Waimakariri case study
Case study: defining urban amenity values
Purpose and process
Waimakariri District Council reviewed the consultation methods it used to define urban amenity. It aimed to learn whether it could use the same methods to establish urban amenity indicators.
The review included:
- discussing and expanding the RMA’s definition of ‘amenity values’
- consulting with the community through surveys, questionnaires and discussion groups
- assessing whether these approaches would work for developing indicators
Expanding the RMA’s definition
The Council felt that the RMA’s definition of amenity values needed to be separated into ‘community amenity values’ (attitudes) and ‘biophysical amenity values’ (things). Using this separation would help avoid misunderstanding of ‘amenity values’ and make monitoring more focused.
Consulting with the community
Discussion groups were held to review the surveys and questionnaires the Council had been using to consult with the community. The discussion groups confirmed that:
- simple surveys and questionnaires were the most time – and cost – efficient ways of consulting about urban amenity
- the term ‘urban amenity’ wasn’t useful in a survey or questionnaire. People understood the term differently, and it created a sense of uncertainty
Assessing the methods
The Council found that using surveys, questionnaires, and discussion groups to develop urban amenity indicators would not be useful. However, it emphasised that consultation is an essential part of the monitoring process, to learn the community’s opinions about what has changed, and to identify new concerns.
Resource: Three questions flier [PDF 60kb]
