Historic places
The "New Zealand Framework for Cultural Statistics" defines historic places as:
Buildings, structures, and areas of land, including archaeological sites, notable for their importance in New Zealand’s history, and for their historic, cultural, spiritual, aesthetic, social or architectural value. They may be privately or publicly owned and are not necessarily open to the public.
(Statistics New Zealand and Ministry of Cultural Affairs, 1995, p 30.)
The CES asked New Zealanders if they had visited any site or building, other than those of historical importance to Mäori, because of their historical importance. (Sites of importance to Mäori are covered in Taonga tuku iho). The survey also asked how often they had done so, if they had wanted to do so more often, and what had prevented them
from visiting historic places more often or at all.
Visits to historic places
An estimated 747,000 New Zealanders, or 27 percent of those aged 15 and over, visited historic places in the 12 months leading up to the survey.
The same proportion (27 percent) of men and women visited historic places and, as figure 3.05 shows, the proportions of each age group visiting sites increased slightly with age, from 25 percent of people aged 15–24 to 31 percent of people aged 45–54. Over the age of 54, the proportions of people visiting historic
places began to decline, reaching 19 percent for people aged 65 and over.
As figure 3.06 shows, proportions of each ethnic group visiting an historic place varied, with around 25 percent of Mäori and European/Päkehä having done so, compared with 14 percent of Pacific peoples.
People with a tertiary qualification were more likely (33 percent) to visit historic places than those with a secondary qualification (25 percent), who were in turn more likely to visit than those without a qualification (16 percent), as figure 3.07 shows.
Similar proportions of people who were employed and unemployed (about 30 percent) visited an historic site, as shown in figure 3.08. The proportion of people not in the labour force who visited sites was slightly lower – a little more than 20 percent.
Figure 3.09 shows that as people’s incomes increased, so did the propensity to visit historic places. Slightly less than one-quarter of those earning under $15,000 visited a site in the 12 months before the survey, compared with just over one-third of people earning more than $50,000.
People living in urban or rural areas were equally as likely to visit historic places, with around one-quarter of each having visited a site in the 12 months before the survey. As figure 3.10 shows, however, there was some variation among regions. Manawatu/Wanganui had the lowest proportion of visitors to historic places, at 19 percent, while the highest proportions came from Otago and the Nelson/Tasman/Marlborough/West Coast regions, where one-third of adults
reported visiting an historic place.
Figure 3.10 Proportion of adults visiting historic places, in previous 12 months, by region
Click to view graph
Visitors to historic places
Another way to analyse the data is to take the group who visited historic places, look at its demographic and socio-economic characteristics, and compare them with the population overall. Table 3.01 summarises the characteristics of the group that visited historic places in the 12 months before the survey.
Table 3.01 Characteristics of adults visiting historic places in previous 12 months
Click to view table
Fifty-one percent of the people who visited historic places were women and 58 percent were under the age of 45. The majority were European/Päkehä (82 percent), held tertiary qualifications (60 percent), were employed (70 percent) and had incomes under $30,000 a year (60 percent). Most lived in the main urban centres (71 percent), in particular the Auckland (29 percent), Wellington (12 percent) and Canterbury (16 percent) regions.
In most respects, the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of people who visited historic places resembled those of the population as a whole, with only European/Päkehä, people who were tertiary qualified, and people who were employed being over represented.
Multivariate analysis
Multivariate analysis showed that education was the most important variable in determining whether people visited historic places. Those with tertiary or secondary qualifications were more likely than those with no formal qualifications to have visited a site in the previous 12 months (31 percent compared with 17 percent). For those with a qualification, the level of that qualification was the next most important factor, with 33 percent of those with a tertiary qualification and 25 percent of those with a secondary qualification having visited a site. For people with a tertiary qualification, their ethnicity was the next most important factor, with Mäori, Pacific peoples, Chinese and people from ‘other’ ethnic groups being more
likely to visit sites than people of European/Päkehä or Indian ethnicity (35 percent, compared with 26 percent).
Frequency of visits to historic places
Two-thirds of those who had visited an historic site made up to two visits. Twenty-seven percent visited between three and six times and 8 percent visited seven or more times. The proportions of people who visited historic places regularly did not vary greatly by demographic and socio-economic characteristics when compared with the pattern of distribution for visitors to historic places overall.
As table 3.02 shows, of people who visited historic places three or more times in the 12-month period, a slightly greater proportion were men (52 percent) than women (48 percent) and nearly two-thirds were between 25 and 54 years of age. One-third of frequent visitors earned less than $15,000.
When compared with the demographic and socio-economic distribution of the population as a whole, people who were employed and people earning more than $50,000 a year were over represented among frequent visitors to historic places.
Table 3.02 Characteristics of adults visiting historic places three or more times in previous 12 months
Click to view table
Barriers to visiting historic places
Of the 747,000 people who visited an historic place in the 12 months before the survey, 236,000 (32 percent) indicated they would have visited sites more often, but did not do so for a number of reasons. The main reason for not visiting more often was lack of time. An estimated 137,000 people (or 58 percent of those who had visited a site) gave this as a reason. Twenty-nine percent did not visit more often because there were no historic places locally. The cost of entry to historic places was the reason 20 percent did not visit more often, followed by transport problems (17 percent). Other reasons were given for not visiting sites more often, but the numbers were too small for estimates to be reliable.
Nine percent (177,000 people) of the estimated 2 million people who had not visited an historic place but would have liked to, gave a variety of reasons for not having done so. As with people who wanted to visit sites more often, the most common reason given for not visiting sites at all was lack of time (49 percent). Other reasons included no historic places
locally (25 percent), transport problems (20 percent), cost of entry to sites (18 percent) and lack of cultural knowledge or local information (10 percent).
back to Heritage
back to A Measure of Culture
back to top