South Catlins Resident Survey Results Report – February 2001

In February 2001 South Catlins Promotion Association surveyed local residents to find out their perspective on development issues in the South Catlins region. In all, 261 survey forms were delivered to rural box holders in the area.  Of these, 133 were returned and gave a return rate of 51%.

Residents were asked to predict what would happen in the next 5-10 years with regard to changes in the level of permanent residents in the South Catlins. Of respondents, just over half (56%) thought that the population would remain static, 23% thought it would decline, 17% thought it would increase and 4% had no opinion.

Some 65% of respondents said that they would like the population to increase in the next 5 –10 years. Some 29% wanted it to remain static, 2% wanted it to decline and 7% had no opinion.

Just under half of respondents (47%) sited a decline or loss of services as the greatest problem facing the South Catlins in the event of a permanent population decline.  Forestry was seen as the second greatest problem (15%),  8%  said lack of jobs and 4% thought an increase in farm sizes would be the greatest problem. Significantly, 10% had no opinion.

In the event of an increase in visitors, 31% of respondents thought the greatest problem facing the South Catlins area would be a lack of infrastructure.  Twenty percent thought the upkeep of roads would be the biggest issue, 12% thought loss of appeal as an unspoilt pristine environment and loss of wildlife and 9% thought rubbish and pollution. Eleven percent of respondents had no opinion.

Some 25% of respondents had a vision for the area that encompassed catering for visitors with good facilities while retaining a clean green environment.  Nineteen percent had a vision of an increase in tourist numbers and 9% sustainable visitor numbers/sustainable economy. Of all respondents, 8% had a vision that it should stay as it is, 5% saw the permanent population increasing slightly, 7% thought there would be more sealed roads. Eighteen percent had no opinion.

Twenty one percent of respondents rated the economic prospects for the future of the area very bright. A further 40% thought it would be quite bright, 29% about average, 7% quite gloomy and 2% very gloomy.

When asked about what additional services the region needed, 71% of respondents felt they needed more police, 60% said the area needed more doctors, 57% thought the area needed more upmarket accommodation. Other replies identified needs for, quality camping grounds (76%), backpackers (51%), motels (65%), guided walks (69%), tourist excursions (70%), food outlets (74%) and service stations (63%).  A need for more petrol stations was qualified by many respondents who said the need was for more opening hours during weekends.

Most residents were happy with the level of fire services. Only 24% said they thought there was a need more.

Residents were asked what facilities they thought should be provided at Curio Bay Recreation Reserve.  The responses are as follows: public toilets (86%), camping amentities – toilets/showers/kitchen/laundry (85%), camping sites (81%), shop (76%) and cabins (75%).

Thirty-seven percent of residents thought that council should develop the facilities at the Curio Bay Recreation Reserve. Twenty-seven percent said private individuals and 25% said a trust or some other organisation.

Thirty-six percent of respondents thought that council should maintain the facilities at the reserve, while 32% said private individual and 25% said a trust or some other organisation.

Forty-six percent thought private individual should operate the facilities at the Curio Bay Recreation Reserve. Twenty-one percent said council and 21% a trust or some other organisation should operate the facilities.

When asked if the South Catlins area needed more promotion, 70% of respondents were in favour and 25% were not and 5% had no opinion. 

Some 54% of residents believed that the Catlins needed to develop a brand for promoting the area.  Thirty-seven said it didn't and 12% having no opinion.

Residents rated the services in the area as follows;

Water supply: average for New Zealand (30%), good (17%), very poor (13%), rather poor (12%), Very good (9%).

Sewage: Average for New Zealand (29%), rather poor (18%), good (15%), very poor (12%), very good (2%).

Street Lighting: average for New Zealand (36%), rather poor (19%), good (18%), very poor (9), very good (2%).

Electricity supply: average for New Zealand (44%), good (25%), rather poor (14%), very good (10%), very poor (4%).

Rubbish Collection: good (28%), average for New Zealand (24%), very good (16%), rather poor (9%), very poor (6%).

Roading: rather poor (38%), average for New Zealand (24%), very poor (21%), good (9%), very good (1%),

Recreational Opportunities: average for New Zealand (27%), very good (15%), good (13%), rather poor (9%), very poor (3%).

Preschool Education: average for New Zealand (35%), good (22%), very good (19%), rather poor (9%).

Primary Education: average for New Zealand (28%), good (27%), very good (26%), rather poor (5%).

Employment availability: rather poor (33%), average for New Zealand (23%), very poor (21%), good (8%), very good (5%).

Quantity of tourist shopping: rather poor (36%), average for New Zealand (26%), very poor (15%), good (8%), very good (2%).

Quality of tourist shopping: average for New Zealand (27%), rather poor (26%), very poor (12%), good (11%), very good (2%).

Quantity of Information Outlets: average for New Zealand (44%), rather poor (19%), good (11%), very good (8%), very poor (5%).

Quality of Information Outlets: average for New Zealand (43%), rather poor (18%), good (13%), very good (9%), very poor (3%).

Quantity of public toilets: average for New Zealand (30%), rather poor (27%), good (18%), very poor (11%), very good (5%).

Quality of public toilets: average for New Zealand (34%), good (19%), rather poor (17%), very good (5%).

Quantity of Signage: good (31%), average for New Zealand (26%), rather poor (15%), very good (13%).

Quality of Signage: good (32%), average for New Zealand (24%), very good (14%), rather poor (13%), very poor (9%).

Quantity of reserves: average for New Zealand (32%), good (28%), rather poor (14%), very good (9%), very poor (7%).

Quality of reserves: average for New Zealand (33%), rather poor (20%), good (19%), very poor (9%), very good (6%).

Quantity of playgrounds: average for New Zealand (30%), rather poor (24%), good (13%), very poor (9%), very good (4%).

Quality of playgrounds: average for New Zealand (35%), rather poor (18%), good (12%), very poor (8%), very good (3%).

Quantity of carparking: average for New Zealand (39%), good (25%), rather poor (13%), very good (8%), very poor (2%).

Quality of carparking: average for New Zealand (37%), good (24%), rather poor (12%), very poor (9%), very poor (3%).

Quantity of sports facilities: average for New Zealand (37%), good (24%), rather poor (12%), very good (8%), very poor (5%).

Quality of sports facilities: average for New Zealand (35%), good (25%), very good (8%), rather poor (8%), very poor (6%).

Overall, footpaths in the South Catlins generally were rated as either very poor or rather poor. The only exception were the footpaths at Tokanui which the majority of respondents rated as either average for New Zealand or good.

Residents were asked whether particular reserves required further development. Of those who said yes, Curio Bay (76%), Waipahatu (70%), Fortrose (61%), Weirs Beach (50%), Tokanui Playground (49%) and Waipapa Point (50%).  Those that the majority said no to were; Tokanui Domain (45%), and Waikawa (60%).

Some 88% of residents said that overall they would like to see the number of visitors to the region from both New Zealand and overseas increase. Some 39% said they would like to see it remain stable and 2% wanted it to decline.

When asked what type of visitors they wanted to see in the South Catlins, 47% of respondents agreed while a further 33% strongly agreed with having families visiting the South Catlins.

Some 48% agreed with a further 19% strongly agreeing to have group tours visiting the South Catlins.  15 % disagree with group tours visiting the South Catlins.

When asked whether or not they agreed with backpackers visiting the South Catlins 51% said they agreed, 21% strongly agreed and 8% disagreed.

Some 47% agreed and 37% strongly agreed with having New Zealanders visit the South Catlins.

Some 62% agreed and 36% strongly agreed with having overseas visitors visiting the South Catlins.

When residents were asked to comment on what they least liked about tourism, the responses were: visitors driving ability (25%), poor roads/gravel roads (7%); rubbish left/pollution/dumping effluent on road (5%); visitors camping anywhere (4%), harassment of wildlife (4%), possible over commercialisation (4%), visitors driving through and do not spend (3%); pettiness of operators, dividing community (3%) and risk to the environment (3%). Some 28% had no opinion.

Residents were also asked to comment on what they liked most about tourism. The responses were as follows: economic development/more jobs (33%), meeting people (19%), sharing the area with others (8%), having untouched environment/wanting to keep it that way and not to commercial (7%) and promotion and attracting visitors (5%). Twenty-five percent had no opinion.

Of those who participated in the survey 17% worked in the tourism industry and 38% had access to the Internet.

To purchase a copy of the South Catlins Product Development Strategy for Tourism, which contains the resident research, please email info@catlins.org.nz.

The cost of the copy of the strategy is $ 30.00 inclusive of GST.

© 2000 -2002, Catlins Promotions Association
Site Launched 09-Mar-01. Last Update 04-Sep-02.