Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Cyclopedia of New Zealand [Canterbury Provincial District]

Hygienic Conditions

Hygienic Conditions.

In spite of many advantages, it must be admitted that there is still much to be done in improving the hygienic conditions of town life in Canterbury, and especially in Christchurch. The site of the capital was in part a swampy plain, with a very slight fall seawards, soaked by the underground drainage from the hills, and intersected in every direction by springs and streams. To build up a thoroughly healthy city in such surroundings was a difficult task; and the high degree of success with which it has been accomplished is evidenced by the vital statistics. The death-rate of the whole colony for 1899 was 10.24 per 1000. This was lower than the death-rate for any other Australian colony, New South Wales coming next with 11.82, and Victoria was far behind with 14.28. The colonial averages, and more especially that of New Zealand, contrast very favourably with those of the Old World. Within the last ten years the English death-rate has varied between 17 and 20 per 1000; the German between 20 and 24; the French between 19 and 22; and the Austrian between 24 and 29. Any criticism of the Christchurch statistics may, therefore, be prefaced by the remark that it is not quite the healthiest city in the healthiest country in the world. The figures for the four chief cities in 1899 were as follows: Auckland city 13.02, and including suburbs 11.98; Wellington 11.16, and including suburbs 10.86; Christchurch 12.68, and including suburbs 11.58; Dunedin 13.47, and including suburbs 11.99. If the suburbs are included Christchurch comes before Dunedin, but below Wellington and Auckland, in the scale of health. It may be observed that the infant mortality (under five years) is higher in Auckland (37.6 per cent, of the total number of deaths); Christchurch coming next with 34.9 per cent., and then Wellington 33.14, and Dunedin lowest with 22.35 per cent. This fact points to certain hygienic conditions of Christchurch and Auckland life as especially injurious to young children. Excluding the suburbs, the rate of mortality in the four large cities rises, but Christchurch is still second in order, Wellington alone ranking higher. But it is discouraging to admit that in 1898 Christchurch (excluding suburbs) was easily first of the four centres. The figures for 1893 were:—Christchurch 10.87 per 1000, Wellington 12.47, Dunedin 12.73, Auckland 14.22. It is true that the death-rate in 1897 (13.15) was higher than in 1898, but again in 1896 it was only 11.49; so that the conditions of health in Christchurch in 1899 do not seem to have been so satisfactory as they were three years before.

With reference to causes of death, febrile and zymotic diseases were much more fatal in Dunedin and Christchurch in 1899 than in the previous year. In 1898 Christchurch claimed only fortyfour deaths from these causes, out of 304 for the whole colony. But in 1899 the Christchurch record rose to 104 out of 360 for the colony—a total only surpassed by Auckland—110 deaths, which was seven less than the Auckland total for 1898. It may be interesting to observe that diarrhœa in various forms was responsible for sixty-one out of the 104 deaths in Christchurch, as against fourteen in 1898, and that eleven died of diphtheria as against three, in 1898; and for both causes of death the Christchurch figures head the list for the colony. The vital statistics for 1900 show that the position of Christchurch page 42 is, from the hygienic standpoint, distinctly improving. Excluding infants, the mortality for 1900 was 8.2 per 1000. In Auckland the rate was also 8.2; in Wellington 7.1, and in Dunedin 9.6 per 1000. In Christchurch the deaths from febrile and zymotic complaints were 43, out of a total of 214 for the colony; while Auckland claimed 93 deaths from these causes. There can be no doubt that as far as zymotic and kindred diseases are concerned, much remains to be done to render Christchurch worthy of its commercial and political advantages. But it must be repeated that all this only means that Christchurch is not quite the healthiest city in the healthiest civilised country in the world.