Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Phone survey results presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Phone survey results presentation

941
views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
941
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Conducted by: Wright State University Center for Urban and Public Affairs
  • 2.
    • 401 citizens were surveyed via a telephone survey of residents in Montgomery, Greene, Miami and northern Warren Counties.
      • 95 % confidence, +/- 5 % margin of error region-wide
    • Survey conducted from February 10, 2011 through March 30, 2011
    • 53 question survey developed by CUPA in partnership with MVRPC.
  • 3.
    • Random digit dial (RDD) sampling method utilized
      • Any household with landline telephone could participate.
      • A cell phone sample was also utilized to reach those who do not have landline telephones.
    • Quota sampling method used to closely approximate sample with demographics of area (age, gender)
  • 4.
    • More than two-thirds of respondents (68.2 percent) indicated some level of agreement with the statement: “I am satisfied with the way land has been used in the region.”
      • Female respondents (35.9 percent) were significantly more likely to disagree or strongly disagree than male respondents (27.1 percent).
      • Lower income respondents and respondents who have lived in Miami Valley for 11+ years more likely to disagree.
  • 5.
    • 44.5 percent of respondents indicated the government does too little in managing land use.
    • 40.1% say government does the right amount, while 15.4% say government does too much.
      • Female respondents, lower income respondents, renters, and those who have lived in the Miami Valley for over 20 years were all significantly more likely to indicate the government does too little.
  • 6.
    • When asked what they would change about the way governments manage land, the following themes emerged in the responses:
      • Better communication (both between local governments and with residents)
        • 94.5% later indicated that they wish governments would communicate more with each other.
      • Less development / more green space
      • More development
      • Stronger commitment to redevelopment
  • 7.
    • Respondents were provided with a list of five options, and were asked to indicate which one they would provide an incentive for:
      • “ Help farmers keep farming their land” (32.9 %)
      • “ Locate local businesses in existing downtown space” (30.6%)
      • “ Finance new commercial and industrial development (16.4%)
      • “ Help finance a historical preservation project (10.3%)
      • Opposed to incentives (9.9%)
  • 8.  
  • 9.
    • Asset-Based
    • Business-As-Usual
    • Infill/Conservation
    • Radial Corridor
    • Unrestricted
    • Mixed-Themes
    • Jobs and Destination
  • 10.
    • Three-quarters of respondents (74.3 percent) indicated the development of jobs centers near existing housing was important .
      • 67.0 percent said it was important to develop housing around existing job centers
    • Three in five respondents (58.5 percent) would like to see development in urban areas.
      • Suburban areas (38.5%)
      • Rural areas (10.7%)
  • 11.  
  • 12.
    • Respondents were presented with 12 paired statements and asked to indicate which was closer to their views
    • Results showed:
      • Support for strategies that reused/revitalized existing structures for business/residential
      • Support for development around regional assets
      • Living in areas with established infrastructure more important than parks/green space
      • Easy access to roads more important than ability to walk, bike or take transit
  • 13. Statement One Percentage Percentage Statement Two Reuse/revitalize properties in existing neighborhoods for housing development 88.6% 11.4% Focus housing development along major highways Reuse/revitalize properties in existing business districts for business development 84.8% 15.2% Focus business development along major highways Reuse/revitalize properties in existing neighborhoods for housing development 78.4% 21.6% Focus housing development around regional assets Reuse/revitalize properties in existing business districts for business development 80.0% 20.0% Focus business development around regional assets. Focus housing development along major highways 24.8% 75.2% Focus housing development around regional assets Focus business development along major highways 40.3% 59.7% Focus business development around regional assets.
  • 14. Statement One Percentage Percentage Statement Two It is important to live within a mile of a library, shopping center or school 47.5% 52.5% It is important to drive fewer miles / reduce commute time When choosing where to live, it is important to consider air quality 51.4% 48.6% It is important to live in a neighborhood where I can have a large yard It is important to live within a mile of a park 23.7% 76.3% It is important to live in an area with existing water, sewer and utilities It is important to have privacy from my neighbors 73.2% 26.8% It is important to live within a mile from a shopping center It is important to walk, bike or use public transit to work 29.2% 70.8% It is important to have easy and well-maintained access to major roads It is important to preserve farmland in the region 57.8% 42.2% It is important to bring industry and jobs to the region
  • 15.
    • The Infill/Conservation Development scenario has the highest degree of support.
      • Supportive of maintaining farmland, reusing existing space, promoting urban development
    • Next highest level was for asset-based, though not nearly as high as Infill/Conservation.
    • The Business-As-Usual and Jobs and Destination Development scenarios have little support among residents.
  • 16.
    • For more information, please contact:
    • David Jones
    • Survey Research Director
    • Wright State University, Center for Urban and Public Affairs
    • (937) 775-2941
    • [email_address]