchurch City (n=566) 23 41 18 10 8

Selwyn District (n=274) 21 41 20 8 10

Waimakariri District (n=285) 20 41 17 13 9

None 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 or more

Base: All male respondents, excluding not answered

Males who are more likely to have had 16 or more standard drinks in an average week (8%) are:  Aged 50 to 64 years (14%).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

PREVALENCE OF SMOKING Since June 2017, greater Christchurch residents have been asked whether they regularly smoke cigarettes (that is, one or more a day). Respondents are asked to count only tobacco cigarettes (not pipes, cigars or e-cigarettes). Six percent of greater Christchurch residents indicate that they smoke regularly. Table: Trend – Proportion who smoke tobacco cigarettes regularly (%)

June 2017 May 2018 June 2019

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Yes 7 7 6 CHRISTCHURCH CITY Yes 7 7 6 SELWYN DISTRICT Yes 4 4 6 WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT Yes 9 7 6

Greater Christchurch: June 2017 n=2537, May 2018 n=2883, June 2019 n=2641 Christchurch City: June 2017 n=1286, May 2018 n=1500, June 2019 n=1319 Selwyn District: June 2017 n=651, May 2018 n=711, June 2019 n=632 Waimakariri District: June 2017 n=600, May 2018 n=672, June 2019 n=690

A decrease is apparent among residents of Waimakariri District (from 9% in June 2017 to 6% in June 2019).

SECTION 6: HEALTH AND WELLBEING

The prevalence of regularly smoking tobacco cigarettes is consistent across greater Christchurch.

Figure 6.18: Current result – Whether regularly smoke tobacco cigarettes by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2641) 94 6

Christchurch City (n=1319) 94 6

Selwyn District (n=632) 94 6

Waimakariri District (n=690) 94 6

No Yes

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Those more likely to smoke regularly (6%) are:  Of Māori ethnicity (18%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (15%) or sometimes (8%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (14%)  Those who rent the dwelling in which they are living (11%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (10%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (9%).

Those less likely to smoke regularly (6%) are:  Aged 75 plus years (2%) or aged 25 to 34 years (3%)  From a household with an income of more than $100,000 (3%)  Those who rate their health as very good or excellent (3%).

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY

INITIATIVES

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

INTRODUCTION The All Right? campaign was introduced in greater Christchurch in 2013 to help people living in the area think about their mental health and wellbeing. In addition, various community initiatives have been implemented in central Christchurch in recent years. Respondents were asked about their awareness of and attitude toward six community initiatives. Three were also asked about in June 2017: The Super Street Arcade, the Dance-O-Mat, and the Festival of Transitional Architecture. Three were asked about for the first time in 2019: The City Promenade, Laneways and gathering areas, and the Detour Snake Run. Notes:

 The June 2017 online questionnaire did not include a ‘None of the above’ option for initial respondents; which affects comparability to results from other time points.Thus 2017 results are not directly comparable with 2018 and 2019 results.  While reported together here, these initiatives vary in terms of their nature and scope, for example ranging from permanent ‘in place’ initiatives to time-limited initiatives. These differences should be taken into account when considering these results.

AWARENESS OF THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER INITIATIVES In June 2019, about six in ten (59%) of all respondents were aware of the All Right? campaign, which has been running since 2013. Of the six community initiatives, the City Promenade is most widely known (with 67% awareness). Figure 7.1: Current result – Awareness of Initiatives (%)

The All Right? campaign (n=2641) 59

The City Promenade (n=2640) 67

Laneways and gathering areas (n=2637) 48

The Super Street Arcade (n=2638) 47

The Dance-O-Mat (n=2635) 41

The Detour Snake Run (n=2636) 32

The Festival of Transitional Architecture (n=2638) 15

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

Impressions of the community initiatives are generally favourable among those who are aware of them. The level of unfavourable impressions ranged from 1% to 3%, with slightly higher unfavourable ratings for the Laneways and gathering areas (at 3%). Favourability ratings are shown below for all six initiatives. Table: Current result – Opinion of each initiative among those who have seen or heard of it over time (% who are favourable or very favourable) June

2019 The All Right? campaign 81

The City Promenade 85

Laneways and gathering areas 81

The Super Street Arcade 67

The Dance-O-Mat 71

The Detour Snake Run 72

The Festival of Transitional Architecture 70

Base: All respondents aware of each initiative, excluding not answered

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN Respondents have been asked about their awareness of the All Right? campaign since the April 2013 survey. In June 2019, nearly six in ten (59%) of greater Christchurch residents are aware of the ‘All Right?’ campaign, the highest result observed. Table: Trend – Awareness of the All Right? campaign over time (%) Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept April Sept June May June Awareness 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 The ‘All Right?’ 33 38 49 48 49 50 51 52 45* 50 59 campaign

*Note that the June 2017 online questionnaire did not include a ‘None of the above’ option for initial respondents; which will have affected comparability to results from other time points.Thus 2017 results are not directly comparable with 2018 and 2019 results.

Christchurch City residents (61%) are more likely to be aware of the All Right? campaign than Selwyn and Waimakariri District residents (54%).

Those more likely to be aware of the All Right? campaign (59%) are:  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (82%)  From a household with an income between $100,001 to $150,000 (67%)  Those who live with children in the household (66%)  Female (66%)  Aged 35 to 49 years (65%) or 20 to 24 years (66%)  European (60%)  From a household with an income of more than $100,000 (65%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated sometimes (64%)  Those who rate their health as very good or excellent (60%)

Those less likely to be aware of the All Right? campaign (59%) are:  Of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity (46%)  Aged 75 plus (49%) or 65 to 74 years (46%)  From a household with an income of $30,001 to $60,000 or less than $30,000 (50%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (51%)  Male (53%)  Of Pacific, Asian, or Indian ethnicity (46%).

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

Of those who have heard of the All Right? campaign, eight in ten (81%) say their impression is favourable. A very small minority (2%) have an unfavourable impression of the campaign. Table: Trend – Opinion of the All Right? campaign among those who have seen or heard of it over time (% who are favourable or very favourable) Apr Sept Apr Sept Apr Sept April Sept June May June

2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 The All Right? 57 61 63 69 72 71 71 71 78* 73 81 campaign *Note that the June 2017 online questionnaire did not include a ‘None of the above’ option for initial respondents, which will have affected comparability to results from other time points. Thus 2017 results are not directly comparable with 2018 and 2019 results.

Impressions of the All Right? campaign are favourable across all areas although respondents from Waimakariri District are less likely to give a very favourable rating (41% very favourable cf. 47% among Christchurch City residents and 44% among Selwyn District residents). Figure 7.2: Current result – Opinion of the All Right? campaign (%) % favourable

1 Greater Christchurch (n=1450) 1 17 35 46 81

1 Christchurch City (n=769) 1 17 34 47 81

Selwyn District (n=333) 1 15 40 44 84

Waimakariri District (n=348) 1 18 39 41 80

Very unfavourable Unfavourable Neutral Favourable Very favourable

Base: Aware of initiative, excluding not answered and don’t know

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

THE CITY PROMENADE

The City Promenade is the most well known of the initiatives, with 67% awareness in June 2019. The City Promenade was described in the survey as the area where Oxford Terrace on the city side of the Ōtākaro/Avon River has been turned into a pedestrian and cycle friendly area. Table: Current result - Awareness of the City Promenade (%) June Awareness 2019

The City Promenade 67

Christchurch City residents are more likely to be aware of the City Promenade (71%) than those living in Selwyn District (55%) or Waimakariri District (52%).

Those more likely to be aware of the City Promenade (67%) are:  From a household with an income of more than $200,000 (82%) or an income of $100,001 to $150,000 (75%)  Aged 65 plus years (73%).

Those less likely to be aware of the City Promenade (67%) are:  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (53%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (54%) or sometimes (63%)  Of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity (54%) or of Māori ethnicity (59%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (58%).

Impressions are very favourable among those who have heard of the City Promenade, with over eight in ten (85%) saying their impression is favourable. Unfavourable opinions are minimal.

Figure 7.3: Current result – Opinion of the City Promenade (%)

% favourable

Greater Christchurch (n=1542) 1 13 39 47 85

Christchurch City (n=881) 1 13 38 47 85

Selwyn District (n=329) 2 9 39 50 89

1 Waimakariri District (n=332) 1 15 44 39 83

Very unfavourable Unfavourable Neutral Favourable Very favourable

Base: Aware of initiative, excluding not answered and don’t know

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

LANEWAYS AND GATHERING AREAS

In June 2019, just under half (48%) of the respondents say they are aware of the Laneways and gathering areas. These were described in the survey as the new paths and spaces in the South Frame (seven city blocks along the north side of St Asaph St, bordered by Montreal Street and Manchester St) and Rauora Park in the East Frame (located between Manchester St and Madras St, from Lichfield St in the south to the Margaret Mahy Family Playground in the north).

Table: Current result - Awareness of the Laneways and gathering areas (%)

June Awareness 2019

Laneways and gathering areas 48

Christchurch City residents are more likely to be aware of the Laneways and gathering areas (51%) than Selwyn District residents (38%) or Waimakariri District residents (32%).

Those more likely to be aware of the Laneways and gathering areas (48%) are:  From a household with an income of more than $200,000 (60%) or from a household with an income of $100,000 to $200,000 (55%)  Aged 65 to 74 years (55%).

Those less likely to be aware of the Laneways and gathering areas (48%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (34%) or sometimes (43%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (37%) or good (44%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (38%)  Those who feel lonely or isolated sometimes (43%)  Female (45%).

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

Of those who have heard of the Laneways and gathering areas, eight in ten (81%) say their impression is favourable. A small minority (3%) have an unfavourable impression. Figure 7.3: Current result – Opinion of the Laneways and gathering areas (%) % favourable

1 Greater Christchurch (n=1077) 2 16 40 41 81

1 Christchurch City (n=638) 2 17 40 40 80

Selwyn District (n=227) 22 15 34 47 81

Waimakariri District (n=212) 13 12 42 42 84

Very unfavourable Unfavourable Neutral Favourable Very favourable

Base: Aware of initiative, excluding not answered and don’t know

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

THE SUPER STREET ARCADE Just under half (47%) of the respondents said they are aware of the Super Street Arcade. This arcade was described in the survey as the giant joystick and video game screen near the corner of Tuam and High Streets. Table: Current result - Awareness of the Super Street Arcade (%) June Awareness 2019

The Super Street Arcade 47 Residents of Christchurch City are more likely to be aware of the Super Street Arcade (52%) than Selwyn District residents (31%) or Waimakariri District residents (26%).

Those more likely to be aware of the Super Street Arcade (47%) are:  Aged 18 to 24 years (67%), 25 to 34 years (62%), or 35 to 49 years (55%)  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (67%)  From a household with an income of more than $200,000 (62%), an income of $150,001 to $200,000 (59%), or an income of $100,001 to $150,000 (57%)  Of Māori ethnicity (57%)  Those who live with children in the household (55%).

Those less likely to be aware of the Super Street Arcade (47%) are:  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (32%) or an income of $30,001 to $60,000 (40%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (40%)  Those who live with a health condition or disability (40%)  Female (44%).

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

Table: Current result– Opinion of the Super Street Arcade among those who have seen or heard of it over time (% who are favourable or very favourable) June Opinion 2019

The Super Street Arcade 67

Two in three (67%) of those who have heard of the Super Street Arcade say their impression is favourable. A very small minority (3%) have an unfavourable impression. Figure 7.3: Current result – Opinion of the Super Street Arcade (%) % favourable

1 Greater Christchurch (n=952) 2 30 39 28 67

1 Christchurch City (n=623) 2 31 38 28 66

1 Selwyn District (n=180) 1 24 46 28 74

1 Waimakariri District (n=149) 2 29 44 24 68

Very unfavourable Unfavourable Neutral Favourable Very favourable

Base: Aware of initiative, excluding not answered and don’t know

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

THE DANCE-O-MAT In June 2019, four in ten (41%) respondents said they are aware of the Dance-O-Mat (a coin operated dance floor across the road from Tūranga). Table: Current result - Awareness of the Dance-O-Mat (%) June Awareness 2019

The Dance-O-Mat 41

Christchurch City residents are more likely to be aware of the Dance-O-Mat (44%) than residents of Selwyn District (29%) or Waimakariri District (25%).

Those more likely to be aware of the Dance-O-Mat (41%) are:  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (54%)  From a household with an income of more than $100,000 (51%)  Aged 35 to 49 years (49%) or 18 to 34 years (48%)  Living with children in the household (47%)  Female (45%)

Those less likely to be aware of the Dance-O-Mat (41%) are:  Of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity (20%)  Aged 75 plus years (21%), 65 to 74 years (31%), or 50 to 64 years (33%)  From a household with an income of less than $30,000 (28%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (29%) or good (36%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (34%)  Male (36%).

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

Table: Current result – Opinion of Dance-O-Mat among those who have seen or heard of it over time (% who are favourable or very favourable)

June Opinion 2019

The Dance-O-Mat 71

Seven in ten (71%) of those who have heard of the Dance-O-Mat say their impression is favourable. A very small minority (2%) have an unfavourable impression. Figure 7.3: Current result – Opinion of the Dance-O-Mat (%) % favourable

Greater Christchurch (n=915) 2 26 43 28 71

Christchurch City (n=565) 2 26 43 28 71

1 Selwyn District (n=184) 2 24 47 25 72

1 Waimakariri District (n=166) 1 26 45 28 72

Very unfavourable Unfavourable Neutral Favourable Very favourable

Base: Aware of initiative, excluding not answered and don’t know

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

THE DETOUR SNAKE RUN

In June 2019, one in three (32%) respondents said they are aware of the Detour Snake Run. This was described in the survey as an asphalt ‘pump track’ for bikes, scooters, skateboards and more across from Margaret Mahy Family Playground.

Table: Current result - Awareness of the Detour Snake Run (%)

June Awareness 2019

The Detour Snake Run 32

Awareness of the Detour Snake Run is greater among those living in Christchurch City (34%) than residents of Selwyn District (22%) or Waimakariri District (20%). Those more likely to be aware of the Detour Snake Run (32%) are:  Aged 25 to 34 years (42%) or aged 35 to 49 years (36%)  Living with children in the household (40%)

Seven in ten (72%) of those who have heard of the Detour Snake Run say their impression is favourable. Unfavourable impressions are minimal. Figure 7.3: Current result – Opinion of the Detour Snake Run (%) % favourable

Greater Christchurch (n=649) 1 27 38 34 72

Christchurch City (n=410) 1 26 38 35 72

Selwyn District (n=119) 1 24 40 36 76

Waimakariri District (n=120) 1 31 39 29 68

Very unfavourable Unfavourable Neutral Favourable Very favourable

Base: Aware of initiative, excluding not answered and don’t know

SECTION 7: THE ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN AND OTHER COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

THE FESTIVAL OF TRANSITIONAL ARCHITECTURE The Festival of Transitional Architecture has limited awareness (15% awareness in June 2019). The Festival was described in the survey as FESTA, a Labour weekend celebration of urban creativity held every two years in central Christchurch. Table: Trend - Awareness of the Festival of Transitional Architecture (%) June Awareness 2019

The Festival of Transitional Architecture 15

Awareness of the Festival of Transitional Architecture is higher among Christchurch City residents (17%) than among residents of Selwyn District (10%) or Waimakariri District (7%).

Table: Current result – Opinion of the Festival of Transitional Architecture among those who have seen or heard of it over time (% who are favourable or very favourable)

Opinion June 2019

The Festival of Transitional Architecture 70

Seven in ten (70%) of those who have heard of the Festival of Transitional Architecture say their impression is favourable.

Figure 7.3: Current result – Opinion of the Festival of Transitional Architecture (%)

% favourable

1 Greater Christchurch (n=310) 1 28 41 29 70

1 Christchurch City (n=209) 1 28 41 29 70

Selwyn District (n=59) 2 4 21 45 28 74

Waimakariri District (n=42) 34 36 30 66

Very unfavourable Unfavourable Neutral Favourable Very favourable

Base: Aware of initiative, excluding not answered and don’t know

SECTION 8: CONDITION OF DWELLINGS AND INSURANCE CLAIMS

INTRODUCTION

This section presents results for questions about the condition of dwellings and insurance claims. All respondents were asked to identify to the best of their knowledge what the current condition of their dwelling is specifically in relation to damage caused by any earthquakes that have affected the greater Christchurch region (whether or not they own the dwelling). Those who own the dwelling were also asked whether or not they were required to make a claim as a result of any of the earthquakes. They were asked to exclude land and paths / driveways claims and contents claims. Please note: These results should not be considered representative of all claims made in the greater Christchurch region, as these questions were only asked of those who made a claim on the property they personally or jointly own and usually live in. Many owners are therefore excluded from these results (for example those who were red zoned, those who have since sold a property they made a claim on or those who own a rental property).

SECTION 8: CONDITION OF DWELLINGS AND INSURANCE CLAIMS

THE CURRENT STATUS OF DWELLINGS AND CLAIMS MADE

All respondents were asked to identify to the best of their knowledge what the current condition of their dwelling is specifically in relation to damage caused by any earthquakes that have affected the greater Christchurch region (whether or not they own the dwelling). They were asked to think about the property rather than any land, paths, driveways or contents damage. Below is a summary of the results:  Six in ten (62%) of all respondents’ dwellings have been or are currently being repaired or rebuilt, compared with 60% in May 2018.  Of the properties that have been repaired, 15% have required re-repairs (9% of all dwellings). One in four of those needing re-repairs have had the repairs completed.  Seven percent of the dwellings damaged by earthquakes have not yet been repaired or rebuilt.  Twenty four percent of all dwellings have been unaffected (either because the dwelling was not damaged in earthquakes (13%) or the dwelling was built after the 4 September 2010 earthquake (11%)).

Figure 8.1: Current result – Current status of dwellings in greater Christchurch (among all respondents) (%)

The dwelling has been or is currently being fully repaired 42

The dwelling has been or is currently being partially repaired 7

The dwelling has been or is currently being rebuilt 4 62% of properties have been or are being The dwelling has been repaired and then re-repaired 4 repaired / rebuilt. The dwelling has been repaired but now needs to be re- repaired 5

The dwelling will be fully repaired in the future 2 3% of properties are The dwelling will be partially repaired in the future 1 likely to be repaired or rebuilt in the future The dwelling will be rebuilt in the future 0

The dwelling needs earthquake repairs but the intentions for repair are uncertain 3 The decision has been made not to repair or rebuild the dwelling 1

Other 1

The dwelling was not damaged in the earthquakes 13

Not applicable, the dwelling was built after 4 September 2010 11

Don't know 7

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered (n=2641)

SECTION 8: CONDITION OF DWELLINGS AND INSURANCE CLAIMS

Selwyn District and Waimakariri District residents (30% and 21%) are more likely than Christchurch City residents (7%) to be living in a property which was built after 4 September 2010. Figure 8.2: Current result – Current status of dwellings in greater Christchurch (among all respondents), by TLA (%) Christchurch Selwyn Waimakariri City District District (n=1317) (n=632) (n=692) The dwelling has been or is currently being fully repaired 42 44 31 33

The dwelling has been or is currently being partially repaired 7 7 4 6

The dwelling has been or is currently being rebuilt 4 4 2 2

The dwelling has been repaired and then re-repaired 4 4 3 1

The dwelling has been repaired but now needs to be re-repaired 5 6 2 4

The dwelling will be fully repaired in the future 2 2 1 1

The dwelling will be partially repaired in the future 1 1 1 0

The dwelling will be rebuilt in the future 0 1 - -

The dwelling needs earthquake repairs but the intentions for 3 repair are uncertain 3 1 3

The decision has been made not to repair or rebuild the dwelling 1 1 1 1

Other 1 1 - 1

The dwelling was not damaged in the earthquakes 13 11 17 21

Not applicable, the dwelling was built after 4 September 2010 11 7 30 21

Don't know 7 8 6 5

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered (n=2641)

SECTION 8: CONDITION OF DWELLINGS AND INSURANCE CLAIMS

STATUS OF INSURANCE CLAIMS

Just under six in ten (56%) greater Christchurch residents who own the dwelling they usually live in say they have made a claim on their dwelling as a result of any earthquakes. Figure 8.3: Trend - Whether those who own the dwelling they usually live in have made an insurance claim (%)

See note about interpretation of these results on page 95

SECTION 8: CONDITION OF DWELLINGS AND INSURANCE CLAIMS

The status of the claims made (among the 56% of property owners who made a claim) is broken out as follows:  Nineteen in twenty (95%) of those who had made a claim have had their claim resolved (this equates to 53% of all those who own the dwelling they usually live in)  One in twenty (5%) of those who had made a claim have not yet had their claim resolved (this equates to 3% of all those who own the dwelling they usually live in) o 1% having received an offer on their dwelling claim but who have not accepted it yet o 1% having had an assessment on their dwelling claim from EQC or their private insurer but who have not received an offer yet o 2% who are still waiting for an assessment from EQC or their private insurer o 2% said something else.

Figure 8.4: Current result – Where those who have made a claim are in the process (%)

See note about interpretation of these results on page 95

SECTION 8: CONDITION OF DWELLINGS AND INSURANCE CLAIMS

Among those who have made an insurance claim as a result of any earthquakes on the property they currently own and usually live in, 5% have an unresolved claim. This is a significant improvement since May 2018. Figure 8.5: Trend – Proportion of claims (among owners who have made a claim on the property they own and usually live in) that remain unresolved (%)

See note about interpretation of these results on page 95

100

SECTION 9: DECISION MAKING BY CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION

This section considers perceptions of the decisions being made by the central and local government agencies, as well as the opportunities the public feels they have to influence the work of these agencies. A new question asking about confidence that decisions being made by the central and local government are in the best interests of their city or district was asked in 2018, replacing a previous question about confidence in earthquake recovery decisions being made by the central and local government.

OVERALL CONFIDENCE IN THE DECISIONS BEING MADE

Agreement in confidence that decisions being made by central and local government are in the best interests of their city or district outweighs disagreement (39% cf. 23%). Residents of Selwyn District have the highest level of confidence that decisions are being made in the best interests of their city or district (47%), while Christchurch City residents and Waimakariri District residents have lower confidence (37% and 41% respectively). Figure 9.1: Current result – Overall confidence that decisions are in the best interests of the city or district by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2645) 6 17 38 36 3

Christchurch City (n=1321) 6 18 38 34 3

Selwyn District (n=634) 3 12 38 45 2

Waimakariri District (n=690) 4 15 40 38 3

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

102

SECTION 9: DECISION MAKING BY CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Those more likely to agree they have confidence that decision making is in the best interests of the city or district (39%) are:  Of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity (48%)  Those who rate their health as very good or excellent (44%)  From a household with an income of more than $100,000 (44%)  Those who live with children in the household (42%).

Those more likely to disagree they have confidence that decision making is in the best interests of the city or district (23%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (35%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (34%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (31%)  Aged 50 to 64 years (28%)  Male (27%).

103

SECTION 9: DECISION MAKING BY CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

SATISFACTION WITH OPPORTUNITIES THE PUBLIC HAS TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DO In May 2018 and June 2019, respondents were asked whether they agree they are able to have enough of a say in what central and local government do. There has been little change since May 2018, with 25% agreeing and 33% disagreeing that they have enough of a say. Table: Trend – Satisfaction with the opportunities the public has to have a say in what agencies do over time (%) May June Agreement 2018 2019 Opportunities to have enough of a say in what central and local government agencies do 26 25 ` Residents of Selwyn District and Waimakariri District are more likely to agree (31% and 29%) that they have enough of a say than those living in Christchurch City (24%). Figure 9.2: Current result – Satisfaction with the opportunities the public has to have a say in what agencies do by TLA (%)

Greater Christchurch (n=2637) 8 25 43 23 2

Christchurch City (n=1317) 8 25 43 22 2

Selwyn District (n=633) 5 20 44 29 2

Waimakariri District (n=687) 7 22 42 27 2

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

104

SECTION 9: DECISION MAKING BY CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Those more likely to agree they have enough of a say in the decisions made by central and local government (25%) are:  Of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity (34%)  Aged 65 plus years (30%).

Those more likely to disagree they have enough of a say in the decisions made by central and local government (33%) are:  Those who feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (52%) or sometimes (36%)  Those who indicate they are non-heterosexual (47%)  Those who rate their health as fair or poor (45%)  Those who live with a health condition or a disability (41%).

105

SECTION 10: GROUPS OF INTEREST

SECTION 10: SUBGROUPS OF INTEREST

INTRODUCTION

This section considers differences across key subgroups of interest, who feature across a number of different indicators. THOSE OF MĀORI ETHNICITY Six percent of the sample were of Māori ethnicity. Compared with the total sample, Māori respondents are significantly more likely to:  Have some difficulty remembering or concentrating (34% cf. 25%)  Have at least some difficulty seeing (32% cf. 22%)  Live with a health condition or disability (25% cf. 18%)  Feel unsafe in their city/town centre during the day (9% cf. 4%). They are less likely to:  Find it easy to be themselves (71% cf. 79%)

THOSE OF PACIFIC, ASIAN OR INDIAN ETHNICITY Eight percent of the sample are of Pacific, Asian or Indian ethnicity. Compared with the total sample, respondents in this group are less likely to:  Rate their quality of life positively (71% cf. 86%)  Rate the quality of their home positively (65% cf. 80%)  Find it easy to be themselves (53% cf. 79%)  Rate their health as excellent or very good (35% cf. 49%) They are more likely to:  Have at least some difficulty communicating (14% cf. 7%)

107

SECTION 10: SUBGROUPS OF INTEREST

THOSE LIVING WITH A HEALTH CONDITION OR DISABILITY About 18% of greater Christchurch residents indicate that they are living with a long-term health condition or disability (lasting six months or more) that stops them from doing everyday things other people can do.

Those who live with a health condition or disability are less likely to:  Rate their quality of life positively (69% cf. 86%)  Feel a sense of community with others (41% cf. 48%)  Find it easy to be themselves (73% cf. 79%)  Be satisfied with the quality of their home (73% cf. 80%)  Be satisfied with their ease of access to suitable transport to daily activities (70% cf. 80%)  Be satisfied with their access to the natural environment (70% cf. 84%)  Be satisfied with their local community facilities (67% cf. 75%)  Rate their health as very good or excellent (16% cf. 49%).. They are more likely to:  Disagree that they feel confident that decision making is in the best interests of the city and district (31% cf. 23%).  Be dissatisfied that their total household income meets their everyday needs (20% cf. 11%)  Feel unsafe in their city/town centre at night (48% cf. 40%)  Feel unsafe walking around alone in their neighbourhood at night (31% cf. 26%)  Feel unsafe in their city/town centre during the day (8% cf. 4%)  Feel unsafe at home after dark (7% cf. 4%)  Have a raw WHO-5 score below the greater Christchurch mean (63%)  Find it hard to talk to someone if feeling a bit down (18% cf. 12%)  Feel lonely or isolated most of the time or always (14% cf. 6%).

108

SECTION 10: SUBGROUPS OF INTEREST

THOSE FROM A HOUSEHOLD WITH AN INCOME OF LESS THAN $30,000 About 9% of greater Christchurch residents indicate that they are from a household with an annual income of less than $30,000.

Compared with the total sample these respondents are more likely to:  Have a raw WHO-5 score below the greater Christchurch mean (53%)  Rate their health as poor or very poor (33% cf. 15% among the total sample)  Be dissatisfied that their total household income meets all of their needs (27% cf. 11%)  Feel stress most or of the time or always (21% cf. 16%)  Feel unsafe in their city/town centre at night (53% cf. 40%)  Feel unsafe walking around alone in their neighbourhood at night (38% cf. 26%)  Feel unsafe in their city/town centre during the day (8% cf. 4%)  Rate their quality of life as poor or very poor (7% cf. 2% among the total sample).

They are less likely to be satisfied:  With their ease of access to suitable transport to daily activities (74% cf. 80%)  With their access to the natural environment (72% cf. 84%)  That their total household income meets all their needs (40% cf. 69%).

109

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH DESIGN

METHODOLOGY ABOUT THE SEQUENTIAL MIXED METHODOLOGY The Wellbeing Survey is carried out using a sequential mixed methodology, in which respondents are first encouraged to complete the survey in the most cost effective manner, online. For those who do not complete the survey online or are not able to, a hard copy questionnaire is provided. The initial invitation letter was sent on 9 May 2019. The letter contained a link to the online survey and provided an individual login ID and password. An 0800 number and email address (manned by Nielsen) were also in the letter, allowing respondents to ask questions about the survey, request a hard copy or request to be removed. A reminder postcard was sent to those who had not yet completed the survey a week later on 17 May. This postcard repeated the instructions for completing the survey online. On 31 May, a week after the postcard, those respondents who had still not completed online were sent a survey pack, containing a hard copy questionnaire, cover letter and reply paid envelope. The cover letter repeated the instructions to participate online, in case a respondent would rather participate in that manner. After the survey pack has been sent, all those who have completed the survey online are likely to have done so. Therefore efforts changed to encouraging completion of the hard copy questionnaire. On 19 June, the final communication, a second reminder postcard was sent to those who had still not completed. The survey was closed on 29 June 2019. BENEFITS OF THE METHODOLOGY The sequential mixed methodology has a number of benefits. Firstly, potential respondents are selected from the Electoral Roll, which allows for the inclusion of the majority of greater Christchurch residents. It has the advantage of including the approximately 60% who are excluded from CATI methodologies through not having phone numbers available through tele-matching. It is also superior to online panels which have limited numbers of panellists and only those who are online, who may not accurately represent the greater Christchurch population. The sequential mixed methodology allows respondents to complete the survey in their own time, at their own pace and either online or hard copy according to their preference.

SAMPLE DESIGN SAMPLE FRAME The Electoral Roll records the addresses of the vast majority of New Zealanders aged 18 and over. Potential respondents were selected from the Roll if their residential address was in greater Christchurch. The survey was could not include the following people who are not on the Electoral Roll (the number of these people is not known):

 Those who are not on the Electoral Roll (have not enrolled to vote)

111

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH DESIGN

 Greater Christchurch residents who are not eligible to vote (non-residents)  Migrant workers whose residential address is out of Christchurch, however they are temporarily working in greater Christchurch  Those who had very recently moved to Christchurch and not updated their details on the Electoral Roll. Note that the Electoral Roll is updated every three months and the latest version available at the time of sampling was used to select the sample. Māori descent from the Electoral Roll was used to identify those with a high possibility of having Māori ethnicity. Title was used for identifying gender and the age of the respondent was also used from the Electoral Roll data to identify their age group for sample selection purposes. SAMPLE The sample was a probabilistic sample of the population of Christchurch City, Waimakariri District and Selwyn District. The sample was targeted to include n=1250 Christchurch City residents, n=625 Waimakariri residents and n=625 Selwyn residents. To ensure a good representation of the population, letters were sent out in proportion to the size of the population by age group, gender and ward. Additional invitations were sent to males, youth and Māori respondents as these groups are known to have lower response rates. In addition, those of Māori ethnicity were oversampled to increase the robustness of analysing their results. This oversampling was corrected during weighting. The targets were set using the most up-to-date data source available from Statistics New Zealand (Census 2013 statistics). The table below shows the target and achieved sample of the subgroups of interest and their margins of error: Margin of Subgroup Target Achieved error Christchurch 1,250 1,323 ± 2.7% Waimakariri 625 692 ± 3.7% Selwyn 625 634 ± 3.9%

18-24 years 328 300 ± 5.7% 25-49 years 1,075 1,101 ± 3.0% 50-64 years 621 729 ± 3.6% 65 + years 476 519 ± 4.3%

Māori Ethnicity 155 169 ± 7.6%

Males 1,221 1,130 ± 2.9% Females 1,279 1,513 ± 2.5% Gender diverse No specific 6 NA

112

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH DESIGN

target

QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

For the September 2012 survey, the draft questionnaire was prepared by the survey partners in consultation with their internal stakeholders. This questionnaire was amended following consultation with Nielsen and pre-tested face-to-face on a small number of greater Christchurch residents. The questionnaire was designed to be repeatable for subsequent surveys.

For subsequent surveys, the questionnaire was kept largely the same with some questions removed to make room for additional topical issues. Key changes made for each survey questionnaire are listed below:

April 2013:  Instead of asking whether quality of life had changed since the earthquakes, we asked how it had changed in the last 12 months.  An additional question was added to the health and wellbeing section to provide insight into where greater Christchurch residents were turning for support.  The WHO-5 wellbeing index was added to obtain an additional measure of wellbeing.  The focus of the questions to monitor impacts of the earthquakes (both negative and positive) was shifted to identify the extent to which specific issues were still affecting greater Christchurch residents’ everyday lives.  New questioning was added to understand awareness, use and opinion of a variety of services that have been set up in greater Christchurch to help residents cope with issues arising from the earthquakes.

September 2013 questionnaire:  An additional question was included for those who indicated they are continuing to be negatively impacted by dealings with EQC / insurance issues, to find out what these issues are.  Two outcomes were added to the positive outcomes of the earthquake question to understand the impact of improved quality of house and tangible signs of progress.  The Residential Advisory Service was included in the section about awareness, use and opinion towards the services offered.

April 2014:  Two questions were included to understand, among those who have moved homes since the 4 September 2010 earthquake, their reasons for moving and their satisfaction with their new location.  Questions were included to determine where greater Christchurch residents currently receive information from about the rebuild and recovery, and where they would go if they were looking for information.  Due to the closure of the Avondale Earthquake Assistance Hub, this Earthquake Assistance

113

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH DESIGN

Hubs service was removed from the section about awareness, use and opinion towards the services set up to help greater Christchurch residents.  A question was added to identify the proportion of home-owners who needed to make an insurance claim as a result of the earthquakes. And those who did were asked to identify where in the insurance claim/settlement process their claim is.

September 2014:  Four questions were added to understand awareness of and engagement with the Canvas public engagement process (referred to as 'Your thinking for the red zones'). These questions were only asked of those now living in Waimakariri District in relation to the future use of the red zones in Waimakariri (Kaiapoi and Pines/Kairaki Beaches).

April 2015:  To understand the impact of increasing numbers of people with different lifestyles and cultures from different countries coming to live in greater Christchurch, a question was added to understand the extent to which this makes the area a better or worse place to live. Residents were asked to state the positive and negative aspects of people with different lifestyles and cultures moving into the area.  A couple of additional dwelling insurance claim questions were added to understand the progress being made with cash settlement offers, what owners are intending to do with the property that they have received a cash settlement for, and any reasons why owners may be having trouble deciding what to do with their property or limiting them from starting repairs or rebuilding.

September 2015:  The questions about the impact of new residents with different lifestyles and cultural backgrounds moving into the area were not asked.  All greater Christchurch residents and not just property owners were asked about the condition of the dwelling that they usually live in.  Two issues were deleted from the list of negative impacts - dealing with insurance issues relating to a business or work and difficult decisions concerning pets.  Those who own a property were asked a series of new questions including the total value of the dwelling claim, in order to analyse the full impact of the earthquakes on home owners.  Respondents who have received a cash settlement from EQC or their private insurer were asked a set of additional questions about support, services or information that either was, or could be, helpful in making decisions about repairs or rebuild.

April 2016:  Additional questions included to explore anecdotal reports of owners experiencing issues getting insurance and owners being dissatisfied with earthquake repairs.  Note: 5.7 magnitude earthquake experienced in Christchurch on 14 February 2016 that was followed by a number of strong aftershocks.

September 2016  Primarily the same as for April 2016. Some questions about insurance and cultural diversity were removed.

114

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH DESIGN

 Note: fieldwork was completed before the 14 November 2016 quakes centered in the Hurunui/Kaikoura area.

June 2017:  More detailed questions were included about how long respondents have been in their current address and whether they have moved territorial authority since the earthquakes.  An additional question was included to understand how likely people are to move within the region, and outside of the region, in the future.  Additional health questions were added, including: reason for rating of quality of life, overall rating of health, feelings of isolation, physical activity, alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking.  Due to the passage of time since the earthquakes, some of the impacts that were previously measured in context of the earthquakes were reframed to ask more generally about wellbeing. These impacts include: how well household income meets the respondents’ everyday needs, quality of housing, access to transport and access to the natural environment.  Additional questions were included to measure awareness of various community based initiatives and the impact of the All Right? campaign on attitudes and behaviours.

May 2018:  A more detailed question about difficulties people may have due to health conditions was added.  Additional community-based questions were added, including: satisfaction with local facilities, ease of being themselves in their community and how safe people feel in their neighbourhood and their city/town.  Questions about confidence in the decision making of central and local government were updated, with removal of specific focus on earthquake recovery, and a more forward looking focus (decisions that are in the best interests of the city or district).

 Fewer questions were asked about insurance claims.

June 2019:  Questions about new community initiatives were added to the questionnaire.  A question about sexual identity was added.  A question about ease of talking to someone if feeling down was added.  Questions about where respondents were living at the time of the 2010 earthquake, when respondents moved to their current property, reasons for their most recent move and how satisfied they are with their current location were removed.  Questions about the negative and positive impacts of the earthquakes and afterschocks for respondents’ everyday life were removed. Questions about awareness and impressions of specific earthquake-related services were also removed.

115

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH DESIGN

PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN The survey was programmed in Decipher (Nielsen’s online survey software) and set up for hard copy completion. Great care was taken to assure consistency between the two versions wherever possible. A copy of the final questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2. The median length of the online survey was 11.40 minutes.

PRE-TESTING Once the questionnaire was reviewed and set up, both online and in hard copy, pre-testing was carried out in September 2012. Following the pre-testing, the questionnaire and materials were finalised using the pre-testing feedback from respondents. As the content for the subsequent surveys were left largely unchanged, pre-testing was not carried out again ahead of these measures.

0800 NUMBER An 0800 number and email address (manned by Nielsen) were available for respondents throughout the survey period. Two hundred and thirty-eight emails and calls were received during this time. The nature of the calls and emails are listed in the table below: Refusals

Health/Age/Language reasons 22 Don't want to participate 21 Currently unavailable (e.g. on holiday, out of the country) 45 Person no longer lives at address 33 Deceased 11 Queries General question / query 11 Trouble using link 4 Material received after completion 2 Request replacement / hard copy sent 3 Request hard copy 78 New address / change of name 7

A set of Survey FAQs was created for the 0800 number operator to assist in the response to callers’ questions.

SURVEY RESPONSE Seventy percent of questionnaires were completed online while 30% were completed in paper copy. The following chart shows the responses over the survey period.

116

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH DESIGN

RESPONSE RATE

To calculate response rate, tracking of every individual sent an invitation to complete the survey and the outcome of the invitation was carefully recorded.

By entry into Decipher, Nielsen traced which of the letters, postcards or questionnaire packs were returned as ‘gone no address’. Any telephone or email notification of refusal to participate was logged into the 0800 number call log. This log also recorded notification from third parties that the nominated respondent was not available or capable to complete the survey due to age, language issues, health reasons, death or other disabilities. Every effort was made to remove respondents from subsequent communications.

The return rate is calculated as follows:

Completed surveys / total number of invitations mailed out (excluding GNAs and ineligibles) x 100

Ineligibles are defined as those who are unable to participate due to age, language issues, health or other disabilities.

To calculate the response rate we then apply the same proportion of ineligibles as those we have heard back from to those we have not (i.e. the 4,533 “Unknown”). This therefore assumes that there will be the same number of ineligibles (deceased, moved etc.) in the group we did not hear from as is in the group we did hear back from.

The table below outlines the response rate calculation:

Category n Deceased 10 Out Of Region 7 GNA 427 Language 2 Unavailable 78

117

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH DESIGN

Health/Age 22 Total ineligibles 546 Refused 19 Incomplete 53 Unknown - Mailed Out, No Info 4533 Total In Scope No Response 4605 Completes 2649 Mail Outs 7800 Response rate Method I (%) 40.3% Response rate Method II (%) 34.1%

Number of Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept April Sept June May June completed 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 questionnaires

Total Chch City 2381 2438 2476 2511 2738 2550 2526 3100 2154 2549 2985 2649 Selwyn Dist. 1156 1210 1240 1276 1401 1327 1213 1452 1170 1291 1504 1323 Waimakariri 618 621 640 633 642 590 645 834 631 652 716 634 District 607 607 596 602 695 633 668 814 713 606 675 692

Response rate: 52% 48% 43% 38% 39% 36% 34% 41% 37% 37% 39% 40%

Between September 2012 and April 2013, some of the decline in response rate could be attributed to a change in sampling. In April 2013, we increased the number of males and youth (18-24 year olds) initially invited to participate in the survey as these groups were found to be less likely to complete this survey. From April 2013 to April 2014, it seemed that the main reason for the decline in response rate was the time lapse from the earthquakes to the survey.

Before the September 2014 measure, the communication with respondents was revised and tested with a number of greater Christchurch residents to address the declining response rate and ensure potential respondents found the material motivating to complete. In addition, a prize draw of a $500 Prezzy Card was offered to all of those who completed. These measures had a positive impact on the response rate and halted the decline.

In April 2015, the same communication was used and the same incentive was offered. Despite these initiatives remaining in place in September 2015, the response rate continued to decline though the rate of decline was slowing.

In April 2016, the branding of the survey changed from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to the Canterbury District Health Board. In addition, tweaks to the communications were made to focus on the regeneration of greater Christchurch, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ were added to the initial letter in an attempt to appeal to those who have moved to the region following the earthquake or who were less affected by the earthquakes. These changes, and the earthquake which

118

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH DESIGN

occurred just before fieldwork (14 February 2016), may have contributed to the increased response rate of 41%. In September 2016 the same communication was used and the same incentive was offered. A decline in response rate was seen since April 2016 which is expected to be due to the amount of time since the 2010/2011 earthquakes. The response rate stabilised in June 2017 and in May 2018 increased slightly to 39%. This level of response was maintained in June 2019.

DATA ENTRY

As completed questionnaires were returned to Nielsen’s Auckland office, they were data entered directly into Decipher, the same software programme used for the online component of the survey. Using the same software removed the chance of error in combining data sources. The data entry team had different access to the survey tool from a survey respondent. For example, the data entry team had the ability to select ‘no response’ for any question where a hard copy respondent had not selected a response. A data entry protocol was set up to ensure consistency between team members and has been used for consistency between measures. As part of Nielsen’s quality control processes, 10% of data entered questionnaires were verified.

DATA CLEANING

Once the hard copy questionnaires had been data entered, a series of data checks were carried out as part of the quality control procedure. During this process, the following edits were carried out:  Fourteen questionnaires were removed where respondents had completed both online and in hard copy (online version was kept).  Gender was added for 6 respondents who had left this question blank. This was added using their title from the Electoral Roll.  Age from the Electoral Roll was added for the 5 respondents who left this question blank.  Region was added from the Electoral Roll for the 32 respondents who left this question blank.

WEIGHTING

Weighting was used to correct for imbalances in sample representation arising from a) the use of the Electoral Roll as a sample frame and b) quotas not being fully achieved.

The weights were calibrated to match the population percentage figures for the quota control variables of TA, age and gender interlocked. A second weight for ethnicity (Māori / Non-Māori) was also applied to counteract any effects the boostering of Māori respondents may have had on the sample.

See Appendix 4 for the weighting matrix.

119

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

INTRODUCTION

This section of the Appendix shows the final questionnaire (June 2019) in the hard copy format.

121

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

122

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

123

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

124

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

125

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

126

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

127

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

128

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

129

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

130

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

131

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

132

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

133

APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE PROFILE

INTRODUCTION

This section outlines the profile of the weighted and unweighted sample. Results were weighted by gender, age, region and ethnicity to reflect the known population proportions (which were sourced from Statistics New Zealand). Table 3.1: Region distribution Greater Christchurch (n=2649)

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Count Count % %

Christchurch City 1323 2098 50 79

Selwyn District 634 256 24 10

Waimakari 692 295 26 11

Base: All respondents Note: Those living in Selwyn and Waimakariri were oversampled to allow for sub-group analysis

Table 3.2: Gender distribution (%)

Greater Christchurch Christchurch City Selwyn District Waimakariri District (n=2649) (n=1323) (n=634) (n=692)

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted

Male 43 49 43 49 44 51 41 49

Female 57 51 57 51 56 49 59 51 Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

135

APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE PROFILE

Table 3.3: Sexual identity distribution (%)

Greater Christchurch Christchurch City Selwyn District Waimakariri District (n=2634) (n=1312) (n=632) (n=690)

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted

Heterosexual or straight 93 92 92 92 96 95 95 95

Gay or lesbian 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

Bisexual 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

Other 1 1 1 1 0 0 - -

Don’t know 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0

Prefer not to say 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Table 3.4 Whether have a health condition or disability (%)

Greater Christchurch Christchurch City Selwyn District Waimakariri District (n=2634) (n=1318) (n=630) (n=686)

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted

Yes 18 18 19 19 15 15 19 18

No 80 79 79 79 83 84 79 79

Prefer not 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 to say

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Table 3.5: Number of children living in household either full time or part time (%)

Greater Christchurch Christchurch City Selwyn District Waimakariri District (n=2458) (n=1215) (n=591) (n=652)

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted

0 64 65 67 67 56 55 65 64

1 14 14 14 14 15 15 13 13

2 16 15 14 14 21 22 16 16

3 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6

4 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

5 or more 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

136

APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE PROFILE

Table 3.6: Age distribution (%)

Greater Christchurch Christchurch City Selwyn District Waimakariri District (n=2649) (n=1323) (n=634) (n=692)

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted

18-19 years 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3

20-24 years 9 10 10 11 9 9 5 6

25-29 years 5 6 6 6 5 5 2 3

30-34 years 7 8 8 8 7 7 7 7

35-39 years 7 8 8 8 7 8 7 7

40-44 years 9 9 9 9 10 11 8 9

45-49 years 13 12 11 11 15 15 14 15

50-54 years 10 9 10 10 10 9 9 8

55-59 years 8 7 7 7 8 8 11 10

60-64 years 9 8 8 8 10 10 11 11

65-74 years 12 11 11 11 10 10 15 14

75-79 years 4 4 5 4 3 3 3 3

80+ years 4 4 4 4 3 2 5 5

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Table 3.7: Age collapsed into reporting groups (%)

Greater Christchurch Christchurch City Selwyn District Waimakariri District (n=2649) (n=1323) (n=634) (n=692)

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted

18-24 11 13 13 14 12 12 7 9

25-34 12 14 14 15 12 12 10 10

35-49 29 29 28 28 33 34 29 30

50-64 28 25 25 24 28 27 31 28

65-74 12 11 11 11 10 10 15 14

75+ 8 8 9 8 6 5 8 8

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

137

APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE PROFILE

Table 3.8: Ethnicity distribution (%)

Greater Christchurch Christchurch City Selwyn District Waimakariri District (n=2641) (n=1319) (n=632) (n=690)

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted

New Zealand 85 83 82 82 88 88 88 88 European/Pakeha

New Zealand Māori 6 6 6 6 8 8 7 7

Pacific 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Asian 5 6 7 7 3 3 2 2

Indian 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

Other European e.g. German, American, British, 5 5 6 5 4 4 5 5 South African

Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

Prefer not to say 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered Note: This is a multiple response question therefore columns may add to more than 100%

Table 3.9: Whether Whakapapa to an iwi (%)

Greater Christchurch Christchurch City Selwyn District Waimakariri District (n=165) (n=72) (n=48) (n=45)

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted

Ngāi Tahu/Kai Tahu 39 40 40 41 35 36 40 39 Whānui

Ngāti Kahungunu 9 9 10 9 8 9 9 9

Waikato-Tainui 5 5 6 5 2 2 7 7

Te Arawa 4 5 7 7 2 2 0 0

Te Atiawa 5 5 6 5 4 4 7 6

None of the above 33 31 31 30 38 36 33 33

Don't know 10 9 7 7 13 13 11 12

Base: Those who identified themselves as New Zealand Māori, excluding not answered

138

APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE PROFILE

Table 3.10: Ownership of dwelling where usually live (%)

Greater Christchurch Christchurch City Selwyn District Waimakariri District (n=2635) (n=1317) (n=630) (n=688)

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted

You personally or jointly 69 64 62 62 73 72 77 76 own it Family member owns it (e.g. your parents, your 17 17 16 17 18 19 16 18 child, Family Trust) You rent it from local council, or Housing New 2 2 3 2 0 0 1 1 Zealand You rent from a private 11 15 17 17 8 8 5 5 landlord

Other 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

Table 3.11: Household income before tax (%)

Greater Christchurch Christchurch City Selwyn District Waimakariri District (n=2458) (n=1215) (n=591) (n=652)

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted

0 64 65 67 67 56 55 65 64

1 14 14 14 14 15 15 13 13

2 16 15 14 14 21 22 16 16

3 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6

4 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

5 or more 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Base: All respondents, excluding not answered

139

APPENDIX 4: WEIGHTING DETAILS

This section shows the weight matrix that results were weighted by.

Weight 1: Region, Age and Gender Interlocked

COUNT Population Figures (2013 Estimates Sourced from Statistics New Zealand) FEMALE MALE

18 – 24 25 – 49 50 – 64 65 years 18 – 24 25 – 49 50 – 64 65 years Total years years years or over years years years or over Christchurch 267420 17382 58470 32979 28515 19560 56544 31422 22548 Selwyn 32655 1710 7698 4308 2337 2262 7335 4512 2493 Waimakariri 37560 1524 7980 5388 4395 1830 7137 5316 3990

% Population Figures (2013 Estimates Sourced from Statistics New Zealand) FEMALE MALE

18 – 24 25 – 49 50 – 64 65 years 18 – 24 25 – 49 50 – 64 65 years Total years years years or over years years years or over Christchurch 79.2 5.1 17.3 9.8 8.4 5.8 16.7 9.3 6.7 Selwyn 9.7 0.5 2.3 1.3 0.7 0.7 2.2 1.3 0.7 Waimakariri 11.1 0.5 2.4 1.6 1.3 0.5 2.1 1.6 1.2

Weight 2: Ethnicity

COUNT Population Figures (2013 Projections Sourced from Statistics New Zealand) Total Māori Non - Māori Greater Christchurch 337635 20871 316764

% Population Figures (2013 Projections Sourced from Statistics New Zealand) Total Māori Non - Māori Greater Christchurch 100 6.2 93.8

141