This is the cached copy of http://www.wellington.govt.nz/aboutwgtn/glance/pdfs/quality2006.pdf

Page 1
Quality of Life Survey 2006
Report
Wellington City Council
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
16 February 2007
1302187rep.doc
Page 2
Table of Contents
Page No.
1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................. 1
2.0 Research Design ...................................................................................... 8
3.0 Quality of Life ......................................................................................... 15
4.0 Health and Well-being............................................................................ 18
4.1 Overall Health..........................................................................................18
4.2 Usage of General Practitioners..............................................................22
4.3 Frequency of Doing Physical Activity ...................................................32
4.4 Emotional Well-being..............................................................................36
4.5 Satisfaction with Life in General............................................................40
4.6 Stress.......................................................................................................44
5.0 Crime and Safety.................................................................................... 52
5.1 Perception of Presence of Crime and Other Undesirable Problems ...52
5.2 Sense of Safety .......................................................................................68
5.3 Safety of Children ...................................................................................99
6.0 Community, Culture and Social Networks......................................... 110
6.1 Sense of Community ............................................................................110
6.2 Neighbourhood Contact.......................................................................125
6.3 Impact of Greater Cultural Diversity....................................................129
6.4 Social Networks ....................................................................................146
6.5 Feeling of Isolation ...............................................................................158
6.6 Feeling of Trust.....................................................................................162
6.7 Culturally Rich and Diverse Arts Scene ..............................................166
7.0 Council Processes ............................................................................... 170
8.0 Built Environment ................................................................................ 186
8.1 Pride in City’s Look and Feel ...............................................................186
8.2 Ease of Access to Local Park or Other Green Space.........................204
8.3 Perception of Presence of Rubbish and Pollution..............................208
9.0 Public Transport................................................................................... 228
9.1 Frequency of Use of Public Transport.................................................228
9.2 Ease of Access......................................................................................234
9.3 Perceptions of Public Transport..........................................................244
10.0 Lifestyle – Work and Study ................................................................. 256
10.1 Employment Status...............................................................................256
10.2 Work Seekers ........................................................................................260
10.3 Study Status..........................................................................................270
10.4 Balance Between Work and Other Aspects of Life.............................274
Page 3
Quality of Life Survey 2006
10.5 Satisfaction with Leisure Time.............................................................278
10.6 Ability to Cover Costs of Everyday Needs..........................................282
APPENDIX ONE – Responses to Open-ended Questions............................. 1
1.
Health.........................................................................................................1
2.
Crime and Safety.......................................................................................2
3.
Community and Culture ...........................................................................4
4.
Built Environment.....................................................................................7
5.
Public Transport .....................................................................................10
APPENDIX TWO – Sample Profile ................................................................. 11
APPENDIX THREE – Final Questionnaire..................................................... 22
APPENDIX FOUR– Response Rate ............................................................... 52
Page 4
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
1
1.0 Executive Summary
Introduction
Wellington City Council, like other Councils, has a role to play in residents’ quality of life. The Quality of
Life survey is a multi-agency research project, exploring quality of life issues in New Zealand. The
Quality of Life project is a partnership between New Zealand’s twelve largest City Councils and the
Ministry of Social Development.
The aim of the survey is to measure residents’ perceptions of overall quality of life. The Quality of Life
survey measures New Zealanders’ perceptions of:
-
health and well-being
-
community
-
crime and safety
-
education and work
-
built environment
-
culture and identity
-
democracy.
This following report presents the results for Wellington City. A nationwide report is also available.
Methodology
Quantitative Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) were conducted with n=7,720 New
Zealanders aged 18 years and older. Quotas were set for ethnicity, gender and age.
Randomly chosen households were sourced from the Electoral Roll, enabling a pre-survey letter to be
sent to potential respondents.
Individuals were then randomly selected within each household.
Fieldwork was conducted between 17 July and 17 November 2006.
The average duration of
interviewing was 20 minutes. The final (nationwide) response rate was 22 percent.
The data in this report have been post-weighted to reflect the population. The weighted sample of
n=488 residents from Wellington City, has a maximum margin of error of +/- 4.4 percent at the 95
percent confidence interval.
Page 5
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
2
Quality of Life
The majority (93%) of Wellington residents felt they had a positive overall quality of life, rating it
extremely good (31%) or good (61%).
Health and Well-being
Overall Health
The majority (92%) of Wellington residents viewed their health positively, rating it either excellent (23%),
very good (44%), or good (25%).
Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners
One-fifth (20%) of residents had experienced at least one instance when they had wanted to visit their
GP in the previous 12 months, but had not done so.
Among those who did not visit a GP when they had wanted to, the most frequently mentioned barrier for
around half (52%) of Wellington residents was the expense. Around one-fifth (19%) who had not seen a
doctor, were too busy or could not take time off work.
Frequency of Physical Activity
Approximately three-fifths (57%) of Wellington residents undertook physical activity five or more days a
week. A further quarter (24%) exercise every three or four days and just over one-tenth (13%) every
one or two days. Only six percent did not undertake any physical activity.
Emotional Well-being
The majority (90%) of Wellington residents rated their emotional well-being positively, stating they were
either very happy (35%) or happy (55%).
Satisfaction with Life in General
The majority (88%) of Wellington residents were satisfied with their life in general, rating themselves as
either very satisfied (38%) or satisfied (50%).
Stress
Around one-tenth (9%) of Wellington residents indicated they had experienced some form of stress in
the previous 12 months that has had a negative effect on them, with two percent stating they were
always stressed and eight percent stating they were stressed most of the time.
Nearly four-fifths (77%) of Wellington residents felt they usually had someone to turn to for support
when dealing with stress (54% always and 23% most of the time).
Page 6
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
3
Crime and Safety
Perceptions of Presence of Crime and Other Undesirable Problems
Many residents perceived crime issues to be present in Wellington City. The most commonly held
perception related to the presence of dangerous driving (62%), followed by theft or damage to cars
(54%), vandalism (41%) and feeling unsafe around some people (40%).
Sense of Safety
Nearly all Wellington residents felt safe in their homes (99% during the day and 96% after dark), but less
so in their neighbourhood (86% after dark and 76% walking alone after dark) or in the city centre (98%
during the day and 67% after dark)
1
.
Very Safe
%
Fairly Safe
%
At home during the day
89
10
At home after dark
73
23
In your neighbourhood after dark
41
46
Walking alone in the neighbourhood after dark
33
42
In the city centre during the day
78
20
In the city centre after dark
14
52
The most frequently mentioned reason for having a lack of a sense of safety (for all situations where
residents felt unsafe) by Wellington residents was dangerous people (53% of residents who felt unsafe).
This was followed by poor lighting (21%) and alcohol and drug problems in the area (15%).
Safety of Children
Three-quarters (76%) of Wellington residents felt children were safe in their neighbourhood, rating them
either very safe (22%) or fairly safe (54%). The remainder felt children were either very unsafe (4%) or a
bit unsafe (16%) in their neighbourhood.
Among those who did not think children were safe, the most frequently mentioned reason for a sense of
a lack of safety for children in the neighbourhood by Wellington residents was stranger danger (45%).
This was followed by busy traffic/lack of pedestrian crossings (34%) and children always required
supervision (32%).
1
Note: the percentages in the text may differ slightly to the percentages added together in the tables, this is due to
rounding.
Page 7
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
4
Community, Culture and Social Networks
Sense of Community
Almost three fifths (57%) of Wellington residents agreed they felt a sense of community in the local
neighbourhood (stating they either strongly agreed [17%] or agreed [40%]). Nearly one-fifth (16%)
either responded strongly disagree (2%) or disagreed (14%).
Among those who did not feel a sense of community, the most frequently mentioned reasons for not
feeling a sense of community were a lack of communication/events in the neighbourhood (31%), fellow
residents’ busy lives (27%), unfriendly neighbours (19%) and the preference to socialise with family and
friends (17%).
Neighbourhood Contact
Almost all (95%) Wellington residents indicated they have had some positive contact (such as a nod or
saying hello) with people in their neighbourhood. Three-quarters (74%) have had greater positive
contact (such as a visit, or asking small favours). Less than one-tenth (7%) of residents have had
negative contact (where there was outright tension).
Impact of Greater Cultural Diversity
Almost three quarters (73%) of Wellington residents felt positively towards increased cultural diversity,
stating the impact of cultural diversity made Wellington either a much better place (25%) or a better
place (48%). Very few felt it made Wellington either a much worse place (1%) or a worse place (2%) to
live.
Among those who felt positively, the most frequently mentioned reason for feeling a positive impact of
greater cultural diversity was the introduction of new ideas and a broader perspective (68%). This was
followed by cultural education would teach tolerance (57%) and the increased vibrancy of the city
(28%).
Among those who felt negatively, the most frequently mentioned reason for feeling a negative impact of
greater cultural diversity was a lack of integration (41%, n=6). This was followed by the inability to
communicate (36%, n=5) and racial tension/disharmony (35%, n=5) (note very small base size).
Social Networks
The most common social networks that Wellington residents belonged to included a family network
(66%) and a network of people from school or work (62%). Approximately one-third also belonged to a
hobby or interest group (37%), a sports club (33%) or a church or spiritual group (32%).
Around half (52%) of Wellington residents saw their main social networks as being a mix of groups
within the area and those based on shared interests or beliefs. Over one-quarter (27%) were based just
on shared interests, while 17 percent were based on just the local area in which residents lived.
Feeling of Isolation
The majority (84%) of Wellington residents rarely felt isolated or lonely (if at all) in the preceding 12
months, stating they either never (60%) or rarely (23%) felt isolated or lonely.
Page 8
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
5
Feeling of Trust
The majority (84%) of Wellington residents felt people could be trusted, stating either people can almost
always be trusted (17%) or people can usually be trusted (67%).
Culturally Rich and Diverse Arts Scene
The majority (87%) of residents perceived Wellington as having a culturally rich and diverse arts scene,
stating they either strongly agreed (56%) or agreed (31%) Wellington had a culturally rich and diverse
arts scene.
Council Processes
Three-fifths (60%) of Wellington residents believed the public has at least some influence on the
decisions the Council makes, stating the public had either a large influence (10%) or some influence
(50%).
Around half the residents agreed (strongly agree or agree) they desire a greater say in what the Council
does (49%), followed by they have confidence the Council makes decisions in the best interests of the
city (45%) and they understood the Council decision making process (37%).
Strongly
Agree
%
Agree
%
Desires a greater say in what the Council does
15
34
Confidence in Council decisions made in city’s interest
7
38
Understand Council decision making process
8
29
Built Environment
Sense of Pride in City
Around four-fifths (82%) of Wellington residents agreed they had a sense of pride in their city (either
strongly agreed [30%] or agreed [52%]). Just four percent disagreed.
Among those who had a sense of pride in the city, the most frequently mentioned reason for this was a
nice green city or lots of parks (25% of residents who had a sense of pride). This was followed by the
city has good facilities and services (22%) and people were welcoming and friendly (13%).
Among those who did not feel a sense of pride, the most frequently mentioned reasons for not feeling a
positive sense of pride were related to unattractive new buildings (20%, n=4) and the city looks
dirty/rubbish everywhere (16%, n=3) (note small base size).
Page 9
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
6
Ease of Access to Local Park
The majority (90%) Wellington residents believed it was easy to access a local park or other green
space, rating this as either very easy (63%) or easy (27%).
Perceptions of Presence of Rubbish and Pollution
Many residents perceived rubbish and pollution to be present in Wellington City. The most commonly
held perception related to the presence of graffiti (58%), followed by rubbish (50%), noise pollution
(30%), water pollution (29%), and air pollution (12%).
Public Transport
Frequency of Use of Public Transport
Approximately one-fifth (43%) of Wellington residents were regular users of public transport (2 or more
times a week). Sixteen percent used public transport often (8% once a week and 8% 2-3 times a
month), while one-quarter (25%) were more irregular users (9% once a month and 16% less than once
a month). Thirteen percent did not use public transport, and three percent indicated they had no public
transport available.
Ease of Access to Public Transport
Almost all (92%) Wellington residents believed it was easy to access a public transport facility (e.g. bus
stop or train station), rating this either very easy (62%) or easy (30%). Three percent of residents
believed it was either very difficult (1%) or difficult (1%) to access public transport.
Among those who indicated access was difficult, the most frequently mentioned reason for difficult
access to a public transport facility was no service was provided in the area (43%, n=6). This was
followed by a lack of full-time services (29%, n=4) and personal disability/health issues (27%,n=3) (note
small base size).
Perceptions of Public Transport
Among those who have public transport in their area, the majority agreed (either strongly agreed or
agreed) that public transport was safe (84%) and convenient (79%). Just over two-thirds agreed it was
affordable (68%).
Strongly
Agree
%
Agree
%
Safe
37
47
Convenient
31
48
Affordable
27
41
Page 10
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
7
Lifestyle – Work and Study
Work Status
Around half (54%) of Wellington residents were employed full time (for 30 hours or more per week).
Almost a quarter of residents were in part time work (23%) and one-fifth (20%) were not in paid
employment and not looking for work.
Study Status
One-quarter (26%) of Wellington residents were studying either full-time (14%, 20 or more hours per
week) or part-time (12%, less than 20 hours per week).
Balance Between Work and Other Aspects of Life
Three-quarters (77%) of Wellington residents felt positively toward their work-life balance, rating
themselves either very satisfied (32%) or satisfied (45%).
Satisfaction with Leisure Time
Three-quarters (74%) of Wellington were satisfied with their leisure time, rating themselves either very
satisfied (26%) or satisfied (47%).
Ability to Cover Costs of Everyday Needs
The majority (88%) of Wellington residents said they had enough money to cover the costs of their
everyday needs, saying they either have more than enough (22%), enough (36%) or just enough (29%)
money.
Page 11
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
8
Pre-Survey Letter
Pre-survey letters were sent in staggered batches to potential households in each area
(to avoid any seasonal bias of sampling one location after another).
Electoral Roll
The Electoral Roll was requested by the Ministry of Social Development on behalf
of the Quality of Life project team. Once obtained, names from the twelve
territorial authorities and outside of these areas were randomly selected to be tele-
matched (so that both addresses and telephone numbers were known).
Interviewer Briefing
A face to face briefing was undertaken by TNS (with representatives from the City
Councils and the Ministry of Social Development present). Interviewers and supervisors
were fully briefed on the project and questionnaire.
Interview completed
Refusal
CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing)
Interviewers called households who had received a letter, making up to seven call backs per
household. A random resident within the household (i.e. next birthday) was asked to participate in
the survey. Quotas were applied throughout the interviewing process to ensure that sufficient
sample for gender, age, ethnicity and location was achieved. As the interviewing progressed,
mesh blocks defined by Statistics New Zealand were used to identify high incident ethnic areas so
as to ensure ethnicity quota targets were met where possible.
2.0 Research Design
An overview of the research process for the Quality of Life Survey 2006 is shown below:
Page 12
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
9
Pre-Survey Letter
2
The pre-survey letters were addressed to the household and were placed into envelopes that had the
Quality of Life logo printed on them. Letters were posted to allow one to two weeks delivery time before
households were contacted.
The pre-survey letter briefly explained the purpose of the research and that a TNS interviewer would call
sometime soon. Further, it mentioned that the interview would be approximately 20 minutes in length
and that all participation was voluntary. It also stressed that all information given would be kept in the
strictest confidence, and an 0800 number and email was offered for any additional information required
by the household. The letter also mentioned residents could enter into a prize draw for travel vouchers
(provided by TNS) as a token of appreciation. The prizes were one $2,000 travel voucher, and two travel
vouchers worth $1,000.
CATI Interviews
Similar to previous surveys, Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) was the quantitative
methodological approach undertaken for the survey.
Interviewing was conducted between July 17 and November 17, 2006. The average length of
interviewing was 19.9 minutes (not including the time taken to find the respondent in the household).
Questionnaire
The majority of questions in the questionnaire were kept consistent with previous years. However, in
order to further enhance the data collection and the ease of use for both interviewers and residents, the
questionnaire was refined (refer to Appendix Three).
Interview Pilot
TNS undertook two pilots of the survey (both in June 2006). For each pilot, a sample size of n=50 was
achieved. Residents were selected using random digit dialling and were from a mix of urban and rural
areas.
Post the pilots, minor changes were made to wording so as to reduce the overall time. All changes were
signed off by the Quality of Life project team before the interviewing for the 2006 survey went live.
2
Due to the need for addresses in sending out pre-survey letters, the Electoral Roll was used as a sample base.
Page 13
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
10
Electoral Roll and Tele-matching
The Electoral Roll records the addresses of the majority of New Zealand households. Using tele-
matching services, telephone numbers were identified for households within the twelve territorial
authorities and the rest of New Zealand.
Mesh blocks provided by Statistics New Zealand were used to identify areas where there were high
incidences of ethnicities such as where Pacific peoples resided. These mesh blocks were then included
in the random sample selection.
Once tele-matching was complete, letters were sent to households (rather than individuals) to ensure all
members of the household (regardless of their Electoral Roll status) were eligible to participate. When
contacting the household a random selection method (i.e. next birthday) was used to select the
respondent within the household.
Sample
The sample was a probabilistic sample of the population of New Zealand residents aged 15 years or
older. The total sample was n=7,720 New Zealanders aged 18 years and over. The sample included a
minimum of n=500 residents from the 12 main New Zealand cities and n=1,500 residents from the rest of
New Zealand (referred to as “Rest of New Zealand”), allowing for sub-analysis of these groups. A
summary of the sample and associated maximum margins of error follows.
Location
Sample Target
(n=)
Sample Achieved
(n=)
Maximum margin
of error (95% level
of confidence)
Rodney District
500
501
+/- 4.4%
North Shore City
500
503
+/- 4.4%
Waitakere
500
520
+/- 4.3%
Wellington
500
509
+/- 4.3%
Manukau
500
587
+/- 4.0%
Hamilton
500
507
+/- 4.3%
Tauranga
500
508
+/- 4.3%
Porirua
500
546
+/- 4.2%
Lower Hutt
500
526
+/- 4.3%
Wellington
500
503
+/- 4.4%
Page 14
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
11
Location
Sample Target
(n=)
Sample Achieved
(n=)
Maximum margin
of error (95% level
of confidence)
Christchurch City
(including Banks
Peninsula)
500
503
+/- 4.4%
Dunedin City
500
502
+/- 4.4%
Rest of New Zealand
1,500
1,505
+/- 2.5%
TOTAL
7,500
7,720
+/- 1.1%
Quotas
In order to ensure a good representation of the New Zealand population, quotas were implemented.
Quotas were broken down by age (15-24 years, 25-49 years, 50-64 years and 65 years or more),
ethnicity (M ori, Pacific and Asian) and gender to ensure an acceptable standard of error both at the
national and city level
3
.
The quotas set were soft quotas as opposed to hard quotas i.e. a range of +/- n=10 (2%) rather than a
definite target. The following minimum quotas were targeted.
Quota
2001 Census %
of population
Minimum quota
Achieved
interviews
Maximum
margin of error
(95% level of
confidence)
Male
49%
n=2,750
n=3,149
+/- 1.7%
Female
51%
n=2,870
n=4,571
+/- 1.4%
15-24 year olds
17%
n=950
n=958
4
+/- 3.2%
25-49 year olds
47%
n=2,640
n=3,494
+/- 1.7%
50-64 year olds
20%
n=1,125
n=2,144
+/- 2.1%
65 plus year olds
16%
n=900
n=949
+/- 3.2%
3
As well as total quotas for national level, there were also city level quotas (e.g. proportional ethnicity quotas to each city).
4
Note: 175 residents refused their age.
Page 15
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
12
Quotas were also set for M ori, Pacific and Asian/Indian ethnicities to ensure that the population data for
each of these groups was meaningful (i.e. not subject to a high margin of error). The minimum quotas
achieved are outlined in the table following.
Quota
2001 Census %
of population
Minimum quota
Achieved
interviews
Maximum
margin of error
(95% level of
confidence)
M ori
14%
n=1,000
n=1,057
+/- 3.0%
Pacific Peoples
6%
n=500
n=478
+/- 4.5%
Asian/Indian
6%
n=500
n=510
+/- 4.3%
Response Rate
The overall response rate for the Quality of Life Survey 2006 was 22.03 percent. For a breakdown of
response rates per area refer to Appendix Four.
To calculate the response rate we used the following formula:
D / (D + C)
A =
ineligible pre-contact (disconnected numbers, fax number etc)
B =
ineligible post-contact (those who are deaf, have language difficulties, are away or the quota has
been filled for the category in which they fall)
C = eligible non-responding (refusals)
D = eligible responding (interview)
E =
unknown eligibility (non-contacts).
Weighting
The data was weighted to reflect variations in probabilities of selection as well as differential non-
response and other factors which cause the sample and population distributions to differ. While quotas
were used to ensure that all groups are represented, the actual number of interviews achieved did not
exactly match the population, therefore weighting was required.
The following weightings were applied to each data set. The most up to date Census figures (2001)
available were used for these calculations.
•
City and Rest of New Zealand Level - Each city and the Rest of New Zealand data set was
weighted so that the distribution of the sample by gender, age and ethnicity exactly matches that
of the city/rest of New Zealand’s population aged 15 years or over.
•
Twelve Cities Level - The Twelve Cities total data set was weighted so that the distribution of
the sample by gender, age and ethnicity exactly matches that of the combined population of the
twelve cities/districts.
•
Total New Zealand/National Level - The Total New Zealand data set combines the Twelve
Cities data set with the data set for the Rest of New Zealand. The two are weighted to reflect
their relative proportion of the total New Zealand population aged 15 years or over.
Page 16
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
13
For ethnicity, when looking at the census data, this question is a multiple response question so the
population counts are higher than for age or gender. However, from the population data we do not know
that combination of ethnicities. Therefore, for weighting purposes the population proportions were based
on the sum across the ethnicity counts rather than the total city population.
In the survey, similar to the census data, a multiple response ethnicity question was asked also.
However, weighting for this question requires a single response. Consequently, responses were
prioritized.
The priority for coding a single response ethnicity variable was Pacific, Asian, M ori, New Zealand
European/”Other”
5
. “Other” along with “Refused”/”Don't know” were combined with New Zealand
European as the group were too small to weight as a group and it was felt that by combing with New
Zealand European would have the smallest affect on the weights (as this was the major ethnic group in
the data set).
Within the survey there were 175 residents who did not give their date of birth. These people were
excluded from the weighted data set as age weights were unable to be applied due to not being able to
identify which weight group the residents would fall into. The total number of residents within the
weighted sample was n=7,545 (excluding the n=175 people who refused to state their age).
Table 2.1: Exact Number of Interviews Completed By City/District/Rest of New Zealand
5
Normally, the priority for ethnicity would be M ori, Pacific, Asian then New Zealand European. However, in order
to maximise the achieved interviews for Pacific and Asian within the Quality of Life Survey 2006, these were
placed ahead of M ori (due to over achieving the target number of interviews for M ori overall).
Total Number of
Interviews Completed
Rodney District
494
North Shore City
486
Waitakere City
502
Wellington City
501
Manukau City
570
Hamilton City
498
Tauranga City
497
Porirua City
531
Lower Hutt City
511
Wellington City
489
Christchurch City
496
Dunedin City
490
Total Twelve Cities
6065
Rest of New Zealand
1480
Total
7545
Page 17
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
14
Table 2.2: Weighted Survey Sample Sizes (n)
Rodney District
North Shore City
Waitakere City
Auckland City
Manukau City
Hamilton City
Tauranga City
Porirua City
Lower Hutt City
Wellington City
Christchurch City
Dunedin City
Rest of New Zealand
National
Twelve Cities
(n=7546)
(n=4158)
Age
15-24 years
1371
823
25-49 years
3695
2089
50-64 years
1556
798
65 years +
925
449
Ethnicity
New Zealand European
5803
3047
M ori
875
362
Pacific Peoples
385
329
Asian/Indian
484
420
Gender
Male
3668
2001
Female
3879
2157
3388
190
353
677
242
Sample Size
153
383
336
91
770
547
233
183
Page 18
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
15
3.0 Quality of Life
This section looks into the overall quality of life of residents within Wellington.
The majority (93%) of Wellington residents felt they had a positive overall quality of life, rating this either
extremely good (31%) or good (61%).
Those who were slightly more likely to have rated their quality of life positively (extremely good or good)
were:
•
Living in the Onslow-Western Ward (98%), (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller
base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Those who were slightly less likely to have rated their quality of life positively (extremely good or good)
were:
•
Living in the Northern (90%) and Southern (91%) Wards (note base comparison of n=40 or
more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 3.1: Perceptions of Quality of Life – By Ward (%)
Don't know
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
37
23
61
57
64
58
60
61
64
5
3
6
9
6
1
2
2
2
1
1
12
33
33
26
39
31
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Extremely good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Extremely poor
Base: All respondents
Page 19
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
16
Across the age groups, the majority of Wellington residents perceived their quality of life positively
(between 91% and 95%, either extremely good or good)
Figure 3.2: Perceptions of Quality of Life – By Age (%)
Don't know
2
0
0
0
68
59
59
61
3
6
5
5
2
2
4
30
36
33
23
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Extremely good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Extremely poor
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, the majority of Wellington residents perceived their quality of life
positively (between 89% and 93%, extremely good or good) (note base comparison of n=30 or more,
smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 3.3: Perceptions of Quality of Life – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
1
0
0
0
34
28
13
24
60
63
77
65
4
7
7
9
2
3
3
2
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Extremely good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Extremely poor
Base: All respondents
Page 20
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
17
Female residents in Wellington were significantly more likely to rate their overall quality of life positively
(97%, either extremely good or good) compared to male residents in Wellington (88%).
Figure 3.4: Perceptions of Quality of Life – By Gender (%)
Don't know
1
0
23
39
65
57
8
3
3
1
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Extremely good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Extremely poor
Base: All respondents
Residents with a household income of over $100,000 were significantly more likely to have rated their
overall quality of life positively (98%, either extremely good or good) compared to other household
income groups within Wellington. In contrast, those with a household income between $20,001 and
$40,000 were significantly less likely to have rated their overall quality of life positively (84%) (note base
comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 3.5: Perceptions of Quality of Life – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
0
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
5
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
0
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
0
$100,001 or more (n=148)
0
8
24
24
30
45
81
60
68
67
53
11
8
7
2
1
3
2
1
1
Extremely good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Extremely poor
Base: All respondents
Page 21
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
18
4.0 Health and Well-being
This section looks at people’s health and well-being, covering aspects such as usage of General
Practitioners, the amount of exercise and physical activity that people undertake and residents’
emotional well-being.
4.1 Overall Health
The majority (92%) of Wellington residents viewed their health positively, rating it either excellent (23%),
very good (44%), or good (25%).
Those who were slightly more likely to have rated their health as either excellent or very good were:
•
Living in the Onslow-Western Ward (72%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base
sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Those who were slightly less likely to have rated their health as either excellent or very good were:
•
Living in the Southern Ward (61%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes
do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.1.1: Overall Health – By Ward (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
11
19
25
27
30
30
44
57
47
36
42
42
31
25
29
26
30
21
23
22
6
2
7
6
8
3
17
2
2
2
2
2
23
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Base: All respondents
Page 22
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
19
Those aged 50-64 years were slightly more likely to have rated their overall health positively (70%, either
excellent or very good) compared to other age groups within Wellington. Those aged 15-24 or 65 years
and over were slightly less likely to have rated their overall health positively (65% and 64% respectively)
compared to other age groups among Wellington residents.
Figure 4.1.2: Overall Health – By Age (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
0
21
27
20
13
44
40
50
52
26
26
21
29
7
6
9
4
2
2
3
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, New Zealand European residents were significantly more likely to have
perceived their overall health positively (70%, either extremely good or good) compared to other ethnic
groups within Wellington. Asian residents were slightly less likely to have perceived their quality of life
positively (51%, either extremely good or good) compared to other ethnic groups within Wellington (note
small base size for Asian residents does not allow for the calculation of a significant difference) (note
base comparison of n=30 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.1.3: Overall Health – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
0
25
19
16
12
45
47
25
39
21
25
59
39
6
9
7
2
3
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Base: All respondents
Page 23
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
20
For both male and female Wellington residents, around two-thirds (65% and 69% respectively) rated
their overall level of health positively (either excellent or very good).
Figure 4.1.4: Overall Health – By Gender (%)
Don't know
0
0
23
24
42
45
25
25
7
6
3
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Base: All respondents
Residents with a household income of over $100,000 were significantly more likely to have rated their
overall health positively (74%, either excellent or very good) compared to other household income
groups within Wellington. In contrast, those with a household income between $20,001 and $40,000
were slightly less likely to have rated their overall health positively (59%, either excellent or very good)
(note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.1.5: Overall Health – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
0
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
0
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
0
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
0
$100,001 or more (n=148)
1
26
20
27
18
31
40
39
38
55
43
15
34
26
22
21
20
5
5
3
3
1
4
2
1
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Base: All respondents
Page 24
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
21
When comparing the perceived level of overall health with the perceived overall quality of life, there were
differences across residents. Those who rated their overall quality of life extremely good were
significantly more likely to have rated their overall health positively (85%, either excellent or very good)
compared to other residents. In contrast, those who rated their overall quality of life good were
significantly less likely to have rated their overall health positively (60%) (note base comparison of n=150
or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.1.6: Overall Health – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
0
Good (n=299)
0
Neutral (n=25)
0
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
36
18
13
49
42
22
54
13
30
35
46
2
8
19
2
11
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
36
18
13
0
0
49
42
22
54
0
13
30
35
46
0
2
8
19
0
0
0
2
11
0
0
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Base: All respondents
Page 25
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
22
4.2 Usage of General Practitioners
While the majority (80%) of Wellington residents experienced no barriers to visiting their General
Practitioner (GP), one-fifth (20%) of residents had experienced at least one instance when they had
wanted to visit their GP in the previous 12 months, but had not done so.
Those who were slightly more likely to have experienced barriers were:
•
Living in the Lambton Ward (33%) (note small base size does not allow for the calculation of a
significant difference) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for
good comparison).
Those who were slightly less likely to have experienced barriers were:
•
Living in the Southern and Onslow-Western (15%) Wards (note base comparison of n=40 or
more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.2.1: Experience of Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners – By Ward (%)
Don't know
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
33
19
15
24
15
4
80
67
80
84
76
85
96
20
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Barriers experienced
No barriers experienced
Base: All respondents
Page 26
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
23
Among Wellington residents, those aged 15-24 or 25-49 years were slightly more likely to have
experienced barriers (both 23%) to visiting their GP in the previous 12 months compared to other age
groups within Wellington. Those aged 65 years and over were significantly less likely to have
experienced barriers (7%) compared to residents of other ages within Wellington.
Figure 4.2.2: Experience of Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners – By Age (%)
Don't know
0
1
0
0
23
23
13
7
77
77
87
93
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Barriers experienced
No barriers experienced
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, New Zealand European residents were slightly less likely to have
experienced barriers (18%) to visiting their GP in the previous 12 months compared to other ethnic
groups within Wellington (between 25% and 26%) (note base comparison of n=30 or more, smaller base
sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.2.3: Experience of Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
1
0
0
0
18
26
21
25
81
74
79
75
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Barriers experienced
No barriers experienced
Base: All respondents
Page 27
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
24
For both male and female Wellington residents, around one-fifth (18% and 22% respectively) had
experienced a barrier to visiting their GP when they had wanted to over the previous 12 months.
Figure 4.2.4: Experience of Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners – By Gender (%)
Don't know
0
0
18
22
82
78
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Barriers experienced
No barriers experienced
Base: All respondents
Residents with a household income between $40,001 and $70,000 were slightly more likely to have
experienced a barrier to visiting their GP when they had wanted to over the previous 12 months
compared to other residents (26%). Those with a household income less than $20,000 or over $100,000
(15% and 16% respectively) were slightly less likely to have experienced a barrier (note base
comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.2.5: Experience of Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners – By Household Income
(%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
0
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
0
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
0
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
1
$100,001 or more (n=148)
1
15
19
26
21
16
85
81
74
78
84
Barriers experienced
No barriers experienced
Base: All respondents
Page 28
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
25
When comparing the experience of barriers to visiting a GP over the previous 12 months with residents’
perceived overall quality of life, no relationship was found.
Figure 4.2.6: Experience of Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners – By Perceptions of Quality
of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
0
Good (n=299)
1
Neutral (n=25)
0
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
19
20
22
20
81
79
78
80
Barriers experienced
No barriers experienced
Base: All respondents
Page 29
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
26
The most frequently mentioned barrier for around half (52%) of those Wellington residents who not seen
a GP was the expense. Around one-fifth (19%) who had not seen a doctor said they were too busy or
could not take time off work.
Figure 4.2.7: Most Frequently Mentioned Reasons for Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners
(%)
n=96
52
19
10
2
11
5
3
5
Too expensive/costs too much/symptoms don't justify
cost
Too busy/couldn't take time off work
Got better on its own
GP too far away/difficult to get to/no transport
GP too busy/couldn't fit me in/long waiting time
Stubbornness/Don't like visiting Doctors/Personal
preference
Other
Unknown
Base: Those who experienced barriers
Small base sizes do not allow for comparison or the calculation of significant differences (Tables 4.2.1-
4.2.6).
Page 30
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
27
Table 4.2.1: Most Frequently Mentioned Reasons for Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners – By Ward
Too expensive/costs too
much/symptoms don't justify cost
52
54
48
86
56
27
0
Too busy/couldn't take time off
work
19
15
21
7
17
24
100
Got better on its own
10
0
7
0
21
11
0
GP too far away/difficult to get
to/no transport
2
0
7
0
0
0
0
GP too busy/couldn't fit me in/long
waiting time
11
12
6
0
18
19
0
Stubbornness/Don't like visiting
Doctors/Personal preference
5
19
4
7
0
0
0
Other
3
0
5
0
0
9
0
Unknown
5
0
8
0
0
17
0
n=
96
14
31
10
27
12
1
Lambton
Ward
Northern
Ward
Southern
Ward
Total
Wellington
Eastern
Ward
Onslow-
Western
Ward
Other
Base: Those who experienced barriers
Page 31
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
28
Table 4.2.2: Most Frequently Mentioned Reasons for Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners –
By Age (%)
15-24 years
25-49 years
50-64 years
65 years +
Too expensive/costs too
much/symptoms don't justify cost
57
53
48
0
Too busy/couldn't take time off
work
19
18
27
0
Got better on its own
28
1
14
26
GP too far away/difficult to get
to/no transport
0
3
0
0
GP too busy/couldn't fit me in/long
waiting time
7
13
14
0
Stubbornness/Don't like visiting
Doctors/Personal preference
0
4
7
52
Other
0
3
0
22
Unknown
0
7
4
0
n=
23
59
11
3
Base: Those who experienced barriers
Table 4.2.3: Most Frequently Mentioned Reasons for Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners –
By Ethnicity (%)
NZ European
M ori
Pacific Peoples
Asian/Indian
Too expensive/costs too
much/symptoms don't justify cost
60
31
14
34
Too busy/couldn't take time off
work
18
49
0
8
Got better on its own
3
0
75
31
GP too far away/difficult to get
to/no transport
2
0
0
8
GP too busy/couldn't fit me in/long
waiting time
11
20
0
14
Stubbornness/Don't like visiting
Doctors/Personal preference
6
0
0
0
Other
2
0
0
12
Unknown
6
0
10
0
n=
71
8
4
12
Base: Those who experienced barriers
Page 32
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
29
Table 4.2.4: Most Frequently Mentioned Reasons for Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners –
By Gender (%)
Males
Females
Too expensive/costs too
much/symptoms don't justify cost
46
57
Too busy/couldn't take time off
work
25
14
Got better on its own
9
11
GP too far away/difficult to get
to/no transport
5
0
GP too busy/couldn't fit me in/long
waiting time
5
16
Stubbornness/Don't like visiting
Doctors/Personal preference
9
1
Other
4
2
Unknown
4
5
n=
41
55
Base: Those who experienced barriers
Page 33
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
30
Table 4.2.5: Most Frequently Mentioned Reasons for Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners –
By Household Income (%)
$20,000
or less
$20,001 to
$40,000
$40,001 to
$70,000
$70,001 to
$100,000
$100,001 or
more
Too expensive/costs too
much/symptoms don't justify cost
100
38
60
64
30
Too busy/couldn't take time off
work
0
11
13
26
38
Got better on its own
0
8
8
0
6
GP too far away/difficult to get
to/no transport
0
0
0
12
0
GP too busy/couldn't fit me in/long
waiting time
0
23
16
17
7
Stubbornness/Don't like visiting
Doctors/Personal preference
0
8
7
0
8
Other
0
0
0
0
5
Unknown
0
11
0
6
11
n=
3
9
28
17
23
Base: Those who experienced barriers
Page 34
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
31
Table 4.2.6: Most Frequently Mentioned Reasons for Barriers to Usage of General Practitioners –
By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Extremely
good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Extremely
poor
Too expensive/costs too
much/symptoms don't justify cost
48
51
69
100
0
Too busy/couldn't take time off
work
23
19
0
0
0
Got better on its own
11
10
0
0
0
GP too far away/difficult to get
to/no transport
0
2
20
0
0
GP too busy/couldn't fit me in/long
waiting time
10
14
0
0
0
Stubbornness/Don't like visiting
Doctors/Personal preference
9
3
0
0
0
Other
0
3
11
0
0
Unknown
10
3
0
0
0
n=
29
60
6
2
0
Base: Those who experienced barriers
Page 35
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
32
4.3 Frequency of Doing Physical Activity
Just over one-third (36%) of Wellington residents undertake physical activity everyday.
Those who were slightly more likely to have undertaken physical activity on five or more days of the
week were:
•
Living in the Southern (66%) and Lambton (64%) Wards (note base comparison of n=40 or more,
smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Those who were slightly less likely to have undertaken physical activity on five or more days of the week
were:
•
Living in the Onslow-Western Ward (48%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base
sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.3.1: Frequency of Doing Physical Activity – By Ward (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
39
34
37
29
27
7
11
7
7
6
8
14
12
14
26
13
11
14
14
12
11
14
17
30
10
9
9
11
8
8
35
9
3
9
5
11
11
4
4
2
4
3
3
8
4
6
8
6
4
8
7
36
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
7 days
6 days
5 days
4 days
3 days
2 days
1 day
None
Base: All respondents
Page 36
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
33
Those aged 15-24 or 25-49 years were slightly more likely to have undertaken physical activity on five or
more days a week (60% and 58% respectively). Those aged 50-64 or 65 years and over (50%) were
slightly less likely to have undertaken physical activity on five or more days (52% and 50% respectively)
compared to residents of other ages within Wellington.
Figure 4.3.2: Frequency of Doing Physical Activity – By Age (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
0
31
39
34
30
7
8
5
7
23
11
13
13
16
14
12
13
12
7
14
14
10
9
8
4
6
5
2
2
6
8
18
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
7 days
6 days
5 days
4 days
3 days
2 days
1 day
None
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, M ori residents were slightly more likely to have undertaken physical
activity on five or more days a week (71%) compared to other ethnic groups within Wellington. Asian
residents were slightly less likely to have undertaken physical activity on five or more days a week (43%)
compared to other ethnic groups within Wellington (note small base size for Asian residents does not
allow for the calculation of a significant difference) (note base comparison of n=30 or more, smaller base
sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.3.3: Frequency of Doing Physical Activity – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
0
38
44
24
20
7
9
5
3
13
18
23
20
15
13
3
9
10
2
27
10
8
10
18
10
4
3
8
5
2
20
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
7 days
6 days
5 days
4 days
3 days
2 days
1 day
None
Base: All respondents
Page 37
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
34
Female Wellington residents (61%) were slightly more likely than male residents (53%) to have
undertaken some form of physical activity on five or more days of the week.
Figure 4.3.4: Frequency of Doing Physical Activity – By Gender (%)
Don't know
0
0
32
39
8
7
13
15
17
11
11
9
10
7
6
2
3
9
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
7 days
6 days
5 days
4 days
3 days
2 days
1 day
None
Base: All respondents
Residents with a household income between $40,001 and $70,000 or $70,001 and $100,000 were
slightly more likely to have undertaken some form of physical activity five or more days a week (both
61%) compared to other household income groups within Wellington. Those with a household income
between $20,001 and $40,000 were slightly less likely to undertake some form of physical activity five or
more days a week (48%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for
good comparison).
Figure 4.3.5: Frequency of Doing Physical Activity – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
0
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
0
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
0
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
0
$100,001 or more (n=148)
0
37
38
38
32
36
7
7
14
9
30
10
16
15
13
14
15
8
11
16
12
15
9
12
6
7
9
8
9
3
4
2
7
11
9
6
4
7 days
6 days
5 days
4 days
3 days
2 days
1 day
None
Base: All respondents
Page 38
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
35
When comparing the frequency of physical activity undertaken with the perceived overall quality of life,
those who
rated their overall quality of life extremely good were significantly more likely to have undertaken physical
activity on five or more days of the week (69%) compared to other residents. In contrast, those who
rated their overall quality of life as good were significantly less likely to have undertaken physical activity
five or more days a week (51%) (note base comparison of n=150 or more, smaller base sizes do not
allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.3.6: Frequency of Doing Physical Activity – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
0
Good (n=299)
0
Neutral (n=25)
0
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
51
28
30
13
5
8
7
13
15
21
10
13
15
13
13
5
12
3
37
4
11
11
8
3
5
8
6
6
9
19
7 days
6 days
5 days
4 days
3 days
2 days
1 day
None
Base: All respondents
Page 39
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
36
4.4 Emotional Well-being
The majority (90%) of Wellington residents rated their emotional well-being positively, stating they were
either very happy (35%) or happy (55%).
Those who were slightly less likely to have rated their emotional well-being positively (very happy or
happy) were:
•
Living in the Lambton Ward (85%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes
do not allow for good comparison).
There was little difference between the other Wards (between 90% and 92% were very happy or happy)
(note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.4.1: Emotional Well-being – By Ward (%)
Don't know
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
37
36
36
29
37
42
55
48
56
54
61
55
46
8
15
6
6
9
5
12
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
35
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Very happy
Happy
Neither
Unhappy
Very unhappy
Base: All respondents
Page 40
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
37
Across the age groups, a similar proportion of Wellington residents rated their emotional well-being
positively (between 89% and 94%, either very happy or happy).
Figure 4.4.2: Emotional Well-being – By Age (%)
Don't know
2
0
1
0
33
36
37
30
56
54
55
64
9
8
5
6
1
12
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Very happy
Happy
Neither
Unhappy
Very unhappy
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, a similar proportion of Wellington residents rated their emotional well-
being positively (between 87% and 91%, either very happy or happy) (note base comparison of n=30 or
more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.4.3: Emotional Well-being – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
1
0
0
0
37
41
29
18
53
46
71
73
8
13
4 5
1
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Very happy
Happy
Neither
Unhappy
Very unhappy
Base: All respondents
Page 41
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
38
Female residents (94%) were significantly more likely than male residents (86%) in Wellington to rate
their emotional well-being positively (either very happy or happy).
Figure 4.4.4: Emotional Well-being – By Gender (%)
Don't know
2
0
32
38
55
56
10
5
1
1
1
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Very happy
Happy
Neither
Unhappy
Very unhappy
Base: All respondents
Residents with a household income of over $100,000 were significantly more likely to have rated their
emotional well-being positively (95%, either very happy or happy) compared to other residents in
Wellington City. Conversely, those with a household income between $20,001 and $40,000 were
significantly less likely to rate their emotional well-being positively (68%) compared to other household
income groups.
Figure 4.4.5: Emotional Well-being – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
0
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
5
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
0
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
0
$100,001 or more (n=148)
0
21
20
30
41
47
79
48
61
51
47
23
8
7
4
4
1
1
1
Very happy
Happy
Neither
Unhappy
Very unhappy
Base: All respondents
Page 42
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
39
When comparing the level of emotional well-being with the perceived overall quality of life, those who
rated their overall quality of life extremely good were significantly more likely to have rated their
emotional well-being positively (98%, either very happy or happy) compared to other residents. In
contrast, those who rated their overall quality of life as good were slightly less likely to have rated their
emotional well-being positively (62%) (note base comparison of n=150 or more, smaller base sizes do
not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.4.6: Emotional Well-being – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
0
Good (n=299)
0
Neutral (n=25)
3
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
64
24
10
34
67
56
38
1
7
41
52
1
1
Very happy
Happy
Neither
Unhappy
Very unhappy
Base: All respondents
Page 43
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
40
4.5 Satisfaction with Life in General
The majority (88%) of Wellington residents were satisfied with their life in general, rating themselves
either very satisfied (38%) or satisfied (50%).
Those who were slightly more likely to have rated their satisfaction with life in general positively (very
satisfied or satisfied) were:
•
Living in the Onslow-Western Ward (92%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base
sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Those who were slightly less likely to have rated their satisfaction with life in general positively (very
satisfied or satisfied) were:
•
Living in the Eastern Ward (86%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do
not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.5.1: Satisfaction with Life in General – By Ward (%)
Don't know
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
42
34
40
38
44
38
50
47
55
48
48
48
50
8
6
7
7
12
5
12
2
5
3
5
1
12
38
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Base: All respondents
Page 44
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
41
Across the age groups, a similar proportion of Wellington residents rated their satisfaction with life in
general positively (between 87% and 91%, very satisfied or satisfied).
Figure 4.5.2: Satisfaction with Life in General – By Age (%)
Don't know
2
0
0
0
39
38
40
34
48
51
49
57
9
9
5
7
2
2
52
2
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, Asian residents were slightly more likely to have rated their satisfaction
with life in general positively (90%, very satisfied or satisfied) compared to other ethnic groups within
Wellington. M ori residents were slightly less likely to have rated their satisfaction with life in general
positively (83%) compared to other ethnic groups within Wellington (note base comparison of n=30 or
more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.5.3: Satisfaction with Life in General – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
1
3
0
0
39
46
25
30
49
37
75
60
8
13
7
3
3
2
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Base: All respondents
Page 45
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
42
For both male and female Wellington residents, the majority (87% and 90% respectively) felt positively
about their life in general (very satisfied or satisfied).
Figure 4.5.4: Satisfaction with Life in General – By Gender (%)
Don't know
1
0
31
45
56
45
9
7
2
3
1
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Base: All respondents
Residents with a household income of over $100,000 were significantly more likely to have rated their
satisfaction with life in general positively (97%, very satisfied or satisfied) compared to other household
income groups within Wellington. In contrast, those with a household income between $40,001 and
$70,000 were significantly less likely to have rated their satisfaction with life in general positively (82%)
compared to other residents (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for
good comparison).
Figure 4.5.5: Satisfaction with Life in General – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
0
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
5
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
0
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
0
$100,001 or more (n=148)
0
24
25
27
50
46
72
56
55
39
50
4
8
14
7
2
6
3
4
1
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Base: All respondents
Page 46
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
43
When comparing the level of satisfaction with life in general with the perceived overall quality of life,
those who rated their overall quality of life extremely good were significantly more likely to have rated
their level of satisfaction with life in general positively (98%, very satisfied or satisfied) compared to other
residents. Those who rated their overall quality of life as good were slightly less likely to have rated their
level of satisfaction with life in general positively (89%) (note base comparison of n=150 or more,
smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.5.6: Satisfaction with Life in General – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
0
Good (n=299)
0
Neutral (n=25)
3
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
64
29
5
34
60
39
38
1
8
39
62
3
14
1
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Base: All respondents
Page 47
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
44
4.6 Stress
Around one-tenth (9%) of Wellington residents indicated they had experienced some form of stress in
the previous 12 months that had a negative effect on them, with two percent stating they were always
stressed and eight percent stating they were stressed most of the time.
Those who were slightly more likely to have experienced negative forms of stress regularly (always or
most of the time) were:
•
Living in the Lambton (12%) and Northern (11%) Wards (note base comparison of n=40 or more,
smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Those who were slightly less likely to have experienced negative forms of stress regularly (always or
most of the time) were:
•
Living in the Southern Ward (5%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do
not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.6.1: Experienced Stress – By Ward (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
4
8
12
9
4
9
5
48
42
40
47
56
53
51
34
33
39
43
26
31
33
9
13
9
5
9
7
12
2
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Base: All respondents
Page 48
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
45
Those aged 15-24 years were slightly more likely to have experienced negative forms of stress regularly
(12%, always or most of the time) compared to other age groups within Wellington. Those aged 50-64
or 65 years and over were slightly less likely to have experienced negative forms of stress regularly (5%)
compared to other age groups among Wellington residents.
Figure 4.6.2: Experienced Stress – By Age (%)
Don't know
0
0
1
0
2
2
1
2
10
8
4
3
37
51
55
41
45
32
27
37
6
7
11
17
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, Asian residents were slightly more likely to have experienced negative
forms of stress regularly (14%, always or most of the time) compared to other ethnic groups within
Wellington. New Zealand European residents were slightly less likely to have experienced negative
forms of stress regularly (8%) compared to other residents (note base comparison of n=30 or more,
smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.6.3: Experienced Stress – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
0
2
4
6
12
12
11
48
50
34
51
36
28
52
17
8
10
2
18
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Base: All respondents
Page 49
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
46
Equal proportions of male and female Wellington residents (both 9%) had experienced negative forms of
stress regularly (always or most of the time).
Figure 4.6.4: Experienced Stress – By Gender (%)
Don't know
0
0
2
1
7
8
47
48
32
36
11
6
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Base: All respondents
The proportion of residents who had experienced negative forms of stress regularly (always or most of
the time) was similar across household income groups (between 6% and 11%) (note base comparison of
n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.6.5: Experienced Stress – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
0
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
0
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
0
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
0
$100,001 or more (n=148)
0
4
2
1
1
1
14
10
9
9
5
37
45
51
49
48
36
39
30
35
35
9
6
9
5
10
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Base: All respondents
Page 50
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
47
When comparing the frequency of negative forms of stress experienced over the previous 12 months
with the perceived overall quality of life, those who rated their overall quality of life as good were
significantly more likely to have experienced negative forms of stress regularly (12%) compared to other
residents. In contrast, those who rated their overall quality of life extremely good were significantly more
likely have experienced negative forms of stress rarely (4%, rarely or never) (note base comparison of
n=150 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.6.6: Experienced Stress – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
0
Good (n=299)
0
Neutral (n=25)
0
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
1
2
3
9
11
8
40
49
76
63
45
32
10
11
7
3
29
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Base: All respondents
Page 51
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
48
Nearly four-fifths (77%) of Wellington residents felt they usually had someone to turn to for support
when dealing with stress (54% always and 23% most of the time).
Those who were significantly more likely to have felt they usually (either always or most of the time) had
someone to turn to for support when dealing with stress were:
•
Living in the Onslow-Western Ward (87%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base
sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Those who were slightly less likely to have felt they usually (either always or most of the time) had
someone to turn to for support when dealing with stress were:
•
Living in the Northern Ward (72%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes
do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.6.7: Availability of Support – By Ward (%)
Don't know
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
61
47
55
55
60
50
23
26
25
20
21
27
21
13
5
15
13
16
12
10
6
7
8
7
6
4
1
4
1
1
4
2
2
4
1
1
12
54
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Not applicable
Base: All respondents
Page 52
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
49
Wellington residents aged 15-24 years were slightly more likely to usually have (either always or most of
the time) had someone to turn to for support when dealing with stress (81%) compared to other age
groups within Wellington. Those aged 50-64 years were slightly less likely to have had someone to turn
to for support when dealing with stress (69%) compared to residents of other ages within Wellington.
Figure 4.6.8: Availability of Support – By Age (%)
Don't know
2
0
0
0
63
53
45
54
18
25
24
23
7
14
19
10
7
5
5
7
2
2
2
2
1
4
4
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Not applicable
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, New Zealand European residents were significantly more likely to
usually have (either always or most of the time) had someone to turn to for support when dealing with
stress (79%) compared to other ethnic groups within Wellington. Asian residents were significantly less
likely to usually have (either always or most of the time) had someone to turn to for support when dealing
with stress (65%) compared to other residents (note base comparison of n=30 or more, smaller base
sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.6.9: Availability of Support – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
1
0
0
0
54
47
70
45
25
26
19
12
11
22
22
5
11
5
9
1
3
2
2
2
5
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Not applicable
Base: All respondents
Page 53
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
50
Females were significantly more likely to usually have (either always or most of the time) had someone
to turn to for support when dealing with stress (85%) compared to males (69%) within Wellington.
Figure 4.6.10: Availability of Support – By Gender (%)
Don't know
1
0
51
56
18
28
17
10
8
4
2
1
3
1
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Not applicable
Base: All respondents
Those with a household income of over $100,000 were significantly more likely to usually have (either
always or most of the time) had someone to turn to for support when dealing with stress (86%)
compared to other household income groups within Wellington. Those with a household income
between $20,001 and $40,000 or $40,001 and $70,000 were slightly less likely to have had someone to
turn to for support when dealing with stress (65% and 68% respectively) compared to other residents
(note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.6.11: Availability of Support – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
0
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
5
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
0
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
0
$100,001 or more (n=148)
0
42
41
44
57
62
24
24
25
22
24
16
21
18
11
9
9
5
9
7
4
9
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Not applicable
Base: All respondents
Page 54
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
51
When comparing the availability of support when dealing with stress with residents’ perceived overall
quality of life, those who rated their overall quality of life extremely good were significantly more likely to
have usually (either always or most of the time) had someone to turn to for support when dealing with
stress (87%) compared to other residents. Those who rated their overall quality of life as good were
slightly less likely to have had someone to turn to for support when dealing with stress (77%) (note base
comparison of n=150 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 4.6.12: Availability of Support – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
0
Good (n=299)
0
Neutral (n=25)
0
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
69
49
24
21
18
28
14
7
14
42
18
4
5
16
32
2
3
1
2
29
Always
Most of the time
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Not applicable
Base: All respondents
Page 55
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
52
5.0 Crime and Safety
This section looks at residents’ perceptions of safety in their city, home, neighbourhood and city centre.
5.1 Perception of Presence of Crime and Other Undesirable Problems
Around two-fifths (41%) of Wellington residents felt vandalism had been a problem within Wellington in
the preceding 12 months.
Those who were slightly more likely to have indicated vandalism had been a problem were:
•
Living in the Northern Ward (46%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes
do not allow for good comparison).
Those who were slightly less likely to have indicated vandalism had been a problem were:
•
Living in the Onslow-Western Ward (31%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base
sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.1: Vandalism as a Problem – By Ward (%)
Don't know
3
6
2
5
4
2
0
44
46
39
43
31
21
56
50
52
56
53
67
79
41
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 56
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
53
Residents aged 15-24 or 25-49 years were slightly more likely to have indicated vandalism had been a
problem in the preceding 12 months (41% and 42% respectively) compared to other age groups within
Wellington. Those aged 65 years and over were slightly less likely to have indicated vandalism had
been a problem in the preceding 12 months (36%) compared to other residents.
Figure 5.1.2: Vandalism as a Problem – By Age (%)
Don't know
4
3
3
2
41
42
39
36
55
55
58
63
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, New Zealand European residents were slightly more likely to have
indicated vandalism had been a problem in the preceding 12 months (42%) compared to other ethnic
groups within Wellington. M ori residents were slightly less likely to have indicated vandalism had been
a problem in the preceding 12 months (30%) compared to other ethnic groups within Wellington (note
base comparison of n=30 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.3: Vandalism as a Problem – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
3
9
0
0
42
30
49
37
55
61
51
63
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 57
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
54
For both male and female Wellington residents, two fifths (40% and 41% respectively) felt vandalism had
been a problem within Wellington.
Figure 5.1.4: Vandalism as a Problem – By Gender (%)
Don't know
4
3
40
41
56
56
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Residents with a household income between with a household income between $20,001 and $40,000
were slightly more likely to have indicated vandalism had been a problem (45%) compared to other
household income groups within Wellington. Those with a household income $20,000 or less were
slightly less likely to have indicated vandalism had been a problem (34%) compared to other residents.
Figure 5.1.5: Vandalism as a Problem – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
14
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
2
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
3
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
4
$100,001 or more (n=148)
2
34
45
40
38
42
52
52
56
58
57
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 58
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
55
When comparing whether vandalism had been a problem in the preceding 12 months with the perceived
overall quality of life, there were differences across residents. Those who rated their overall quality of life
good were slightly more likely to have indicated vandalism had been a problem (43%) compared to other
residents. Those who rated their overall quality of life extremely good were significantly less likely to
have indicated vandalism had been a problem (32%) compared to other residents (note base
comparison of n=150 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.6: Vandalism as a Problem – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
1
Good (n=299)
4
Neutral (n=25)
0
Poor (n=8)
13
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
32
43
69
61
67
53
31
26
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 59
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
56
Just over half (54%) of Wellington residents indicated car theft, and damage or theft from cars had been
a problem within Wellington in the preceding 12 months.
Those who were slightly more likely to have indicated car theft, and damage or theft from cars had been
a problem were:
•
Living in the Lambton Ward (69%) (note small base size does not allow for the calculation of a
significant difference) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow
for good comparison).
There was no difference between the other Wards (all 53%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more,
smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.7: Car Theft as a Problem – By Ward (%)
Don't know
3
0
3
5
3
2
0
69
53
53
53
53
45
43
31
44
42
43
45
55
54
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 60
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
57
Residents aged 25-49 years were slightly more likely to have indicated car theft or damage to cars had
been a problem in the preceding 12 months (57%) compared to other age groups within Wellington.
Those aged 15-24 years were slightly less likely to have indicated car theft had been a problem in the
preceding 12 months (49%) compared to other residents.
Figure 5.1.8: Car Theft as a Problem – By Age (%)
Don't know
2
1
8
4
49
57
52
53
49
41
39
44
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, New Zealand European residents were slightly more likely to have
indicated car theft or damage to cars had been a problem in the preceding 12 months (56%) compared
to other ethnic groups within Wellington. Asian residents were slightly less likely to have indicated car
theft or damage to cars had been a problem in the preceding 12 months (45%) compared to other
residents within Wellington (note base comparison of n=30 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for
good comparison).
Figure 5.1.9: Car Theft as a Problem – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
3
9
0
1
56
49
58
45
42
42
42
54
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 61
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
58
For both male and female Wellington residents, over half (52% and 56% respectively) indicated car theft
or damage to cars had been a problem within the city in the preceding 12 months.
Figure 5.1.10: Car Theft as a Problem – By Gender (%)
Don't know
2
4
52
56
46
40
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
The proportion of residents that indicated car theft or damage to cars had been a problem in the
preceding 12 months was similar across household income groups (between 54% and 57%) (note base
comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.11: Car Theft as a Problem – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
6
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
3
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
3
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
5
$100,001 or more (n=148)
2
51
57
57
54
55
43
40
40
41
44
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 62
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
59
When comparing whether car theft or damage to cars had been a problem with the perceived quality of
life, a similar proportion of residents whose quality of life was extremely good or good indicated that car
theft had been a problem in the preceding 12 months (57% and 53% respectively) (note base
comparison of n=150 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.12: Car Theft as a Problem – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
4
Good (n=299)
3
Neutral (n=25)
2
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
57
53
58
41
39
44
40
59
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 63
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
60
Three-fifths (62%) of Wellington residents indicated dangerous driving, including drink driving and
speeding had been a problem within Wellington in the preceding 12 months.
Those who were slightly more likely to have indicated dangerous driving, including drink driving and
speeding had been a problem were:
•
Living in the Eastern Ward (69%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do
not allow for good comparison).
Those who were significantly less likely to have indicated dangerous driving, including drink driving and
speeding had been a problem were:
•
Living in the Onslow-Western Ward (52%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base
sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.13: Dangerous Driving as a Problem – By Ward (%)
Don't know
4
4
6
1
1
2
12
65
65
66
69
52
19
34
31
29
33
29
46
69
62
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 64
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
61
The proportion of Wellington residents that indicated dangerous driving had been a problem in the
preceding 12 months was similar Across the age groups (between 60% and 64%).
Figure 5.1.14: Dangerous Driving as a Problem – By Age (%)
Don't know
8
2
5
0
61
64
60
62
31
35
35
38
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, M ori were slightly more likely to have indicated dangerous driving had
been a problem in the preceding 12 months (82%) compared to other ethnic groups within Wellington
(note small base size for M ori residents does not allow for the calculation of a statistically significant
difference). Asian residents were slightly less likely to have indicated dangerous driving had been a
problem in the preceding 12 months (56%) compared to other residents (note base comparison of n=30
or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.15: Dangerous Driving as a Problem – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
3
2
9
3
61
82
60
56
35
16
30
41
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 65
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
62
Females were significantly more likely to have indicated dangerous driving had been a problem in the
preceding 12 months (68%) compared to males (56%) within Wellington.
Figure 5.1.16: Dangerous Driving as a Problem – By Gender (%)
Don't know
4
3
56
68
40
29
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Residents with a household income between $20,001 and $40,000 were slightly more likely to have
indicated dangerous driving had been a problem (69%) compared to other household income groups
within Wellington (between 60% and 62%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes
do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.17: Dangerous Driving as a Problem – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
12
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
0
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
2
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
6
$100,001 or more (n=148)
3
62
69
61
60
62
26
31
38
34
36
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 66
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
63
When comparing whether dangerous driving had been a problem in the preceding 12 months with the
perceived overall quality of life, the same proportion of residents whose quality of life was extremely
good or good indicated dangerous driving had been a problem (both 62%) (note base comparison of
n=150 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.18: Dangerous Driving as a Problem – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
5
Good (n=299)
3
Neutral (n=25)
2
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
62
62
65
54
33
35
33
46
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 67
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
64
Two-fifths (40%) of Wellington residents indicated unsafe people (because of their behaviour, attitude or
appearance) had been a problem within Wellington in the preceding 12 months.
Those who were significantly more likely to have indicated unsafe people (because of their behaviour,
attitude or appearance) had been a problem were:
•
Living in the Northern Ward (52%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes
do not allow for good comparison).
Those who were significantly less likely to have indicated unsafe people (because of their behaviour,
attitude or appearance) had been a problem were:
•
Living in the Onslow-Western Ward (22%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller
base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.19: Perception of Presence of Unsafe People – By Ward (%)
Don't know
2
3
2
3
1
4
0
42
52
41
37
22
34
57
55
46
56
61
74
66
40
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 68
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
65
Residents aged 15-24 years were significantly more likely to have indicated the presence of unsafe
people had been a problem within the preceding 12 months (53%) compared to other age groups within
Wellington. Those 65 years and over were slightly less likely to have indicated the presence of unsafe
people had been a problem (30%) compared to residents of other ages within Wellington.
Figure 5.1.20: Perception of Presence of Unsafe People – By Age (%)
Don't know
0
2
6
2
53
38
38
30
47
60
56
68
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
The proportion of residents who indicated the presence of unsafe people had been a problem within the
preceding 12 months was similar across ethnic groups (between 38% and 41%) (note base comparison
of n=30 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.21: Perception of Presence of Unsafe People – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
2
2
3
3
40
38
43
41
57
61
54
56
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 69
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
66
For both male and female Wellington residents, around two-fifths (39% and 41% respectively) indicated
the presence of unsafe people had been a problem within the city in the preceding 12 months.
Figure 5.1.22: Perception of Presence of Unsafe People – By Gender (%)
Don't know
2
2
39
41
58
56
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Residents with a household income between $70,001 and $100,000 were slightly more likely to have
indicated the presence of unsafe people had been a problem (43%) compared to other household
income groups within Wellington. Those with a household income of over $100,000 were significantly
less likely to have indicated the presence of unsafe people had been a problem (33%) compared to other
residents (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.1.23: Perception of Presence of Unsafe People – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
3
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
2
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
5
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
0
$100,001 or more (n=148)
1
23
40
41
43
33
75
58
54
57
66
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 70
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
67
When comparing whether the presence of unsafe people had been a problem in the preceding 12
months with the perceived overall quality of life, a similar proportion of residents whose quality of life was
extremely good or good indicated unsafe people had been a problem (35% and 41% respectively) (note
base comparison of n=150 or more)
Figure 5.1.24: Perception of Presence of Unsafe People – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
2
Good (n=299)
2
Neutral (n=25)
5
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
35
41
45
83
63
57
50
17
Yes
No
Base: All respondents
Page 71
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
68
5.2 Sense of Safety
Almost all (99%) Wellington residents felt safe in their home during the day, stating they felt either very
safe (89%) or fairly safe (10%).
The proportion of residents who felt safe in their home during the day (either very safe or fairly safe)
was similar across Wards (between 97% and 100%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller
base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.2.1: Sense of Safety in Your Home During the Day – By Ward (%)
Don't know
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
90
87
92
86
92
88
10
7
11
8
12
8
12
1
1
1
1
1
89
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 72
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
69
Across the age groups, nearly all (between 97% and 100%) Wellington residents felt a sense of safety
(either very safe or fairly safe) in their home during the day.
Figure 5.2.2: Sense of Safety in Your Home During the Day – By Age (%)
Don't know
0
1
0
0
96
89
82
77
4
9
15
22
2
2
1
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, the majority (between 98% and 100%) of Wellington residents felt a
sense of safety (either very safe or fairly safe) in their home during the day (note base comparison of
n=30 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.2.3: Sense of Safety in Your Home During the Day – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
2
89
90
92
83
10
10
6
16
1
3
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 73
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
70
For both female and male Wellington residents nearly all (99% for both) felt a sense of safety (either very
safe or fairly safe) in their home during the day.
Figure 5.2.4: Sense of Safety in Your Home During the Day – By Gender (%)
Don't know
0
0
90
87
8
12
1
1
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Across household income groups, a similar proportion of residents (between 98% and 100%) felt a
sense of safety (either very safe or fairly safe) in their home during the day (note base comparison of
n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.2.5: Sense of Safety in Your Home During the Day – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
0
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
0
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
0
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
0
$100,001 or more (n=148)
1
82
83
88
91
92
18
15
12
8
6
1
2
1
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 74
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
71
When comparing the sense of safety (either very safe or fairly safe) in the home during the day with the
perceived overall quality of life, a similar proportion of residents whose quality of life was extremely good
or good (both 99%) felt a sense of safety in their home during the day (note base comparison of n=150
or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.2.6: Sense of Safety in Your Home During the Day – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
0
Good (n=299)
1
Neutral (n=25)
0
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
88
90
82
73
11
9
15
27
1
3
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 75
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
72
Almost all (96%) Wellington residents felt safe in their home after dark, stating they felt either very safe
(73%) or fairly safe (23%).
Those who were significantly more likely to have indicated they felt safe (either very safe or fairly safe)
in their home after dark were:
•
Living in the Onslow-Western Ward (100%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller
base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Those who were slightly less likely to have indicated they felt safe (either very safe or fairly safe) in their
home after dark were:
•
Living in the Eastern (93%), Southern and Northern (both 94%) Wards (note base comparison of
n=40 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.2.7: Sense of Safety in Your Home After Dark – By Ward (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81
64
73
72
83
84
23
19
30
21
22
17
16
4
5
6
6
1
73
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 76
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
73
Across the age groups, nearly all (between 95% and 98%) Wellington residents felt a sense of safety
(either very safe or fairly safe) in their home after dark.
Figure 5.2.8: Sense of Safety in Your Home After Dark – By Age (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
0
76
72
76
63
22
23
20
32
2
4
3
5
1
1
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, the majority (between 95% and 98%) of Wellington residents felt a
sense of safety (either very safe or fairly safe) in their home after dark (note base comparison of n=30 or
more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.2.9: Sense of Safety in Your Home After Dark – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
0
0
0
0
70
81
94
74
25
17
3
22
4
2
3
3
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 77
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
74
Male residents (99%) were significantly more likely than females (93%) to have felt a sense of safety
(either very safe or fairly safe) in their home after dark.
Figure 5.2.10: Sense of Safety in Your Home After Dark – By Gender (%)
Don't know
0
0
80
66
19
27
7
1
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Residents with a household income between $20,001 and $40,000 were significantly less likely to have
felt a sense of safety (either very safe or fairly safe) in their home after dark (86%) compared to other
household income groups within Wellington (between 95% and 100%) (note base comparison of n=40 or
more, smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.2.11: Sense of Safety in Your Home After Dark – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
0
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
0
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
0
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
0
$100,001 or more (n=148)
0
62
65
64
77
77
38
20
31
20
19
14
5
2
3
1
1
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 78
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
75
When comparing residents’ sense of safety (either very safe or fairly safe) in the home after dark with the
perceived overall quality of life, a similar proportion of residents whose quality of life was extremely good
or good felt safe (both 96%) (note base comparison of n=150 or more, smaller base sizes do not allow
for good comparison).
Figure 5.2.12: Sense of Safety in Your Home After Dark – By Perceptions of Quality of Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
0
Good (n=299)
0
Neutral (n=25)
0
Poor (n=8)
0
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
75
73
71
50
22
23
22
32
4
4
4
18
3
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 79
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
76
Most (86%) Wellington residents felt safe in their neighbourhood after dark, stating they felt either very
safe (41%) or fairly safe (46%).
Those who were significantly more likely to have indicated they felt safe (either very safe or fairly safe)
in their neighbourhood after dark were:
•
Living in the Onslow-Western Ward (97%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base
sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Those who were significantly less likely to have indicated they felt safe (either very safe or fairly safe) in
their neighbourhood after dark were:
•
Living in the Southern Ward (76%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base sizes
do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.2.13: Sense of Safety in Your Neighbourhood After Dark – By Ward (%)
Don't know
1
4
1
1
0
0
0
43
41
33
35
53
45
46
41
46
42
51
43
39
11
11
11
19
11
3
16
2
2
1
5
3
41
Total Wellington
(n=488)
Lambton Ward (n=43)
Northern Ward (n=160)
Southern Ward (n=72)
Eastern Ward (n=113)
Onslow-Western Ward
(n=81)
Other (n=20)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 80
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
77
Those aged 65 years and over were slightly less likely to have felt a sense of safety (either very safe or
fairly safe) in their neighbourhood after dark (80%) compared to other age groups within Wellington
(between 86% and 87%).
Figure 5.2.14: Sense of Safety in Your Neighbourhood After Dark – By Age (%)
Don't know
0
0
2
4
40
39
49
37
47
48
36
43
11
10
12
14
2
2
1
2
15-24 years (n=101)
25-49 years (n=263)
50-64 years (n=85)
65 years + (n=40)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
When comparing ethnic groups, M ori were slightly more likely to have felt a sense of safety (either very
safe or fairly safe) in their neighbourhood after dark (95%) compared to other ethnic groups within
Wellington City. New Zealand European residents were significantly less likely to have felt a sense of
safety (either very safe or fairly safe) in their neighbourhood after dark (85%) compared to other ethnic
groups within Wellington.
Figure 5.2.15: Sense of Safety in Your Neighbourhood After Dark – By Ethnicity (%)
Don't know
1
0
0
0
37
58
69
49
48
38
31
38
12
5
13
2
NZ European (n=387)
M ori (n=31)
Pacific Peoples
(n=21)
Asian/Indian (n=48)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 81
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
78
Males were significantly more likely to have felt a sense of safety (either very safe or fairly safe) in their
neighbourhood after dark (92%) compared to females (81%) within Wellington.
Figure 5.2.16: Sense of Safety in Your Neighbourhood After Dark – By Gender (%)
Don't know
1
0
52
31
40
51
6
16
1
2
Males (n=235)
Females (n=253)
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Residents with a household income of over $100,000 were slightly more likely to have felt a sense of
safety (either very safe or fairly safe) in their neighbourhood after dark (89%) compared to other
household income groups within Wellington. Those with a household income between $20,001 and
$40,000 were slightly less likely to have felt a sense of safety in their neighbourhood after dark (82%)
compared to other residents.
Figure 5.2.17: Sense of Safety in Your Neighbourhood After Dark – By Household Income (%)
Don't know
$20,000 or less (n=22)
0
$20,001 to $40,000 (n=47)
2
$40,001 to $70,000 (n=105)
0
$70,001 to $100,000 (n=84)
0
$100,001 or more (n=148)
1
47
42
40
41
45
46
40
46
45
44
7
15
13
14
8
1
1
2
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 82
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
79
When comparing residents’ sense of safety (either very safe or fairly safe) in their neighbourhood after
dark with their perceived overall quality of life, a similar proportion of residents whose quality of life was
extremely good or good felt safe (88% and 87% respectively) (note base comparison of n=150 or more,
smaller base sizes do not allow for good comparison).
Figure 5.2.18: Sense of Safety in Your Neighbourhood After Dark – By Perceptions of Quality of
Life (%)
Don't know
Extremely good (n=153)
1
Good (n=299)
0
Neutral (n=25)
3
Poor (n=8)
9
Extremely poor (n=0)
0
48
37
46
31
39
50
36
13
9
11
12
47
3
1
3
Very safe
Fairly safe
A bit unsafe
Very unsafe
Base: All respondents
Page 83
Quality of Life Survey 2006
-DQXDU\
80
Three-quarters (76%) of Wellington residents felt safe walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark,
stating they felt either very safe (33%) or fairly safe (42%).
Those who were significantly more likely to have indicated they felt safe (either very safe or fairly safe)
walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark were:
•
Living in the Onslow-Western Ward (90%) (note base comparison of n=40 or more, smaller base