2 - Results

2.1. - Response Information

For the purposes of this analysis we will treat all respondents, from all the towns in the three surveys, as 'one population'. We consider this is appropriate, as we are looking for common characteristics and issues for this particular population - that is people who have moved to small towns and rural areas from urban areas. However, it should be kept in mind that each town is individual and unique, as are the particular areas they are located in. For specific information about these areas, the reader is directed to research reports from the Family Centre.

The towns which make up this survey are listed in Table 1 below. This shows that the surveys in the Southern Wairarapa and Northern Waikato/Coromandel had relatively similar levels of recent migrants in the total population (21% and 20.4% respectively), while the ratio of recent urban migrants to other residents was somewhat higher in the South Island towns (27.4%),

Overall, urban migrants since 1985 made up 22.4% of all those living in the towns, and our survey includes 16.7% of all the households visited (1301 out of 7790). Our survey teams managed to interview 74.4% of all those who identified themselves as 'recent' urban migrants.

Table 1. Total Households, Migrant Households and Responses by Town Surveyed

Total Households

Total Eligible Migrant Households

Total Responses
Town N N % of households N Respondents as % of total pop
Featherston 763 175 22.9 129 16.9
Martinborough 485 88 18.1 55 11.3
Cartenton 1481 311 21.0 220 14.9
Total Sth Wairarapa 2729 574 21.0 404 14.8
Coromandel 407 101 24.8 93 22.9
Huntly 2315 466 20.1 371 16.0
Te kauwhata 329 56 17.0 42 12.8
Total Nth Waikato 3051 623 20.4 506 16.6
Granity 115 40 34.8 38 33.0
Reefton 427 75 17.6 57 13.3
Blackball 123 29 23.6 25 20.3
Dobson 96 11 11.5 8 8.3
Taylorville 100 14 14.0 9 9.0
Leithfield 59 17 24.6 16 23.2
Leithfield Beach 156 81 51.9 64 41.0
Woodend 503 179 35.6 113 22.5
Amberley 354 73 20.6 30 8.5
Amberley Beach 67 32 47.8 31 45.3
Total South Island 2010 551 27.4 391 19.5
Combined Total 7790 1748 22.4 1301 16.7

2.2. Household Composition

Table 2 below sets out the composition of respondent households, when last living in an urban area, and when interviewed. The single largest group of people leaving urban areas, according to these definitions, was 'Couple Headed' households (40% of those moving), followed by 'Couple' only (27%), 'Single Person Alone' and 'Sole Parent' households (both at 13%). This breakdown is roughly similar to national figures, though all other 'family households were between 2% and 3% more common among the survey population than in national figures. The one exception to this was 'Single Person Alone' households, which made up 20% of households nationwide, as at the 1991 Census (Statistics New Zealand, 1992).

Table 2 also shows respondent household composition at the time of being interviewed. 'Couple Headed' and 'Couple' households still make up the two largest categories (37% and 27%), though both of these have experienced a slight fall in numbers (8% and 1% respectively). The 'Single Person Alone' and 'Sole Parent headed' categories have both increased (21% and 28% respectively). The number of 'Sole Parent' households is noticeably higher among the urban-rural migrant population, after having moved (17%) than national figures (11%).

We do not suggest that the move from urban areas to town has caused these changes, or that the two were necessarily related. However, it would seem clear that there is a pattern within overall movement, in that some households moving to rural areas are also moving from being couples (with or without children) to singles (with or without children), and that the population is more likely to consist of family households, and especially sole parent households.

Table 2. Household Composition* in Previous Urban Area and Current Small Town

 Previous Urban Area Current Small Town % Change
HH Composition N % N % %
Sole Parent Headed 169 13.0 216 16.6 27.8
Couple 355 27.3 352 27.1 -0.8
Couple Headed 521 40.0 482 37.0 -7.5
Single Person Alone 170 13.1 205 15.8 20.6
Flatmates 56 4.3 34 2.6 -39.3
other 20 1.5 9 0.7 -55.0
Invalid 10 0.8 3 0.2 -70.0
TOTAL 1301
1301

* - Households have been grouped in the following manner.

Sole Parent Headed - A sole parent and child/ren resident, excepting those with a couple resident.
Couple - Only one couple, and no-one else resident
Couple Headed- A couple and at least one other person resident, including households with both couples and sole parents.
Single Person Alone - A dwelling where only one person is usually resident.
Flatmates - A non-family household involving two or more people who rent the property from a private or state landlord.

2.3. Household Income

Table 3 illustrates the estimated annual net income of respondents when leaving urban areas. We should note that there are several shortcomings to this income data, which we do not have space to set out here [Briefly, these shortcomings are as follows: Firstly, there was a high rate of non-response to the questions about income levels, and we do not know anything about the income levels of those who chose not to answer this question. Secondly, it is very difficult to consistently get accurate estimates of net and/or gross incomes, given the general complexity of such an estimate. Thirdly, where only gross incomes have been given, a calculation based on IRD tax rates has been applied, to get a net estimate, This assumes all the earnings are those of one person in one job. This is not necessarily (indeed probably is not) the actual tax rate that applies to the household income. Fourthly, we have not applied equivalence scales to this information, so our income groups apply to households of different size and may not reflect the relative wealth of different households within them. Fifthly, a CPI adjustment has not been made. $19,999 might have meant something very different, in terms of living costs, in 1985 than it did in 1995], other than to make clear that it should be analysed with caution. However, the responses provided by participants do supply some information about household income dynamics for those moving.

The left-most columns of the table show that those in the lowest income bracket make up the largest group of migrants, with 479 or 37% of households. The middle income bracket had the next largest group of migrants, at 31%. Only 19% of those moving were in the highest income bracket. 14% of respondents did not reply to this question.

Table 3 also shows that the lowest income bracket has increased by the greatest amount, comparing situations before and after the move. 49% of those interviewed were in the lowest group when interviewed, increase of 33%. The numbers in the middle income group fell by 11 %, while the numbers in the highest income group fell by 22%.

Table 3. Estimated Net Annual Household Income in Previous Urban Area and Town by Household Composition In Current Town

 Previous Urban Area Current Small Town % Change
Income Group
(NET $000 P/A) 		N % N % %
0-19,999 479 36.8 638 49.0 33.2
19,999-39,999 405 31.1 362 27.8 -10.6
40,000+ 242 18.6 190 14.6 -21.5
Invalid 175 13.5 111 8.5 -36.6
TOTAL 1301
1301

Table 4 below sets out the household incomes of respondents in the two situations, immediately prior to leaving, and at the time of being interviewed. This enables an examination of income dynamics within each income group, comparing when they last lived in urban area, and their contemporary situations. By selecting one row, and moving from left to right, we can see how the incomes of those in one group when leaving have changed.

It is apparent that the continuity of incomes, at an individual household level, varies considerably according to the level of income when leaving urban areas. If we follow the top row, from left to right, we can see that 428 of the 479 in the lowest income group (89%) remained within this lowest category. The next cell shows that 39 (8%) moved up to the next income level, and only 14 (3%) experienced a significant increase in income, up to the highest income group.

Those in the middle group had different outcomes. 28% of those in the middle group leaving urban areas had moved down to the lowest group by the time of interview, 65% were still in the same group, and 7% had increased income to the next bracket.

Of those in the highest bracket when leaving, 21 % had fallen to the lowest bracket, and 17% had fallen to the middle bracket, while 59% were still in the same bracket. Clearly, a number of those in these two brackets have experienced falls in income, after moving to rural areas

It is also apparent that 47 people who did not respond to the income question for when they were last living in a city, recorded low incomes in the rural areas. This means that some of the increase in the lowest income group can be attributed to households who did not give income information for urban areas. However, this was less than the number moving from middle (112) and upper incomes (51).

Table 4. Net Household income Group in Previous Urban Area by Current Small Town

 Income Group Now

0-19,999 20,000-39,999 40,000+ Invalid Grand Total
Income Group Then N % N % N % N % N %
0-19,999 428 89.4 36 7.5 14 2.9 1 0.2 479 100.0
20,000-39,999 112 27.7 263 64.9 29 7.2 1 0.2 405 100.0
40,000+ 51 21.1 41 16.9 143 59.1 7 2.9 242 100.0
Invalid 47 26.9 22 12.6 4 2.3 102 58.3 175 100.0
Grand Total 638
362
190
111
1301

2.4. Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of Living in Smaller Towns

A series of questions in each survey investigated how respondents felt about their move away from urban areas. Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8, show participants responses to questions about particular advantages and disadvantages they considered there were to living in the town they were in, as opposed to the last urban area they lived in.

Table 5 shows the perceived advantages of living in towns, by the household income source (beneficiary or non-beneficiary) of respondents at the time they answered the questionnaire. For both income categories the physical location or environment of the town was most commonly named as an advantage of towns over urban areas (33% of beneficiaries and 36% non-beneficiaries). The next most common responses were 'lifestyle" (27% beneficiaries, 32% non beneficiaries) and "Community" (21% and 25% respectively). Perhaps the most noticeable difference between the two is that beneficiaries were more likely to see no advantages than non-beneficiaries (16% compared to 11%). Despite some differences in the proportions of responses however, the ranking of responses is similar within the two categories.

Table 5. Advantages of Living in Country as Opposed to Urban Area, by Income Source#

(Multiple Responses Possible)


Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries
Advantage N % N %
Community/People 126 20.6 167 24.6
Lifestyle 168 27.4 216 31.8
CheaperHousing/Land 88 14.4 81 11.9
Cost of Living 53 8.6 51 7,5
Location/Environment 203 33.1 247 36.3
Better for Children 39 6.4 41 6.0
Other 93 15.2 114 16.8
None 97 15.8 77 11.3
Invalid 0 0.0 1 0.1
Total Responses 857 141.4 995 146.3
Total Respondents 613
680

#- The following definitions have been applied to household income source.

"Beneficiary-a household where respondent reported no-one received any income from a source other than a benefit.
"Non-Beneficiary" a household where respondent reported at least one person received money from a source other than a benefit

Table 6 below shows that differences between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households are more apparent when we examine the factors they named as disadvantages of living in their town, as opposed to urban areas. White "Lack of/inferior facilities" was the most common response for both categories (43% beneficiary, 51% non-beneficiary), non beneficiaries were more likely to name 'Distance/Isolation' as a disadvantage (31% compared to 24% for beneficiaries). Also, beneficiaries were nearly twice as likely to talk about lack of employment as a disadvantage of rural towns than non-beneficiaries (15% compared to 8%).

Table 6. Disadvantages of Living in Towns as Opposed to Urban Area. by Income Source.

(Multiple Responses Possible)


Beneficiaries

Non Beneficiaries
Disadvantage N % N %
Community/People 66 10.8 57 9.3
Lack of/Inferior Facilities 266 43.4 313 51.1
Distance/Isolation 145 23.7 209 34.1
Lack of Employment 87 14.2 53 8.6
Environment 28 4.6 23 3.8
Cost of Living 56 9.1 70 11.4
Other 40 6.5 47 7.7
None 152 24.8 138 22.5
Invalid 1 0.2 1 0.2
Total Responses 841 137.2 911 148.6
Total 613
680

Table 7 below provides information about perceived advantages and disadvantages by ethnicity, with the survey population grouped into Maori and non-Maori+ households. The table shows that 'Location/Environment' is again the highest in both groups (36% non-Maori, 31% Maori), and that the overall ranking of advantages are quite similar (that is, for non-Maori and Maori Lifestyle was next most commonly named, then Community, then Cheaper Housing/Land.

There were discernible differences in the two groups though. Maori were much less likely to talk about "Lifestyle" than non-Maori (21% compared to 32%), and, to a lesser extent "Community" (16% Maori and 24% non-Maori ). Maori households were more likely to speak of being Closer to Family (8% Maori, 4% non-Maori), or to state there were no disadvantages at all (19% Maori compared to 12% non-Maori). They were also much less likely to provide multiple responses (the total number of Maori responses adding up 117% of total respondents, whereas non-Maori responses added to 38% of respondents).

+ - Household Ethnicity has been classified according to the following criteria:

Maori - The respondent reported any Maori as currently and usually resident (including those where people from other ethnic groups were resident)
Non-Maori - The respondent did not report any Maori resident

Table 7. Advantages of Living in Country as Opposed to Urban Area, by Ethiicity Maori/Non-Maori

(Multiple Responses Possible)


Non Maori Maori
Advantage N % N %
Community/People 255 24.3 40 16.1
Lifestyle 336 32.0 51 20.5
Cheaper Housing/Land 135 12.9 35 14.1
Cost of Living 84 8.0 20 8.0
Location/Environment 376 35.8 76 30.5
Better for Children 70 6.7 9 3.6
Closer to Family 46 4.4 20 8.0
Other 124 11.8 18 7.2
None 126 12.0 48 19.3
Invalid 1 0.1 0 0.0
Total 1553 148.0 317 127.3
Total Respondents 1049
249

Further differences are between Maori and non Maori are apparent in Table 8, which depicts participants perceptions about disadvantages of living in towns as opposed to urban areas. Non Maori were more likely to talk about a 'Lack of/Inferior facilities' than Maori (47% and 36% respectively), and 'Distance/isolation' (31% non-Maori compared to 20% of Maori). Maori were more likely to speak about a Lack of Employment (15% and 7%), and to see no disadvantages (28% and 21%). Though there are exceptions, the differences between Maori and non-Maori seem to roughly mirror the differences between Beneficiary and Non-beneficiary.

Table 8. Disadvantages of Living in Towns as Opposed to Urban Area, by Ethnicity (Maori/Non Maori)

(Multiple Responses Possible)


Non Maori Maori
Disadvantage N % N %
Community/People 77 7.3 20 8.0
Lack of facilities 326 31.1 53 21.3
Distance/Isolation 323 30.8 50 20.1
Inferior Services 162 15.4 26 10.4
Lack of Employment 73 7.0 36 14.5
Environment 31 3.0 7 2.B
Cost of Living 110 10.5 26 10.4
Other 84 8.0 21 8.4
None 220 21.0 69 27.7
Invalid 1 0.1 1 0.4
Total 1407 134.1 309 124.1
Total Respondents 1049
249

2.5. Problems Affording Essential Food

A series of questions in the first two surveys investigated participants' evaluations of the affordability of essentials - in particular food and medical care. Table 9 below correlates the respondents' perceptions of their problems affording essential food in urban areas, by their problems when interviewed. The percents in the table refer to the entire population, and add up to 100. The table therefore tells the proportion of the population who reported different levels of problems affording food, at the two different times, and by moving along the axes, we can get a picture of the relative changes in food affordability experienced by households.

The most obvious finding is that a majority of respondents reported no change in the affordability of food. This is demonstrated by a total of 71% of the. population being in the grey shaded cells, along the diagonal of the table. At the bottom right of the table, we can see that most respondents (62%) reported no problems at all affording essential rood in urban areas and rural towns. In contrast, a very small number (0.3%) are at. the top left, reporting major problems affording food in both urban and rural areas.

For those who did report a change in affordability however, there does seem to be a trend toward finding more problems in rural towns. This is shown by the percent scores in un-shaded cells, below the diagonal, which represents those who reported more problems affording adequate food after moving. 19% of the sample are in this category (4.4 % having experienced a significant increase in difficulties, from either few or no problems, major, or quite a lot of problems). Conversely, 10% of respondents are above the diagonal, in the black shaded cells, and reporting improved affordability of food.

Table 9 - Proportion of Population Reporting Problems Affording Essential Foods in Previous Urban Area by Current Small Town

Affordability Now

Affordability Then Major Problems Quite a lot of problems Some problems Few problems No problems at all
Major Problems 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7
Quite a lot of problems 0.1 1.0 1.5 0.8 0.8
Some problems 0.1 0.4 4.6 0.8 2.7
Few problems 0.2 0.6 1.2 2.7 2.2
No problems at all 0.9 2.7 5.7 7.0 62.0

Total percents in table = 160.

Those along the diagonal (shaded grey) reported no change in affordability after moving
Those below it (no shading) reported more problems affording food after the move.
Those above it (shaded black) reported less problems affording food after the move

A breakdown of this information, again by income source and ethnicity reveals interesting trends within this overall direction. Table 10 demonstrates the proportional changes in participants assessment of the affordability of essential foods, after moving to smaller towns and rural areas, according to their source. [We should note that there was significant increase in the number of beneficiary households after the move from urban to rural areas. The percents in this table refer to the total within each response category. as a proportion of the total number of households with these income sources (that is benefit and non-benefit) at that time.] Of these two groups, the greatest change in the perceived affordability of food was among non-beneficiaries. In particular, the proportion of non-beneficiaries reporting 'No problems at all' fell by 13%, while the proportion reporting 'Some' or 'Few' problems increased by 8% and 4% respectively. Those reporting the highest level of difficulty, ('Major', or 'Quite a lot' of problems) changed only slightly, increasing by a combined total of 1.4%.

There was less perceived change in the affordability of food among beneficiary households. Only the 'Few problems' category increased by more than 5% (at. 5.1%), while the proportion reporting 'No problems at all' saw the next most significant change, falling by 4%. All the other categories remained within 1 % of the proportion when last in urban areas.

It is clear that Non-Beneficiary households were most likely to consider that essential food was less affordable after moving to smaller towns and rural areas. This may reflect the relative differences in the foods that non-beneficiaries and beneficiaries were buying in the cities (e.g. Non Beneficiaries may be more likely to be purchasing convenience foods). It may also indicate that working households face particular costs in country areas (eg. travel), which place pressures on budgets that do not exist in the larger urban areas.

 

Table 10. Change in Proportion of Population Reporting Problems Affording Essential Food After Moving, by Income Source

Change

Level of Problem Non Benefit Benefit
Major Problems 0.1 -0.8
Quite a lot of Problems 1.3 0.1
Some Problems 7.8 -1.0
Few Problems 3.5 5.1
No Problems at All -12.7 -3.5

Table 11 provides this information for Maori and non-Maori households in the surveys. In this table, a similar pattern is apparent for Non-Maori as was noted for non-beneficiaries. There was a marked fall in the proportion reporting 'No problems at all' (12%), small increases in the 'Some' and 'Few' problems categories (5% and 4% respectively) and very minor increases in the 'Major' and 'Quite a lot of problems' categories (2% combined total).

The changes in these different categories are less marked for Maori. There was a 6% fall in the proportion reporting 'No problems at all', but also reductions in the 'Major problems' (2%) and 'Quite a lot of problems' (2%) categories. These reductions did not occur for Non-Maori, Beneficiaries on Non-Beneficiaries. The only increases were in the 'Some' and 'Few' problems categories (4% and 7% respectively). There has therefore been some 'contraction' of responses among Maori households, after the move, toward the central categories, as a result of reductions in the proportions at either end of the response spectrum.

It would seem that Non Mauri are experiencing greater change, for the worse, in problems of affordability of food. As a larger proportion of Maori households were in the beneficiary category, this result reflects some of the differences between benefit and non-benefit households discussed above. However, the reduction in the proportion of the Maori population experiencing most difficulties was greater than for other groups noted here (Non-Maori, Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries). This may reflect greater contact arid support from whanau, access to non-market food sources, such as shellfish, or other 'traditional' foods, in rural areas, as opposed to urban.

Table 11. Change in Proportion of Population Reporting Problems Affording Essential Food after Moving, by Income Source

 Change
Level of Problem Non Benefit Benefit
Major Problems

0.6

-2.4
Quite a lot of Problems

1.5

-1.5
Some Problems

5.4

3.5
Few Problems

4.1

6.8
No Problems at All

-11.6

-6.4

2.6. - Affordability of Medical Care

A series of questions in each of our first two surveys looked at how participants felt about the affordability of medical care, including Doctor, Dentist and Prescription, after moving to rural towns. There is not space within this paper to detail the responses to these questions, so we have employed a scoring system, based on these responses, to produce an aggregate estimate of affordability. [Respondents were asked to say how affordable they felt doctors, dentists and prescription medicines were in current towns, compared to urban areas, on a five point scale. Briefly, the 'affordability score' was produced by taking the average number of respondents in the 'positive' ends of the scale and subtracting from this the average number of respondents at the negative end of the scale. A positive score indicates that, overall, more people fett care was more affordable, while a negative score indicates that more felt it was less affordable.]

This aggregate estimate shows, in Figure 1, that most people felt care after the move from urban to rural towns was more expensive, but there were variations within our groups. Non-beneficiaries were more likely to feel that care was more expensive than non-beneficiaries, with a score of -11, compared to - 4.

Figure 2 shows us that there was a very noticeable difference in perceptions of affordability, according to our two household ethnicity categories. On average, 12% more non-Maori thought medical care was less affordable from doctor, dentist and prescription after the move. Conversely, 7% more Maori felt medical care was more affordable than it had been in urban areas. This may reflect access to iwi based and other Maori health services that have become available recently.

Figure 1. Overall Affordability Score for Medical Care in Rural Areas, Compared to Previous Urban Areas, Household by Income Source




Benefit
Income







Source
Non Benefit










-12.0

-10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0



Affordability Score

(NOTE: scores less than zero indicate lesser affordability; scores greater than zero indicate greater affordability)

 

Figure 2. Overall Affordability Score for Medical Care in Rural Areas, Compared to Previous Urban Areas, Household by Income Source



Maori
Ethnicity








Non-Maori












-15.0 -10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0


Affordability Score


(NOTE: scores less than zero indicate lesser affordability, scores greater than zero indicate greater affordability)

Previous Page TOC Next Page

Contact for Enquiries

Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person

 
Print this page Print this page




Biosecurity New Zealand Web Site