INTRODUCTION TO SURVEYS - Rivers Group › wp-content › uploads › 2018 › ... · decision-makers by gathering information from a variety of sources, including that held by the

1 INTRODUCTION TO SURVEYS

"Public involvement procedures should identify and increase the information base available to decision-makers by gathering information from a variety of sources, including that held by the community"

Royds Garden Proposal Hurt River Flood Connol Scheme Review

Public Involvement Procedures

Surveys were seen as the main means of obtaining information from the public, but also a means of beginning dialogue with the public over future flood protection.

Surveys were seen as an additional means of informing the public about the Review and about the risk of flooding in the valley.

Three surveys were to be carried out, with the aims of understanding:

- the level of the awareness of possible flooding within the floodplain

- the degree of preparedness (insurance, emergency contingencies)

- attitudes towards protection and costs of protection

- acceptability of levels of risk

- attitudes towards some possible protective mechanisms such as relocation, stopbanks, and raising buildings.

The surveys were also to provide an opportunity to obtain information of use to consultants carrying out the Environmental Information and the Flood Damage Assessment studies.

There were three surveys to be carried out as follows:

- Survev of Households

A postal survey of approximately 3,000 households. This was to be based on a structured sample so that all areas were covered. It was to collect the type of information outlined above, and was to be analysed on a geographic basis for use as a planning and decision-making tool.

Survev of Businesses

This was to be a personal interview of managers of a representative range of indus- tries and businesses in the floodplain area. It was anticipated that approximately 40 commercial and 40 industrial premises would be adequate to indicate the range of responses. Semi-structured interview techniques were used to ascertain similar

h information to the household survey.

HunRiver Flood Control Scheme Review - Volnme ZI Pace 1

Survey of Institutions

As the valley contains a large number of institutions, it was felt important to survey a representative sample, to balance the information from the business survey. Approxi- mately 20 personal interviews were to be carried out. p

All these surveys were undertaken.

The remainder of this report outlines the approach to the surveys, the methods of survey and analysis used, and the results of the analysis.

Hufi River Flood Control Scherne Review - Vohane II Pnge 2

2 RESIDENTIAL SURVEY

2.1 Survey Method

Introduction

An important issue for authorities involved in floodplain planning and capital investment decision-making, is public involvement in the process. To develop effective programmes of public involvement, it is necessary to understand existing public perceptions of flooding and river systems.

Knowledge of these perceptions, and of other information such as actions that people may have already taken themselves to mitigate flood losses, how people think they would respond to flood warnings, and the present use that people make of the river, can all improve decision- making.

The Hutt River floodplain area is intensively developed, with approximately 24,000 households* resident, large concentrations of commercial and industrial development, and a large number of institutions serving the local and wider community.

Because of the number of households in the potentially floodable area, and the complexity of the information sought from residents, it was determined that the only adequate and efficient survey method was a self-administered postal survey. Other methods such as interviewer- administered surveys, or hand-delivered surveys were considered and ruled out on the grounds of cost to get an adequate sample. Telephone interviews were also rejected because of sample size and the restrictions on asking complex questions by telephone.

The postal survey method chosen allowed a relatively large sample to be surveyed, and pro- vided an opportunity to convey some information to the public about the Hutt River Flood Control scheme ~ e i i e w .

The survey post-out was accompanied by publicity in local papers, which facilitated responses but also resulted in increased public awareness of the Review and the flooding potential of the valley. As a result of this publicity, a number of phone-calls were received requesting survey forms (so as not to affect the sample, these requests were not acceded to).

The area covered by the surveys was the potentially floodable flood plain area. The surround- ing hills and nearby areas were excluded, as it was felt that it was most important to obtain information from those likely to be directly affected by a major flood. The areas which were included in the surveys are shown on Appendix I.

* 1986 Census information, adjusted for floodplain boundaries.

Hritf River Flood Control Scheme Review - Volume I1 Page 3

Sample Size

It was intended to survey 3000 households throughout the survey area. This would have represented approximately a 12.5% sample.

The sample method used resulted in approximately 600 of the distributed sample being returned as "dead letters" (see below). Thus the questionnaire reaching households reached ap proximately 10% of the total number of households in the valley. This is a very respectable coverage for this type of survey.

1 The distribution of the surveys by Area Unit was as shown o n Table 1

! Table I. Distribution and Return of the Hutt River Flood Control Scheme Review Residential Questionnaires

* Please note that a different survey method was used for this area unit (see text).

*kiz'. H~rrr River Flood.Conno1 Scheme Review - Volu~ne II Pnxe 4

-

Area Unit

Pt.Heretaunga /Pinehaven Emerald Hill Clouston Park Totara Park Ebdentown Upper Hutt Central Wallaceville Elderslea Moonshine Brentwood Trentham Heretaunga /Silverstream Taita Naenae Boulcott Epuni Waterloo Waiwhetu Seaview/ Gracefield Moera Woburn HUtt Central Alicetown Belmont Haywards/ Manor Park Petone Esplanade Wilf ord*

h h Total

No. House- Holds

500 300 750 834 864

144 420 1098 747 693 984

700 1842 2000 1623 2000 1500 1200

15 552 570 1197 900 200

65 339 870 1275

24,182

No. Question- naires Delivered

5 2 53 72 114 80

13 4 3 128 90 6 0 6 8

39 207 232 148 238 18 5 107

2 3 4 63 7 8 102 13

15 4 1 114 65

2,456

%

10.4 17.6 9.6 13.6 9.2

9.0 10.2 11.6 12.0 8.6 6.9

5.5 11.2 11.6 9.1 11.9 12.3 8.9

13.3 6-1 11.0 6.5 11.3 6.5

23.0 12.1 13.1 5.0

No. Responses Received

29 8 28 41 26

3 18 58 42 2 5 3 8

20 75 8 3 74 105 109 47

1 8 26 4 0 40 3

7 7 39 4 5

-----

1,055

% Responses Received

55.8 34 .O 38.9 35.9 32.5

23.0 42.0 45.4 46.7 41.6 56.1

51.0 36.2 35.8 50.0 44.2 59.1 44.0

50.0 23.5 41.3 51.2 39.2 23.0

46.7 17.0 34.2 69.4

% House- holds

5.7 6.0 3.7 4.9 3.0

2.0 4.3 5.2 5.6 3.6 3.8

2.8 4.0 4.1 4.5 5.2 7.2 3.9

6.6 1.4 4.5 3.3 4.4 1.5

10.7 2.0 4.4 3.5

I

Sample Selection

The aim was to derive a sample of3000 addresses randomly spread over the flood-prone pot- . tion of the Hutt Valley.

Various data sources were considered with the most appropriate being the street lists from the Department of Statistics. This data file was ordered for all Statistical Area Units within the flood-prone area.

The street files were edited to eliminate streets and parts of streets within the nominated Area Unit but outside the flood prone area. Other streets consisting of entirely commercial and/or industrial land-uses were also eliminated from the street list.

Since the street Eile contained house number ranges it was possible to build a computer Eile with one record for each possible address in the survey area. The file contained 22,753 records.

From this file 3000 addresses were randomly selected using the random number generation within the dBase N programming language. As each random selection was made a flag was set to ensure the duplicate addresses were not saved.

The resulting file retained the area unit code, and became the basis for initial post-out data entry, and post-out of reminders.

There were some problems with the sample method. The street information did not identify vacant lots, or missing street numbers. There was a high rate of dead letters as a result; some 600 questionnaires were returned by NZPO in the first 10 days after post-out. Other (minor) reasons for the high dead letter rate were a problem in the random number selection process which occasionally threw up a number outside the range specified in the listing, and some confusion over streets and suburb addresses.

Dead letter addresses were analysed to see if they were concentrated in any particular areas, but the spread was not found to be biassed in any way.

A further problem in the sample method was that it did not identify addresses with more than one household unit. To ensure that a consistent approach was taken, the address labels were notated "Postie: If more than one flat at this address, please deliver to first one at ground floor". Nevertheless, this problem will probably have led to areas with higher than normal numbers of multi-unit dwellings at a single address being slightly under-represented in the sample. No analysis of this was possible at the time, but the effects of the problem are included in Fig 1.

At a late stage in the survey, it was discovered that no street segments had been supplied for the Wilf&d area unit, and consequently no questionnaires had been dispatched to that area. As Wilford is a large and central area unit, it was essential that it be included.

b.* As it was too late to conduct a postal survey, it was decided to hand deliver and hand pick-up questionnaires. The response numbers from other area units were used to determine expected number of returns from this area.

,.&.* HcmRiver Flood Control Scl~erne Review - Volume I1 Page 5

It was known from previous surveys that a response rate of70-80% can be expected for a hand-delivered survey. In this case, 65 questionnaires were delivered and 45 retrieved (after three call-backsj. The delivery was on a Saturday morning by survey assistants to randomly- selected street addresses. When the address did not exist, nobody was home, o r the person *

answering the door refused to complete the survey, the next-door properties, and then those nearest across the street, were approached. This was a satisfactory method to fill the gap in the wider survey, but was found to be very time-consuming.

For a postal survey it was essential that the questionnaire be kept relatively simple, and that the design and layout be attractive and not overly sophisticated.

The questionnaire had to combine questions from the three consultant studies, in a way that did not derogate from the main purpose o r the likely success of the survey.

Considerable difficulty was experienced in reducing the questions to an acceptable minimum number for the purpose, and in expressing them in ways that were suitable for self-administra- tion by a wide range of people.

The resulting questionnaire consisted of 40 questions, covering a wide range of subjects and issues. As far as possible the survey was designed so that respondents could tick boxes. How- ever, it was felt important to give people the opportunity to depart from the standardised answers so "other /please describe" options were used frequently. There were six open-ended questions, including a completely open question at the conclusion.

The questions covered three A4 sides, which could be printed on one-and-a-half sides of an A3, leaving the fourth side available for a covering letter. Cartoon-style illustrations were used to "cheer up" the questionnaire.

The covering letter was kept very simple, but gave a contact phone number for questions or comments. Approximately 20 calls were received, with comments, complaints, or requesting assistance. Survey assistants visited two elderly people with impaired sight who had received questionnaires, to help them to fill in their forms.

It was also felt important to recognise Maori and to offer support and assistance, and also to offer help to people with English as a second language. To this end, the assistance of a representative of T e Atiawa, and of the Hutt Language Centre, was obtained. The covering letter included wording in Maori, Tongan, Mandarin, Khmer and Vietnamese, offering translation assistance. In practice, this help was not needed. However, it is considered that the offer and recognition of other languages, helped facilitate response by Maori and other ethnic groups. The response from all ethnic groups (other than Pakeha) was higher than expected (although lower than the population representation)..

A further encouragement to fill in and return the questionnaire was an incentive "prize". The h y form stated that all completed questionnaires returned by a certain date would go in for a prize draw. This also appeared to encourage response.

%.- Hurl Rrver Flood Control Sche~ne Review - Vololunnc I1 Page 6

The residential questionnaire and covering letter is included as Appendix I1 of this report. The covering letter was slightly modified for the Wilford area survey. The post-out was in a specially designed envelope, using the "theme" of the survey. Acard, similarly-designed, was used as the reminder. These are included as Appendix 111 and IV. Appendix V Lists those who won prizes.

Survey Distribution

The questionnaires were all posted out on Monday 6 August 1990. Although there was no closing date, 31 August was the qualiFying date for the prize draw, and many responses were back by then. About 10% of the total received came in after this date.

Reminders were posted on Friday 24 August to those addresses which had not returned their questionnaire.

Responses

In all, 1055 questionnaires were returned, a rate of approximately 43% of those actually delivered. This is a satisfactory response rate, and represents 4.3% of households in the floodplain area.

Although the sample sent out was random, as would be expected a certain amount ofselection took place in the responses. For example, from Table 2 it can be noted that the number of older people responding is well above the average for the area. Similarly, Maori and Polyne- sian respondents are only approximately half the number that a random response would produce; and the number of respondents owning their own home is well above normal.

Table 2. Survey Respondents by Age and Sex

SimkAy, the percentage response from different parts oE the valley varies considerably, with high response rates in the northern and western parts of Upper Hutt, and in the Central Lower Hutt area, including Alicetown. (See Table 1). These are probably the areas where perception of flood risk is highest, and flooding is already a local issue.

Male

Female

m 1 Hun Rtver Flood Connol Scheme Review - Vol~t~ne II Page 7

I

5 - 9

1

10-19

4

6

40-49

4 8

20-29

25

6 4

3 0 - 3 9

3 6

50-59

3 7

60+

79

4 8 4 4 2 9 89 I

Despite these variations, the combined responses can be expected to have a low margin of error. Geographic analysis of some variables is given, but there is less confidence in these figures. Nevertheless, they can be regarded as an indication of the range and variety of atti- tude within the valley.

The returned questionnaires were individually checked, and coded where necessary (particularly q28 and q37). Data was entered into the database, and checked for accuracy of entry.

After the initial responses were totalled, the consultants involved in the Environmental Infor- mation and Flood Damage Assessment Studies were asked what further analyses they would like carried out. A large number oE cross-tabulations were produced.

Some of the information is included in the next section of this report, and some included in the reports of other consultants. For completeness, a floppy disk containing all the raw data has been given to the Rivers Department of the WRC, and all the tabulations prepared to date are presented in a one-off separate volume.

For the open-ended questions, analysis was by hand, and was based on either the whole sample, or on a sub-sample. This analysis is incorporated in this report, and also included in the separate volume. For q40, the completely open question, analysis was not possible. In- stead, a representative selection of responses has been incorporated as direct quotes in the text.

2.2 Survey Responses

Respondent Detaik

To help with analysis of responses, respondents were asked a number of questions about household size, agelsex, and ethnic origin.

Many people had difficulty with question 37 on agelsex, and a larger proportion than usual were blank or incomplete. However, the following information was forthcoming.

In the 1055 households which completed the form, at least 2859 people lived. This is an average household size of 2.7 people, which compares with 2.9 household size average for the local authority areas of Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt, and Petone. I t would he expected that there would be more small-sized households on the floodplain, as the flatness and convenience is an attractive factor to older people (see Environmental Information Report).

Fifteen percent of people in the households surveyed were under 10 years old, and 17% were over 60. Both groups are particularly vulnerable in emergencies, particularly young children if at school (see S3.4 of this report). This information can be compared with data on under-14s ?&over 65s for the three local authority areas given in the Environmental Information Report.

*&.* Hun River Flood Conhol Scheme Review - Vohrrne II Poge 8

I 3 INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SURVEYS

3.1 Survey Method

An important part of the public involvement exercise was contact with businesses and institutions in the Hutt Valley floodplain area. It was important not only to let businesses know that the review process was underway, but also to obtain information from these organisations to help identify:

- likely losses/damages in a flood

- level of awareness and preparedness for a flood

- other information whichwould contribute to an understanding of the floodplain area. and assist the Regional Council in identifying issues and expectations of the Review.

As with the residential survey, it was intended that thesesurveys would have the dual purpose of publicity and information gathering. Publicity in local papers at the start of the surveys. and direct contact between interviewers and respondents facilitated the publicity aspect. -.

As this survey was to be directly administered by an i n t e ~ e w e r , it was recognised that cost would be a major constraint.

The intended number of interviews (40 each of industrial and commercial establishments. and 20 of institutions) was felt to be adequate to demonstrate the range of establishments in the valley floodplain a rea in size, type of activity, and location.

It was recognised that the results would not be statistically significant, and that the interviews should be regarded as "case studies" demonstrating variety, rather than examples which could be averaged and widely applied.

Because the questionnaire which was eventually developed took approximately twice as long to administer as initially anticipated, the number of interviews was reduced to:

- 30 industrial establishments

- 30 commercial establishments

- 20 institutional establishments

Industrial establishments were defined as those with a major manufacturing or construction

Hun River Flood C o m l Scheme Review - V o w II Page 39

Commercial establishments included retail, wholesale, commercial service, accommodation and personal transport services.

Institutional establishments included community services and community voluntary or commercial support services.

Approximately half the sample of industrial and commercial establishments were selected by the consultants carrying out the Flood Damage Loss Assessment Study.

For institutional establishments, the sample was chosen from local knowledge and field inspection. A range of support services was sought, but particular emphasis was placed on establishments where people with particular needs o r evacuation difficulties would be congregated, and establishments which could play a key role in re-establishing "normality" after a flood. This small sample can only be considered as typical case study material.

A further criterion was that establishments operated at ground floor level (although several had basements and additional floors above ground).

Questionnaire

The questionnaires were developed particularly in association with the consultants for the Flood Damage Assessment Study. For this study, considerable emphasis was to be placed on estimating fued and other assets prior to a flood, the losses likely to be incurred with different levels of flooding, and the rate of return to full activity.

A large part of the questionnaire was thus based on questions used in previous comparable studies (taken from D J Parker, C H Green and P M Thompson, "Urban Flood Protection Benefits, A Project Appraisal Guide", 1987. Business Loss Survey Form), but simplified for the purposes of this study.

Additional questions were included to assist the consultants carrying out the Environmental Information Study. These questions related to use of the river area, transport methods, and where employees and customers were drawn from.

Tfirbthird type of questions included in the questionnaire related to flood perception and flood preparedness.

Appendices VI and W give the questionnai;es developed. That used for the institutional

Hub River Fbod Conaol Scheme Review - V o h I1 Page 40

To be most use to the study, a sample of the largest firms over a representative range of cate- gories within the flcodplain area was chosen. The source of the selection was the Valuation NZ records, April 1990. In practice it was found that many of the firms listed no longer ex- isted in the area, so a second more extensive listing was sought from the consultants.

A supplementary list was then drawn up to give an overall more representative sample, including small and medium-sized establishments, and any activity types not included. This list also - . -. sought to balance geographic location. This sample was based on field inspection and local knowledge.

Caving about you 0 your environment 2 C '..

O U N C '

Greeting, Lower Hutt Resident

The Regional Council is asking Hutt Valley residenls what they thinkabout the Hutt River Flood Control Scheme, and other questions which will help the Council plan for river and floodplain management in years to come.

Your household has been chosen at random to help us by tilling in the questionnaire form on the backof this letter.

INTO A DRAW FOR 12 PRIZES OF $250 EACH WORM OF

GROCERIES FROM A HUTT VALLEY SUPERMARKET OF YOUR CHOICE

Please fill in the form and return it in the Freepost Envelope as soon as possible. Your inputwill help your Council to make sound planning decisions.

Ifyou need help to understand or fill out the form, or ifyou have any questions about the survey, please phone Sylvia Allan or Martin Robertson on 858.603 (day) or 685-180 (evening).

Replies will be wmpletly confidential to the team carrying out the study: we do not Deed to know who you are.

A reminder letter will be sent out in the last week in August, ifyour form has not been returned

Thank you very much for your help.

Stuart Macaskill Chairman, Wellington Regional Council August 1990

Mehemea h e taurnaha enei patai ki a koe, a. I e hiahia ana koe he awhina rno tou whakahoki me waea rnai koe ki a Richie Luke e tenei u~zi$$ijc$~;~~lj?&*I ii(.+~$k.?i%$+&~,$$

&?t.ik*~d%d $u ~ ~ , d l + ~ &&I ~89 e..d.622: LII-,.~. $1- r j r .~r i t#r+iq$

h 2: ZL'f "% B. 3.5 >WJ - 6 ,A fld. I

N%BAN K H ~ N G HI?: NHGG C ~ U H ~ ~ T R O N G T% D ~ N NAY V;C~< N G ~ ~ ~ G I L $ D~%&%T+?&&N VI L ~ D O KHO'KH~EJ?~$-ANH N G ~ T ~ A N ~6 THE LIEN 9 C 0% THE H F LA-NGUAGE CENTRE, 58 4 7 p l N G S ROAD, D~SN THOAl sK691-128 VA N H ~ CHUY& $6 DddGG G ~ A Y ~8B35. S E " C ~ N H ~ N VlEN N~ddrvlff ~ i $ O d % h ~ r i l ~ N D~CH D ~ M CAE BAN.

t'.t?$~ c 3 a ----.?....--

i&apa rZ7 ,j;bm 6 3 s m r 'npnx*,"ry~~~ m s ~ ~ J N ' . - . un:? n'rm"qsrJ,n;Ei gw 7 s : f ; y i t ! p q l G T : P P T * ~ - . CnzbrmD$ : Hutt Language Centre , 47 Laings Road, phone 691-128, E::TENSION 835 .

w ~ ~ ~ P ~ z , : cSa~a~~o$minnn~ny,ndrnnrr3m .I

7?e3&&-

I 1

OVER

Afai e i ai ni faafitauli rno IOU malamalama i fesili, po 0

IOU rnanaomia foi o se fesoasoani mo le faatumuina o PePa; faamolemole faafesootai le aoga mo gagana i Lower Hutt. 47 Laings Road, Telefoni 691 -128 laina 835. 0 iina e maua ai s e isi na te silafia lau gagana; rnasalo e fesoasoani foi ia te oe.

H~mRiverFlood ConnolSche,ne Review - Vohr~no 11 n.

WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL HUTT VALLEY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

Ipart of the Hutt River Flood Control Scheme Review)

This survey will help the Regional Council for river and floodplain management in the Valley.

?&&+. 9z = - - - Please help by answering the following questions and returning the questionnaire as soon as possible.

To qualify for the prize draw, complete the questionnaire and fill in your address at the end.

1 . How long have you lived in the Hutt Valley? (please write approximate number of years in box) a

2. How' long have you lived in this house? (please write approximate number of years in box)

Close to Family /Friends

Always Lived Here

Other (please describe below)

most important reason)

4. When you moved to your present house, did you think there was a chance that it might be flooded sometime? (tick box)

5. Do you now think that the area where your home is I U

mieht flood one day? 'tick box) QH Don't Know

2

Do this question only If you answered yes to 0.5. How safe do you think your home is from flooding over the next 10 yaars?

What do you think protects your home most from floods? , , ltick one box only) . Distance from the Hutt River or other waterway The depth of the river channel The size of the river channel The height of the ground Stopbanks Planting and works in or near the river Other (please describe)

Have you or any member of your household ever had your home or propeny flooded? (tick box)

In the Hutt Valley? Elsewhere?

Yes I (NO I Yes ( ]NO I

If you answered yes to either part of 11.8.: (a) Did the water enter your house7 / Y f No j (b) Did you suffer any physical or emotional

side effects as the result of the flood? lye' 1 [NO ( Ic) If yes to Q.9Ibl. Please briefly describe what they were:

I-low would you expect to hear a flood warning for your area?

If you were told to evacuate your llome and go to a place safe from flooding. where would you QO?

- ~~luoiu e a3uo ' LE'O 01 06 :xoq s!qr y3!1 aseald 'sala!qan ou j~ I'IO!~~JOJ a3U~ aseald 'eaJe Jan!) aqi ,!s!n Janau noh 11 -. aJou JO yaaM e a3uo

1 I MOUW i,uoa I ON( I "A]

'LZ

I I (Molaq aq!msap aseald) laqlo

I 1 !'3ia 'slapeg I l'ala 'uai~eB~aouiw 'a,

L -

LpaJnsu! (s)ap!qan JaqtoIJe:, Jnoh sl

1 I MOUX 1.~00 1 ON/ 1 sa~l ((luawd!nba plovasnoq 'slad~e3 'a~nl!u~n4 sJano3

leql auo 'a'!) h3!1od a3ueJnsul sluaiuo3 asnoH e aneq ploqasnoq Jnah saoa

I Moun I.uoa I ONI I sa~l >lllasi! Bu!pl!nq aqi sJaAo3 lev1 auo 'a'!) Aqod a3ueJnsul asnoH e aneq ploqasnoq JnoA saoa

. .. - - (31a 'AJ~~OH 'saa3Aer 'suo~i %.a1 son13 asm~acl P - .. . .. . - SdrlOJa 43Jnq3 :I! aqjJ3Sap hl)a!JQ aseald '$1'0 0i sah paJamsuQ noh $1 .g~ ypapaau se saxop -- -- ..~ . .. . .

+SOU Aaql ale suo!les!ue8~0 lo sadhi ieqM '92.~ 05 saA palamsue noh 41 .gz r 1 oq 77 fXoq y3!1j a (pool4 e lo4 ueld haua6Jaura ue aneq ploqasnoq JnoA saoa .g

I ON sa~ lhalle~ lln~ aqt u! e b !uo!les!ue€J~~~e~u&~ JO !TI3 Aue 01 lwoiaq ploqasnoq lnoh u! aldoad 00 .,z 2 3 -

js~noqqa!au I ON/

z ( sa~ ~I!M i3e1uoa ~elnDa~ aneq plqqasnoq JnOh saoa 'pi: laq!Jssap asea~d) Layew noh P!P saSueq3 leqm 'saA $1 (q)

I I ON/ A (xoq YJ!ZI iau!poolj wo~j ssol jo a3ueq3 a a a o fiadoJdnOh s u pew no a e 91

a~ow JO yaa~ e asuo j13eluo3 isow aql aneq noA uajjo moq '~2.0 oi sah pala~sue noA 41 '€2 -

1 ON/ I (Aalle~ iln~ aql u! BU!A!I san!ie~a~ aneq noA oa .zz

anoqe aqx jo uo!leu!qwo3 v

'Inoh 01 luei~odw! ~sow ale q3!qM saxoq OMI~~!IJ (~001~ e U! panes alaM dins ayew 01 iUeM lSOW nOl( PlnOM (aldoad Ueql JaqlO) aW0q JnOA U! SOU!ql leqM .El

I MOUX 1,uoa ON - .- I sa~l LPOOI~ (aye1 noA plnoM suo!i3e leq~ 'awoq JnoA 0 e U! I I PO J J 0 0 OZ oiu! awe, SJOI~M poorj a~o~aq a~eda~d 01 ~noq ue 41eq peq noh PIOX a~a~,no~ ,I ,z

* F -- -.

' (aq!nsap aseald) Jaqio

sxooe sladJe3

aJnl!uJn.j (AL 'B'a) spoo3 le3!~1aal3

SOlOqd/SJadl?d leUOSJad

sal3!qaAi(siJe3

s!fd ,$r

LhanJns S!ql JO 'halle~ 1lnH al(1 u! uo!l3a1oJd Pool! Jo 'JaA!tl nnH aql lnoqe hes 01 ax![ pinom noh Bu!qlhue aJaw sl

---- I I j - w

+09 (~~-o~(~P-oP~~z-oz/ 1-011 6-5 I 9-0 1 :u! SBuolaq WJOJ s!qi u! Bu!ll!) uos~ad aql leql dnoJB all1

punole sly e MeJp uaql 'dnOJ8 pea u! aldoad 40 Jaqwnu aql an15 aseald

(Jaqlunu an!6 aseald) nploqasnoq s!ql u! any aldoad Auew MOH

(lueM noh se saxoq hueu se y311)

'OP

'6E

'LC

'9C

'SF

I ON] / sa~j (xoq Y~!I) ihan~ns s!q~ 100 noh alolaq Ma!natl awalps IOJIUO~ poo~j Jan!n lln~ at11 40 pleat1 noh peH '9~

jeaJe aq~ 40 luauho!ua JnoA aseaJJu! plnoM leql eaJe ran!] aw 01 sluawanoJdu! hue IsaBBns noh ue3 .EC

I 1 of41 I sa~] (XOq Y3!1) (eaJe >a,%!) aql lo lualuuo~!nua pue sa!l!l!3e) aql ~I!M Addeq noh aJv: .ZC

jeaJe Jan!J aql lnoqe noh 01 lueuodu! s! 1eqM 'LC

I I l!!v I ( i! XO~ YJ!L I R

-A. '(Bu!yleM 'Ileqlooj Bu!held 'Bujiuw!~s

.B'a) a~aql ]no pa!JJe3 aneq noh sa!l!n!ne aqi u~op al!JM pue 'sJeah OM1 ised aqt Jano pai!s!n aneq noh slJed all1 y3!1 aseald 'eaJe Jan!J aq? i!s!n noh 41 3~

fxoq ?>!I)

(aiels aseald) la410 pUnOJ Jeah lp/ JalU!M ~U!J~Q

~auun~

LeaJe JaA!J aql l!S!A A~u!eu noh Op Jeah 40 aw!l leqM '6t

I" 'svoi enrow el oqr Bu!pnlau! pus 01 dn eap!l8 sMel@l@XQ

'eBp!~g @M@lelsr(Q 041 Bu!pnpu! puo oi dn e~p!lg qlod s~siol

'BaP!I9 11Bd BlBlDL BUI B~!pnlW! PUo 01 dn DBp!lS PU!qSUOOW

'oap!la ou!qruaow cqi Bu!pnpu! pun 01 dn oBp!lfl psoy ru.e~ismnl!S

.eap!~a uroellslenl!s eqi Bu!pnl=u! pus oi dn aap!~g poo~ hpouupy

'OflP!lg PO03 hpeuusx 841 aU!Pnl.~! pus 61 dn DBp!lg UBM3

'oBp!rg WM3 oqi Ou!pnl~u! pus oi dn oBp!,g ~qnses - .OBP!JE Ma!noos (141 ~V!P~IDU! PUB 01 dn qlnowG

xoa U! POl!Sl,, OOlV

APPENDIX VL

QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN

INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL SURVEY

Hurt River Flood Conlrol Scheme Review - VoLone I1 Page 77

INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SITE SURVEY INTERVIEW SCHEDULE: FOR ESTIMATION OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT FLOOD LOSS POTENTIAL

Interview number

Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Name of company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Name and position of respondent

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How long has this firm been established in the Hutt Valley?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How long has this firm been established at this address?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Type of business including specialisations

3. (a) Total approximate area of buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (m2) (b) Outside stores total area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (m2)

4. (a) What is the approximate total present value of all plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fixtures and equipment held on site?

. . . (b) What proportion of this is sited at ground level? ( % )

5. (a) What is the value on average of all raw materials, work . . . . . . . . in progress, and finished goods (stock) on site?

(b) What proportion of this is sited at ground level? . . . . ( % )

6. (a) Is production (are sales) concentrated at any particular time of year? Yes - - 1 No - - 2 If yes, when? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(b) Are stock levels high at any particular time of year? Yes - - 1 No - - 2 If yes, when? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. (a) Has this site ever been flooded? Yes - - I No - - 2 (b) If yes, when was it last flooded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and to what depth? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (m)

8 . (a) Are there any basements or pits below the floor level here? Yes - - 1 No - - 2

. . . . . . . . . . . (b) What is their depth below ground floor level?

9. At what depth of floodwater would damage or disruption begin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . here? (m)

H~ctt River Flood Control Sct~e~ne Review - Volume I1 Page 7:

I

DIRECT DAMAGE

10. What would you estimate the cost of damage to be to plant and equipment (fixtures, fittings and equipment) at this site following fl'ooding to- the following depths? Separate (a) costs of replacement of entire items, less scrap value, and (b) costs of repairs and parts replacement.

Assume a flood warning lead time of 4 hours and a flood duration of 12 - 48 hours.

Depth relative to ground floor level

Description and costs

11. What would you estimate the cost of damage to be to raw materials, work-in-progress and finished goods (stocks and materials) at this site following flooding to the following depths?

Notes: Note the cost of damage to each category of stock. Materials may be recovered by reworking (loss is extra cost involved) or may be sold off cheaply (loss is fall in sales revenue).

Assume a flood warning lead time of 4 hours and a flood duration of 12 - 48 hours.


Description and costs

Hult River Flood Control Scheme Review - Voluine I1 Page 79

12. Would there be any additional costs incurred in cleaning up after flooding? For example: overtime, hire of equipment, cost of contractors. Please estimate the cost for each flood depth.


Details of costs

INDIRECT LOSS

13. What particularly damageable item(s) of plant or materials (what factors) would determine how long it would be before you would return to normal/full production (business).

14. For each depth of flooding, would there by any period of time when you could produce nothing (do no business)? Yes - - 1 No - - 2 If yes, how long would this be?

Depth relative to Length of time with no production ground floor level (specify units of measurement e.g. hours)

2.00 m 0

%+* ' t LC,.

15. For each depth of flooding, how long would it be from starting to produce something (business) after flooding to regaining normal/full production (business?)

Hut1 River Flood Confro1 Scheme Review - Vobirne II Page SI


Time to full Production

Additional. information (if any)

16. For each depth of flooding, once production was underway again, which would best describe how your firm would build up to full capacity:

(a) Smoothly and evenly (b) Slow start, then quickly (c) Quick build-up then slowly to full production

Depth relative to Mode of regaining Additional information ground floor level production (if any) e.g. estimated

mark a, b or c percentage production lost

17. (a) Do you think this firm could make up any of the production (business) you have indicated it would lose? i.e. between the time of flooding to the restoration of normal production (business) Yes - - 1 No - - 2 How would you do this?

Overtime - - 1 Increased productivity - - 2 Extra staff - - 2 sub-%%htracting within this region - - 4 Other - - 5

'Ai '

H~irr River Flood Control Scherne Review - Volurne II Page 81

(b) For each depth, what percentage of production (business) otherwise lost could you recover in these ways?


-0.05 m

Percentage of loss production/ business recovered

Only asked if answer to Q17a is yes

18. Do you expect that making up production (business) in any of these ways would result in any additional cost? Yes - - 1 No - - 2 How may above normal would this cost be? (For overtime note the number of hours and wage rate and calculate the additional costs later).


-0.05 m

Details of costs

19. If you could not supply your customers or take on new customers after a flood, what proportion would:

Produce from (run down) their stocks until normal deliveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . (%) ~ u ~ ~ d r n m your competitors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( X ) Be held up and lose their normal production (operations)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . (%) Other? (give details) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (%)

Hut1 River Flood Control Scheme Review - Voln,ne II Page 92

20. What proportions of sales (business) lost to this plant (firm) would you expect to be taken up by each of the following groups of competitors? Competitors within this region . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) Other compe'itors in N.Z. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( % ) Overseas firms or plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X)

21. Would there be any other impact of flooding here on this firm, such as long run effects? Yes - - 1 N o - - 2 If yes, please give details.

22. How many people work on this site? (Full-time equivalents)

23. What is the approximate annual turnover of this site?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24. Do you think this area might flood one day?

25. How safe do you think your premises are from the risk of flood?

26. What do you protects your area most from floods? (Main reason - one only)

Distance from Hutt River or other waterway. The depth of the river channel. The height of the ground at the building concerned (i.e. topography) Stopbanks. Planting and works in or near the river. Other (Describe)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27. How would you expect to hear a flood warning for this area?

28. If you were told there was half an hour before the area flooded, what actions would you take?

29. WhaLyould you consider to be a reasonable floor warning period? (e.g.%e have used 4 hours for the survey - is it enough?)

.&,

Hurt River Flood Control Sctzetne Review - Vohone II

30. Does the building/premises have any particular physical flood protection systems?

31. Does the business have an emergency flood plan?

32. Are your firm's insurances sufficient to cover losses in a ' -major flood?

33. Who do you think should be most responsible for protection of property in the Valley from Flooding?

Lower Huttppper Hutt City Councils Government Regional Council Insurance Companies Individual firms/businesses A combination of the above Don' t know

34. Does this business own its own building, or is it rented?

Owner-occupied Rented

35. Do the firm's employees use the river area for recreation (e.g. informal, recreational use - lunches, etc., or e.g. works picnics)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36. Where do the employees come from?

Upper Hutt Lower Hutt Wainuiomata Petone Wellington Porirua Up the Coast

37. Where does the businesses main customers come from?


%.cu. 38. What form(s) of transport does the business rely on to

conduct its business?

Hut! Rlver Flood Control Sclle~ne Review - Vollone II Page 61

39. Did the river have any influence on the siting of the business?

Yes No

If Yes - In what way?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40. Had you heard about the Hutt River Flood Control Scheme Review?

Yes No

If Yes - Where did you hear of it

41. Are there any comments you would like to make about the survey, the river, flooding, or flood protection in general?

Hlrtr R~ver Flood Control Scheme Rev~ew - Vohone II I'age Sj

APPENDIX X I

QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR INSTITUTIONAL SURVEY

Hntt R~ver Flood Control Scheme Rev~etv - Vollone I1 Page 86

INSTITUTIONAL SURVEY INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR ESTIMATION OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT

FLOOD LOSS POTENTIAL

Interview No:

Location:

Date:

1. Name of Institution

Address

Name and Position of Respondent

How long has this establishment been at this address?

2. Type of Institution (full description)

3. Total approximate area of buildings

4. a) What is the approximate total present value of all plant, fittings and fixtures on site?

b) What proportion of this is at ground level?

5 . a) What is the approximate total value of stock on site?

b ) Whatk$%bportion of this is at ground level?

6. a) Has this site ever been flooded? Y N

b) If yes, when was it last flooded?

To what .depth?

7. a) Are there any basements below floor level in this establishment?

b) What are they used for?

-

8 . At what depth would floodwater damage or disruption begin here?

DIRECT LOSS

9. What would you estimate the cost of damage to fixtures, fittings and equipment at this site following flooding to the following depths? (Assume a warning lead time of 4 hours and a flood duration of 12-48 hours)

Depth

-0.05m

0.15111

Description and Costs

10. What would you estimate the cost of damage to stock, etc, at this stage following flooding to the following depths? (Assume a warning lead time of 4 hours and a flood duration of 12-48 hours )

Depth

-0.05111

0.151~


I111tt Rlver Flood Conrrol Scheine Revrew - Volrane II Page SS

I

11. What additional costs would there be for cleanup, for each depth?

Depth Description and Costs

-0.05m . .

0.15111

INDIRECT LOSSES

12. What items of plant or good (factors) would determine how long it would be before you would return to normal?

13. How long do you think it would be before you could operate again, for each depth?

Depth

-0.05m

0.151~

.5m

1.00m

2.00m


14. Do you think there would be long-term effects on the operation, and if so, what would they be?

15. How many people are at this place on a normal week day?

Staff/Employees

Others (pupils, paitents, etc.)

16. Do you think this area might flood one day?

.A,. ,

H~~~~ River Flood Control Scheme Review - Vol~one II pw 89

17. How safe do you think the premises are from the risk of flood?

18. What do you think protects your premises most from floods? (Main reason - one only)

- Distance from Hutt River or other water way. - The depth of the river channel. - The height of the ground at the building concerned (i.e topography). - Stopbanks. - Planting and works in or near the river. - Other (describe).

19. How would you expect to hear a flood warning for this area?

20. If you were told there was half a hour before the area flooded, what actions would you take?

21. What would you consider to be a reasonable flood warning period? (e.g. we have used 4 hours for the survey is it enough)?

22. Does the building/premises have any particular physical flood protection systems?

2 3 . Are there any particular problems of evacuation that this establishment would be likely to experience in a flood?

24. Does the establishment have an emergency flood plan?

25.- Are there any benefits/assistance that the establishment could offer the nea@ community in time of flood? ., ,

Htcn Rwer Flood Control Scheme Revtew - Vohcrne 11 Page 90

26. Is the establishment's insurance sufficient to cover losses in a major flood?

2 7 . Who do you think should be most responsible for protection of property in the valley from flooding?

Lower Hutt/Upper Hutt City Council Government Regional Council Insurance Companies Individual firms/establishments A combination of the above Don' t know

28. Does this business own its own building or is it a rental?

Owner occupied Rented

29. Do the employees of this establishment use the river for recreation (e.g. informal recreational uses - lunches etc, or e.g. works picnics)

30. Do other people on the site use the river, and if so what for? (e.g. schools, biology stdueis, etc)?

(If a school or similar see extra questions on last page)

Where do the employees of this establishemnt come from?


Where do the other people on this site on a normal day come from? d (state geographical area - e.g. with 3kms radius/all local/ all over 0 the place, etc.)

11 e

1 0

O b 0 Y

What for$*of transport are mostly used by people going to and from this 0

establishment. ).7! C, x-

~-** - Htctt River Flood Control Scherne Review - Volume II Pnge 91

34 . Had you heard about the Hutt River Flood Control Scheme Review?

Y N

If yes, where did you hear of it?

35. Are there any comments you would like to make about the survey, the river, flooding or flood protection in general?

Interviewer to note interviewee details

Addit. Qs for Schools, etc

a) Do teachers (etc) take classes to the Hutt River or any of its tributaries (e.g. Waiwhetu, Mangaroa, Stokes Valley, etc) for studies?

If so, where do they go and what type of studies do the/undertake there?

b ) Where in the Hutt Valley does the school go for nature classes? (i.e classes not related to the water aspect).

C) Are there any particular (named) members of staff whom a ecologist could talk further to about sites for environmental teaching?

Hirrr River Flood Conirol Sche~ne Review - Volii~ne I1 Page 92

Documents

INTRODUCTION TO SURVEYS - Rivers Group › wp-content › uploads › 2018 › ... · decision-makers by gathering information from a variety of sources, including that held by the