Subjective Wellbeing

The figure shows that in the earlier years of the time-series, levels of overall quality of life (proportion of those rating quality of life as good or extremely good) were generally lower in Christchurch City, compared with Selwyn District and Waimakariri District (statistically significantly lower for Christchurch City compared with Selwyn District, 2012–2018 and 2020–2022; although similar to Waimakariri District from April 2016). However, there appears to be a pattern of convergence between the districts over the last six years (largely due to steadily increasing levels of overall quality of life for Christchurch City respondents). Note that these data are influenced by the different socioeconomic profiles of the three Territorial Authorities, with socioeconomic position being an important factor for quality of life.

The figure shows that levels of overall quality of life (proportion of those rating their quality of life as good or extremely good) have generally been higher for European respondents, compared with Māori and Pacific/Asian/Indian respondents. This difference has been statistically significant for much of the time-series presented. In 2022, the proportion of European respondents rating their quality of life as good or extremely good remains statistically significantly higher than that for Pacific/Asian/Indian respondents (European, 83.0% compared with Pacific/Asian/Indian, 72.5%) and for Māori respondents, 75.8%). While there is some variability in the results for Māori (due to smaller absolute numbers in the survey sample) there appears to be an overall pattern of convergence of the proportion for Māori and European respondents over the last eight years (less so for Pacific/Asian/Indian respondents).

The figure shows a pattern of converging overall quality of life (proportion of those rating their quality of life as good or extremely good) for the age groups over the time-series. While there have been some statistically significant differences between young people and the older age groups, at some earlier time-points, there have been no statistically significant differences between any age groups since late 2016.

The figure shows a pattern of generally similar overall quality of life (proportion of those rating their quality of life as good or extremely good) for female and male respondents, over the period 2012 to 2022 (no significant differences at any time-point).

The figure shows a clear positive relationship between income and overall quality of life, with the proportion of those rating their overall quality of life as good or extremely good increasing with increasing annual household income. The differences between the four income groups shown in the figure have been statistically significant at most time-points across the time-series. In 2022, almost all (91.3%) of those respondents from the $100,000+ income group rated their quality of life as good or extremely good, compared with 56.4 percent of those from the <$30,000 income group (a large and statistically significant difference). The year-to-year differences in overall quality of life for the period 2019 to 2022 are generally not statistically significant, except for the $100,000+ group (down from 94.9% in 2020 to 91.3% in 2022). Additionally, the lowest income group’s quality of life appears to have declined notably (for the <$30,000 group, 70.9% 2019 to 56.4% 2022).

The figure shows lower levels of overall quality of life (proportion of those rating their quality of life as good or extremely good) for respondents with a long-term health condition or disability (both for the under- and over-65 groups), compared with those without a long-term health condition or disability, from 2012 to 2022. The substantial differences between the without a long-term health condition or disability group and each of the long-term health condition or disability groups have been persistent and statistically significant for all time-points in the series.

For 2022, the proportion of respondents rating their quality of life as good or extremely good was 60.8 percent for those aged under 65 years with a long-term health condition or disability, 56.8 percent for those aged 65 years and over with a long-term health condition or disability, and 88.1 percent for those without.