QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY 2016

1 QUALITY OF life SURVEY 2016 T O P L I N E R E P O R T QUALITY OF LIFEA cknowledgements Large-scale and complex research projects such as this require a combined effort. This research project was undertaken by Colmar Brunton on behalf of the nine participating New Zealand councils. A steering group from four councils managed the project on behalf of the other councils, and worked closely with representatives from Colmar Brunton throughout this project. The members of the QUALITY of life steering group were: Alison Reid, Auckland Council Kath Jamieson, Christchurch City Council David Stuart, Wellington City Council Bill Frewen and Hamish Orbell, Dunedin City from Colmar Brunton who worked on this project were: Edward Langley Lisa Neilsen Jocelyn Rout Karen Painting Danielle David Michael Chan Creative and Multimedia would like to acknowledge and thank all those respondents who took the time to complete their surveys.

2 This project would not be possible without your input. Document referencing ISBN 978-0-9941405-6-2 (Print) ISBN 978-0-9941405-7-9 (PDF) Recommended citation Colmar Brunton. (2016). QUALITY of life SURVEY 2016: Topline report . A report prepared on behalf of Auckland Council, Wellington City Council, Christchurch City Council, and Dunedin City Council. For further information on the QUALITY of life SURVEY and to access reports from previous years, please go to the QUALITY of life website. This report was finalised 14 September 2016. QUALITY OF life SURVEY 2016 QUALITY of life SURVEY 2016 Topline report A joint project between the following New Zealand councils QUALITY OF life SURVEY 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS KEY HIGHLIGHTS.

3 1 1. INTRODUCTION .. 3 2. RESEARCH DESIGN ..6 3. QUALITY OF life ..9 4. HEALTH AND WELLBEING .. 14 5. CRIME AND SAFETY .. 18 6. COMMUNITY, CULTURE AND SOCIAL NETWORKS .. 30 7. COUNCIL PROCESSES .. 37 8. BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .. 41 9. TRANSPORT .. 53 10. ECONOMIC WELLBEING .. 59 11. HOUSING .. 62 12. DRIVERS OF QUALITY OF life .. 68 13. COMPARISONS WITH PREVIOUS YEARS .. 72 APPENDIX I DETAILED REASONS FOR QUALITY OF life RATING .. 86 APPENDIX II SAMPLE PROFILE .. 93 APPENDIX III QUESTIONNAIRE .. 99 QUALITY OF life SURVEY 2016 Key highlights Page | 1 KEY HIGHLIGHTS 81%Q U A L I T Y O F L I F EH E A L T H A N D W E L L B E I N Gundertake physical activity five or moredays a weekalways/most of the time experience stress with a negative effecthave someone to help if they were faced with a serious illness or injury.

4 Or needed emotional supportKEY HIGHLIGHTSRATE THEIR OVERALL QUALITY OF life POSITIVELY27%SAY THEIR QUALITY OF life HAS INCREASED COMPARED WITH 12 MONTHS AGOOVERALL HEALTHFREQUENCY OF DOING PHYSICAL ACTIVITYSTRESSAVAILABILITY OF SUPPORT82%45%90%17%rate their health positivelyMethodThe SURVEY was carried out using a sequential-mixed methodology. A random selection of residents from each Council was made from the electoral roll and respondents completed the SURVEY online or via a hardcopy questionnaire. Fieldwork took place from 14 March to 22 June, 2016. In total, 7,155 respondents took 2016 QUALITY of life SURVEY is a partnership between nine New Zealand Councils.

5 The SURVEY measures perceptions in several domains including: QUALITY of life ; health and wellbeing; crime and safety; community, culture and social networks; council decision making processes; environment; public transport; economic wellbeing; and housing. These insights are based on the seven cities results (n=5,904).C R I M E A N D S A F E T YD R I V E R S O F O V E R A L L P E R C E P T I O N O F Q U A L I T Y O F L I F EVandalismCar theft or damage to carUnsafe peopleAlcohol or drugsPERCEPTIONS OF CRIME AND OTHER UNDESIRABLE PROBLEMSSENSE OF SAFETYD angerousdrivingfeel safe in their homefeel safe in the city centrefeel safe walking alone in their neighbourhood676160515188896340= during the day = after dark% view as a problem% feel safe45 People begging= Significant increase/decrease from 2014 (based on six-city comparison)

6 CrimePublic transportHousingSense of safetyLocal communityCouncildecision-makingEmotional and physical healthPollutionCultural diversitySupport in difficult timesSTRONGEST DRIVERWEAKESTDRIVERLOW POSITIVE PERCEPTIONHIGH POSITIVE PERCEPTIONQUALITY OF life SURVEY 2016 Key highlights Page | 2 79%61%C O M M U N I T Y , C U L T U R E A N D S O C I A L N E T W O R K SC O U N C I L D E C I S I O N M A K I N G P R O C E S S E SB U I L T A N D N A T U R A L E N V I R O N M E N TE C O N O M I C W E L L B E I N GBELIEVE A SENSE OF COMMUNITY IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD IS IMPORTANTMOST COMMON SOCIAL NETWORKSNEIGHBOURLY CONTACTSENSE OF ISOLATIONCULTURAL DIVERSITY ARTS AND CULTURE belong to an online network or social grouphad positive interactions with neighboursnever or rarely feel isolatedsay cultural diversity makes their city a better place to liveagree their

7 City has a culturally diverse arts scene43%77%97%68%56%58%66%32%61%39%40%un derstand how their local council makes decisionswant to have more say in what their local council doesare confident in their local council s decision-makingbelieve the public has an influence on Council decision-making69%EMPLOYED (FULL OR PART-TIME)SATISFIED WITH WORK/ life BALANCE40%HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH OR ENOUGH INCOME TO COVER COSTS OF EVERYDAY NEEDSPERCEPTIONS OF HOUSING:PERCEPTIONS OF ISSUES IN THEIR CITY: PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN THEIR LOCAL AREA:55%51%46%30%THINK THEIR CITY IS A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE62%ARE PROUD OF HOW THEIR CITY LOOKS AND FEELS25%USE PUBLIC TRANSPORT WEEKLY (OR MORE OFTEN)T R A N S P O R Tgraffiti or tagging water pollution noise pollutionair pollution74%70%55%50%47%safeeasy to accessfrequentreliableaffordable86%83%47 %73%64%26%live in suitable areahome is suitablehome is affordableheating system keeps home warmcan afford to heat home properlyhave problems with damp/mouldHOUSING IN WINTER CONDITIONS.

8 EXPERIENCE A SENSE OF COMMUNITY IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD% Big or bit of a problem% Strongly agree or agree% Strongly agree or agreeAdditional 35% say just enough H O U S I N GQUALITY OF life SURVEY 2016 Section 1: Introduction Page | 3 1. INTRODUCTION Background The 2016 QUALITY of life SURVEY is a collaborative local government research project. The primary objective of the SURVEY is to measure residents perceptions across a range of measures that impact on New Zealanders QUALITY of life . The QUALITY of life SURVEY was originally established in response to growing pressures on urban communities, concern about the impacts of urbanisation and the effect of this on the wellbeing of residents.

9 The results from the SURVEY are used by participating councils to help inform their policy and planning responses to population growth and change. The SURVEY measures residents perceptions across several domains, including: Overall QUALITY of life Health and wellbeing Crime and safety Community, culture and social networks Council decision-making processes Environment (built and natural) Public transport Economic wellbeing, and Housing. Council involvement The QUALITY of life SURVEY was first conducted in 2003, repeated in 2004, and has been undertaken every two years since.

10 The number of participating councils has varied each time. A total of nine councils participated in the 2016 QUALITY of life SURVEY project, as follows: Auckland Council Hamilton City Council Hutt City Council Porirua City Council Wellington City Council Christchurch City Council Dunedin City Council Waikato Regional Council Greater Wellington Regional Council. It should be noted that as two of the councils listed above are regional councils, there are overlaps in the boundaries of participating The Waikato region includes the area covered by Hamilton City Council.