Resident Survey Results 2007 - Hurunui District Council

Resident Survey Results 2007 - Hurunui District Council

Resident Survey Results 2007 - Hurunui District Council


Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Market Research Presentation for:Community Plan Indicators in <strong>Hurunui</strong>Prepared for:April <strong>2007</strong>

IntroductionPresentation OutlineResearch Objectives and MethodologyMain FindingsDemographicsPerformance of the <strong>Council</strong>Perception of the <strong>Council</strong>Awareness of <strong>Council</strong> ServicesRates SpendingSatisfaction with ServicesAccess to Primary HealthLiving in the <strong>District</strong>Environmental Protectionti

Introduction <strong>Hurunui</strong> <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s Long Term <strong>Council</strong>Community Plan 2006 – 2016 and <strong>District</strong> Plancontain performance indicators to measure thefollowing: Community Outcomes: Community aspirations toensure long term well being of communities. <strong>Council</strong> Activities: Community services and facilities;growth and development; environment and safety; utilityservices/ infrastructure; Hanmer Springs Thermal Pools andGovernance. <strong>District</strong> Plan: sustainable management of natural andphysical resources while avoiding, remedying or mitigatingadverse environmental effects and providing for the well beingof communities.

Research ObjectivesThe primary objective of this research is:To measure progress towards achieving theoutcomes in the Long Term <strong>Council</strong> Community PlanOther specific objectives related to:<strong>Council</strong> Activities – to establish residents’ experienceand determine satisfaction with a range of <strong>Council</strong>Activities and servicesThe <strong>District</strong> Plan – to collect environmentalinformation and provide benchmark data to measureperformance against requirements in the <strong>District</strong>Plan

Research MethodologyA quantitative research design was adoptedwhereby a telephone survey was conductedamong a sample of 500 <strong>Hurunui</strong> residents.The interview was conducted among theyoungest tin the household h aged d18+Random sampling was combined with quotasampling to ensure a representative sample.Quotas were set on age, gender and wardaccording to the 2001 Census.Interviewing took place 2 – 13 February <strong>2007</strong>.

Main Findings

Demographic profileThe following demographicsAge %are representative of the18 – 24 8<strong>Hurunui</strong> <strong>District</strong> according tothe 2001 Census25 – 49 4850 – 64 26Ward %65+ 18Amberley 36Base: 500Amuri 18<strong>Hurunui</strong> 13Gender %Cheviot 12Male 50Glenmark 11Female 50Hanmer Springs 10Base: 500Base: 500

Demographic profile continuedRatepayer Status %Ratepayer living in<strong>Hurunui</strong>Ratepayer livingelsewhere82

Demographic profile continuedOccupation %Clerical or sales employee 3Semi-skilled worker 24Technical or skilled worker 3Professional/ business manager/ executive 5Business proprietor or self employed 3Teacher/ nurse/ police/ other trained service 5Labour/ manual/ agricultural/ domesticworkerFarmer 17Retired 18Home executive 9School/ tertiary student 2Not working/ beneficiary i 2Base: 50010

Performance of the <strong>Council</strong> – Contact withMayor and <strong>Council</strong>lors68% did notmake contact32% madecontactBase: Total Sample: 500Satisfaction with thePerformance of the Mayorand <strong>Council</strong>lorsBase %satisfiedMean Score(4 = very satisfied,1 = not at allsatisfied)500 77 2.90

Performance of the <strong>Council</strong> – Satisfactionwith Service at <strong>Council</strong> Offices35% not madecontact65% hadcontacted <strong>Council</strong>Base: Total Sample: 500Satisfaction with theservice received at <strong>Council</strong>OfficesBase %satisfiedMean Score(4 = very satisfied,1 = not at allsatisfied)323 72 3.05

Performance of the <strong>Council</strong> – Satisfactionwith Service at <strong>Council</strong> OfficesThe main reasons for contacting the <strong>Council</strong> were:28% resource consents / building consents16% rates, rebate issues, rate payments14% water issues – drainage, supply, quality9% animal/ dog registrationsti8% roading issues8% information/ advice on building, planning, landresource issues.

Performance of the<strong>Council</strong>The values of Maori aretaken into account whenmaking decisionsI understand how the<strong>Council</strong> makes decisionsThe <strong>Council</strong> makesdecisions in the bestinterests t of the districti tI feel there areopportunities for me tocontribute to <strong>Council</strong>decision makingPerception of the <strong>Council</strong>Base: total sample 500% Agree % Don’tknowMean Score (4 =agree strongly,1 = disagree strongly)46 46 2.9273 5 2.8273 1 2.7669 3 2.76

Awareness of <strong>Council</strong> ServicesResource & Building Consents98libraries98parks & reserves97animal control97water supply and drainage96waste managementcemeteries9592sewerage91all roads except state highways90Base: Total Sample: 5000 20 40 60 80 100 %

Satisfaction with the Way Rates are Spenton ServicesPerformance of the<strong>Council</strong>Satisfaction withrates spendingBase %SatisfiedMean Score(4 = very satisfied,1 = not at allsatisfied)500 69 2.71

The Top Three Priorities for RatesSpendingWater and Waste (96% of comments):53% water supply and drainage25% waste management18% sewerageRoads and footpaths (88% of comments):76% roads12% verges, footpaths, pedestrian crossingsRecreation (34% of comments):17% parks and reserves9% libraries8% improved facilities and amenitiesRural and Urban Environment (17% of comments):11% beautification, development and promotion of towns6% preservation of the environmentCommunity Services such as healthcare and education (10%)Resource and Building Consents (4%).

Satisfaction with <strong>Council</strong> Services:Facilities and AmenitiesPerformance of the <strong>Council</strong> Base %SatisfiedSatisfaction with publiclibrariesMean Score(4 = very satisfied,1 = not at allsatisfied)292 93 3.69The standard of cemeteries 500 76 3.21Maintenance of parks and 500 82 3.02reservesThe standard of local halls 500 67 2.87The main reasons for not belonging to a library (n = 208) were:35% don’t read much/ at all21% have no time to read20% it is not necessary to belong to a library.

Satisfaction with <strong>Council</strong> Services:Facilities and Amenities continuedPerformance of the <strong>Council</strong> Base %Mean ScoreSatisfiedThe quality of public toiletsavailable(4 = very satisfied,1 = not at allsatisfied)500 83 3.23The quantity of public toiletsavailable500 81 3.10

Satisfaction with <strong>Council</strong> Services: Waterand WastePerformance of the <strong>Council</strong> Base %SatisfiedMean Score(4 = very satisfied,1 = not at allsatisfied)Satisfaction with householdwaste collectionSatisfaction with waterpressure and flow (town)Satisfaction with waterappearance and taste(town)Satisfaction with wateravailability (rural)261 94 3.55192 80 3.03192 64 2.71247 69 2.83

Satisfaction with <strong>Council</strong> Services:Roads and FootpathsPerformance of the <strong>Council</strong> Base %SatisfiedMean Score(4 = very satisfied,(4 very satisfied,Satisfied1 = not at allsatisfied)The standard of public 500 66 2.68footpathsOverall maintenance of theroads500 66 2.61The standard of sealed roads 500 62 2.58The standard of unsealedroads500 41 2.24

Satisfaction with <strong>Council</strong> Services:Road SafetyOverall Safety of Roads inthe <strong>District</strong>….Base % Safe Mean Score(4 = very safe,1 = very unsafe)as a driver 500 68 2.78as a pedestrian 500 50 2.47

Access to Primary Health12% (n = 67) of <strong>Hurunui</strong> residents did not go to their GP whenneeded. Their reasons for not going were:37% expense18% length of journey18% doctor to busy to see them6% too busy to go to the doctor.

Living in <strong>Hurunui</strong>: The Look of the TownsThe attractiveness of thetown and villages in the<strong>District</strong>Base %attractiveMean Score(4 = very attractive,1=notatallallattractive)500 80 2.9959% felt Hanmer Springs retained its Alpine character

Living in <strong>Hurunui</strong>: SafetyExtent to how Safe <strong>Resident</strong>sFeelBase % safe Mean Score(4 = very safe,1 = very unsafe)At home 500 93 3.46In the neighbourhood 500 85 3.23

Living in <strong>Hurunui</strong>: Future Growth32%unsure35%confined tourbanareas33% ruraldevelopmentsonoutskirts ofurban areasBase: Total Sample: 500

Environmental ProtectionEnvironmental Issues Base % Agree Mean Score (4= agree strongly,1 = disagree strongly)Enough is being done toprotect the heritage of thedistrict500 76 2.90Enough is being done to500 73 2.90protect the naturalenvironmentEnough is being done to500 67 279 2.79protect homes an propertyfrom natural disasterEnough is being done toprotect the land and soilresources in the district500 61 2.71

Environmental Protection: WaterThe condition of the water in rivers, lakes andstreams was rated as follows:46% excellent or good31% just ok19% poor4% unsureThe quality of the water in rivers and streamsmake them suitable to swim:21% at any time43% most times25% sometimes5% never6% unsure.

Environmental Protection: Noise Pollution5% a bigproblem72% noproblem23% slightproblemThe main culprits:Traffic 26%Trucks 23%Speedsters 21%Dogs 11%Neighbours 9%Parties 7%(Base: 141)Base: Total Sample: 500

Environmental Protection: OverallThe overall condition of the naturalenvironment in <strong>Hurunui</strong>:68% excellent/ good27% just ok4% poor1% unsure.

Factors that Make to EnvironmentPleasant to Live inThe scenery of the area (84% of comments):29% general scenery/ landscape22% trees/ bush11% rivers9% mountains7% beach/ sea6% birds/ wildlifeThe peaceful, rural atmosphere (60% of comments):17% quiet/ peaceful17% open spaces14% rural atmosphere12% sparse populationL k f ll ti (26% f t )Lack of pollution (26% of comments):18% clean air8% clean and rubbish free.

Nothing (42%)Factors that Make to EnvironmentUnpleasant to Live inFactors to do with urbanisation (16%):10% traffic3% noise3% urbanisationPollution (11% of comments):6% rubbish/ pollution3% dust from dirt roads2% river pollutionThe Northwester (9%)Invasion of weeds/ pests and spraying (9%)Change of land use to dairy farming/ farm odour (4%).

Thank You

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!