Get documents about "Concern about the New York City Land Acquisition Program
Shared by: HC1209130958
-
Stats
- views:
- 0
- posted:
- 9/13/2012
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 54
Document Sample
Concern about the New York City Land Acquisition Program
in Delaware County Communities
Summary of the 2009 Telephone Survey Results
Report Prepared for the Delaware County Department of Watershed Affairs
September 2, 2009
AEL Associates
Concern about the New York City Land Acquisition Program
in Delaware County Communities
Summary of the 2009 Telephone Survey Results
This report summarizes the results of a recent study undertaken by the Delaware County
Department of Watershed Affairs among residents of the county concerning the New York City
Land Acquisition Program (NYCLAP). The data were collected via a telephone survey
administered to randomly selected individuals residing in Delaware County and consisted of a total
sample size of 504. This sample was drawn from three different regions in Delaware County
reflecting perceived level of impacts or risk: (1) 200 from areas with the greatest impact; (2) 200
from hamlets and villages in the watershed; and (3) 100 from the balance of the county with the
lowest potential impacts or not at risk.
Part I summarizes the results of the survey. It is organized into six parts: (1) characteristics
of the sampled population; (2) knowledge and perceptions of NYCLAP; (3) relationships with
government agencies; (4) local natural resource and economic issues; (5) perceptions of
community satisfaction and quality of life; and (6) correlates of concern about NYCLAP. Part II
briefly discusses the findings and their implications.
Table of Contents
PART I
2009 Survey Results
(1) Characteristics of the Sampled Population ........................................................................1
(2) Knowledge and Perceptions of NYCLAP ..........................................................................2
(3) Issues Addressed by and Relationships with Government Agencies .............................10
(4) Local Natural Resource and Economic Issues ..................................................................16
(5) Perceptions of Community Satisfaction and Quality of Life...........................................25
(6) Concern about NYCLAP ....................................................................................................27
Part II
Concern about the NYCLAP
(1) Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................32
References ..................................................................................................................................35
Appendix A: Disposition Table of the DCDWA Telephone Survey ....................................36
Appendix B: Descriptive Statistics of Individual, Household, and Place of Residence
Characteristics, by Area ....................................................................................37
Appendix C: All Other Variables, by Area ............................................................................39
List of Tables
(1) Descriptive Statistics of Individual and Household Characteristics ...............................2
(2) Priority of Local Land Use Issues .......................................................................................7
(3) Perceptions of Authority to Regulate Land Use ................................................................9
(4) Community Issues Needing Local Government Attention ..............................................11
(5) Communities Relationship with New York City ..............................................................14
(6) Natural Resource Importance ............................................................................................17
(7) Natural Resource Concern .................................................................................................19
(8) Importance of Agriculture, by Sample Region .................................................................20
(9) Importance of Economic Issues .........................................................................................23
(10) Economic Issues Concern .................................................................................................24
(11) Quality of Life and the Natural Environment ................................................................27
(12) Varimax Factor Loadings for Concern about NYCLAP ..............................................28
(13) Level of Community Concern by Program Familiarity ................................................29
(14) Level of Community Concern by NCYLAP’s Perceived Impact .................................30
(15) Standardized Function Coefficients and Correlation Coefficients ...............................31
(16) Classification Results ........................................................................................................31
List of Figures
(1) Knowledge of NYCLAP ........................................................................................................3
(2) Acquire Program Knowledge...............................................................................................4
(3) Perceptions about NYCLAP ................................................................................................5
(4) Impact of the City’s Land Acquisition ................................................................................6
(5) Other Delaware County Communities ..............................................................................12
(6) State Agencies ......................................................................................................................12
(7) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.............................................................................14
(8) New York City .....................................................................................................................14
(9) Perceptions of Economic Development Programs County Government Should Support
...............................................................................................................................................15
(10) Importance of New and Existing Business Development ..............................................25
(11) Community Satisfaction ...................................................................................................26
PART I
RESULTS FOR THE 2009 NYCLAP SURVEY
(1) Characteristics of the Sampled Population
Individual and household characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Respondent ages were
distributed as follows: 18 to 30 (4.6%); 31 to 40 (5.2%); 41 to 60 (38.7%); and 61 or older
(48.6%). Among these respondents, slightly over half (51%) were female. Those reporting less
than a high school education represented 3 percent (2.8%) of the sample; about one-third (32.5%)
reported having a high school diploma or GED but had no further formal education; about one in
six (15.5%) said they had some college or post high school training; one in eight (11.9%) indicated
they had a two year technical or associate degree; approximately one in five (18.3%) reported
having a four year college degree; and one in six (16.5%) indicated they held an advanced degree.
With these categories coded on a scale from one (less than a high school degree) to six (advanced
degree), the mean value for education was 3.8. About 20 (19.4%) percent of respondents
indicated they had children living with them. Total pretax income for 2007 for this sample of
Delaware County residents was as follows: less than $20,000 (10.1%); $20,000 to $34,999
(19.2%); $35,000 to $59,999 (24.8%); $60,000 to $99,999 (23.8%); and over $100,000 (10.9%).1
1
In general, this purposive sample of Delaware County residents does not differ too widely from the 1999 data
collected as part of the 2000 Census. The sample is slightly older, better educated, and less likely to have children in
the household. This largely reflects the stratification process used to draw the three regional samples.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Individual and Household Characteristics
Census Standard Range
Demographic Characteristics Mean Percent a 2000d Deviation Min Max
Age (n=504) b 61.0 42.7
18 to 30 4.6
31 to 40 5.2
41 to 60 38.7
61 or older 48.6
Don’t know/refused 3.0
Gender (n=504) -- -- -- --
Male 49.0 49.1
Female 51.0 50.9
Education (n=504)c 3.8 1.8 1 7
Less than a high school degree 2.8 14.8
High school degree or GED 32.5 38.9
Some college or post high school training 15.5 15.9
Two year technical or associate degree 11.9 10.5
4 year college degree (BA/BS) 18.3 11.3
Advanced degree (i.e., Master’s, JD, MD, Ph.D.) 16.5 8.7
Don’t Know/Refused 2.6
Total 2007 pre-tax household income (n=504) 3.1 $52k 2.2 1 6
Less than $20,000 10.1
$20,000 to $34,999 19.2
$35,000 to $59,999 24.8
$60,000 to $99,999 23.8
Over $100,000 10.9
Don’t know/Refused 11.1
Children in the household? (n=504)
Yes -- 19.4 27.8 -- -- --
No 78.0
Don’t know/refused 2.6
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
b
The score reported is the median age of the sampled population, excluding those who answered don’t know or refused
(n=489).
c
The mean score for education was derived by placing the six categories on a scale.
d
Figures reported are means provided by the 2000 U.S. Census unless otherwise noted.
(2) Knowledge and Perceptions of NYCLAP
Respondents were asked: “What would you say is your level of knowledge about the recent
New York City Land Acquisition Program? Would you say you are …” and provided five possible
2
responses, coded from one (I know nothing about the program) to five (I am very familiar with the
program). As shown in Figure 1, 38% of the respondents (n=189) were somewhat familiar with the
program, and an additional 15% percent (n=75) considered themselves very familiar with the
program. On the other hand, 17% of respondents (n= 86) were not very familiar with the program;
slightly more (18%, n=92) knew very little about the program; and only about one in eight (12%,
n=62) indicated they knew nothing about the program. Using the coding 1 (know nothing) to 5
(very familiar), the mean level of knowledge about the recent NYCLAP was 3.24. Between the not
at risk and at risk regions, knowledge of NYCLAP differed significantly (F=4.83; p=.008).
Respondents from the at risk region were more likely than respondents from the not at risk region
to have knowledge of NYCLAP. Means for these two groups were 3.41 and 2.93, respectively.
Following the question about respondents’ level of knowledge of NYCLAP, we asked
respondents where they learned about the program. Figure 2 indicates most respondents (37%,
n=184) had learned through the newspaper, while slightly less (26%, n=131) learned of the
program by word of mouth. Approximately 10% of respondents (n=48) said they learned through
3
“other” means, which included sources such as schools, Rotary Club meetings, or through direct
experience. Finally, slightly less than 10% (n=45) learned of NYCLAP via radio and only 7% of
respondents (n=36) learned of it through television; the fewest number of respondents (5%, n=24)
received knowledge through direct mail.
Respondents were then asked about their perceptions of NYCLAP using the following
question: “When you think about the Land Acquisition Program, are you in favor of the following
options …” and asked to answer “yes” or “no” to a series of four statements. As shown in Figure 3,
respondents were generally unfavorable to three of these options. On the other hand, 56% of these
respondents (n=284) indicated they were in favor of “limiting land acquisition to existing
purchased or easement lands.” This sample of Delaware County residents was most opposed
(84.7%, n=427) to allowing New York City to purchase new lands and slightly less opposed
4
(77.0%, n=388) to allowing both purchase of lands and easements; 72% (n=361) were opposed to
only allowing New York City to purchase easements.
To gain insight into the perceived impact of the city’s land acquisition, we asked
respondents to indicate whether they thought it would have a positive, neutral, or negative impact.
Figure 4 summarizes their responses. Overall, respondents felt the city’s land acquisition would
have a negative impact (66%, n=330); slightly more than one in four respondents (27%, n=136)
felt the impact would be neutral, while only 7% of respondents (n=37) said they felt the impact
would be positive.
5
Respondents were then asked: “What priority do you believe should be given to the
following land use issues in your community?” and provided four possible responses, coded from
one (low priority) to three (high priority), with an additional category (don’t know) to capture
respondent uncertainty. The results from this question are summarized in Table 2. When asked
about local land use planning and regulations to guide community change, slightly more than one
third (37%) of the respondents indicated this was a high priority; 40% of respondents indicated it
was a medium priority and 13% said it was a low priority. The mean of this category, as measured
by the above described scale, was 2.27.
We then asked respondents their feelings about the priority of encouraging greater planning
coordination with nearby municipalities. When asked this question, 46% of respondents said it
should be given high priority and one third (34%) indicated medium priority; slightly more than
one (13%) felt it should be given low priority. The mean of this category was 2.35.
When asked about protection of open space from development, 42% of respondents felt it
should be given high priority, one third (35%) considered this medium priority, and 16% said
6
protection of open space from development was a low priority. The mean for this category was
2.28.
Finally, respondents were asked to prioritize their thoughts about maintaining the
community the way it is. Slightly more than one in three respondents (36%) indicated this was a
high priority while 42% said it was a medium priority; 18% thought it was a low priority. The
mean of this category was 2.18.
Table 2: Priority of Local Land Use Issues
Percent of Range
Issue Meanb respondentsa Standard Deviation Min Max
Local land use planning and regulations
1 3
to guide community change 2.27 .69
High priority 36.7
Medium priority 40.3
Low priority 12.7
Don’t know 10.3
Encourage greater planning
1 3
coordination with nearby municipalities 2.35 .72
High priority 46.2
Medium priority 33.5
Low priority 13.3
Don’t know 6.9
Protect open space from development 2.28 .74 1 3
High priority 41.5
Medium priority 34.9
Low priority 15.7
Don’t know 7.9
Maintain the community the way it is 2.18 .73 1 3
High priority 36.1
Medium priority 42.3
Low priority 18.3
Don’t know 3.4
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding (n=504).
b
The mean score for all variables was derived by using the four categories on a scale.
The next series of questions was designed to assess respondents’ feelings about land use
regulation authority. Table 3 summarizes the findings.
7
We asked respondents to indicate their thoughts about a series of items using a scale
ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). The first item respondents were
asked to rank was: “Local governments should regulate changes in land use to limit negative
impacts on the community.” A majority indicated they strongly agreed (29%) or agreed (43%),
while 11% were undecided; 13% disagreed and 4% strongly disagreed. The mean for this item,
using the five category scale, was 3.82.
The second item, “Property owners should have unrestricted right to use and sell their land
as they see fit,” resulted in three quarters of the respondents either strongly agreeing (37%) or
agreeing (38%). Fewer than one in ten respondents (8%) were undecided on this item, while 13%
disagreed and 5% strongly disagreed. The mean for this item was 3.90.
To learn respondents’ thoughts about land use regulation by communities, we asked them
to respond to the following statement: “Communities should be allowed to control where
development occurs.” Overall, a majority of respondents (52%) agreed with this statement, and an
additional 23% strongly agreed. Less than one in ten respondents (9%) said they were undecided;
13% disagreed and 2% strongly disagreed. The overall mean for this item was 3.81. Among the
items used to learn about authority to regulate land use, only this item differed significantly
(F=5.56; p=.004) among the sampled regions. Respondents from the Hamlet/Village (mean= 3.98)
were significantly more likely than respondents from either the risk region (mean= 3.69) or the not
at risk region (mean= 3.68) to agree or strongly agree that communities should be allowed to
control where development occurs.
The last item respondents were asked to rank was, “Non-local organizations should control
local land use decisions.” When asked their thoughts about this statement, very few respondents
either strongly agreed (3%) or agreed (7%), while 8% said they were undecided. The
8
overwhelming majority of respondents either strongly disagreed (40%) or disagreed (43%) with
this statement. Using the five category scale, the mean for this item was 1.89.
Table 3. Perceptions of Authority to Regulate Land Use
Percent of Range
Meanb respondentsa Standard Deviation Min Max
Local governments should regulate
changes in land use to limit negative
impacts on the community 3.82 1.11 1 5
Strongly agree 29.4
Agree 43.3
Undecided 10.9
Disagree 12.5
Strongly disagree 4.0
Property owners should have
unrestricted right to use and sell their
land as they see fit 3.90 1.17 1 5
Strongly agree 37.1
Agree 37.5
Undecided 8.1
Disagree 12.5
Strongly disagree 4.8
Communities should be allowed to
control where development occursc 3.81 1.02 1 5
Strongly agree 23.4
Agree 51.8
Undecided 9.1
Disagree 13.3
Strongly disagree 2.4
Non-local organizations should
control local land use decisions 1.89 .99 1 5
Strongly agree 2.8
Agree 6.5
Undecided 7.9
Disagree 42.7
Strongly disagree 40.1
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding (n=504).
b
The mean score for all variables was derived by using the five categories on a scale.
c
Significant differences existed between Risk and Hamlet/Village; Not at Risk and Hamlet/Village.
9
(3) Issues Addressed by and Relationships with Government Agencies
Three questions were used to collect information about issues addressed by governmental
agencies and relationships between the respondent’s community and selected government
agencies. This section summarizes responses to those questions.
To understand which community issues respondents felt should be addressed by local
government, respondents were asked to rank a series of issues using the following scale: (1) very
unimportant; (2) unimportant; (3) neither important nor unimportant; (4) important; and (5) very
important. Responses to this question are summarized in Table 4.
The first category respondents were asked to rank was economic issues. A majority of
respondents (66.5%) indicated this was a very important issue for the local government to address.
Slightly more than one in four (28.4%) considered it an important issue. A few respondents (3.2%)
felt economic issues were neither important nor unimportant, while only 2% indicated economic
issues were an unimportant issue for local government to address.
Next, respondents were asked their opinion concerning the importance of environmental
issues. Approximately half (50.2%) of the respondents felt environmental issues were very
important, and an additional 38.7% considered them important. About one in twenty (5.2%)
respondents considered environmental issues neither important nor unimportant; the same number
of respondents felt the need for local government to address environmental issues was either
unimportant (5.2%) or very unimportant (0.8%).
When asked their perceptions about social issues, a majority of respondents indicated they
were either very important (28.4%) or important (45.8%). However, slightly more than one person
in ten (11.1%) felt social issues were neither important nor unimportant for local government to
address, while 12.9% felt they were unimportant and 1.8% said they were very unimportant.
10
Overall, 44.2% of respondents indicated quality of life issues were very important for local
government to address and another 36.9% felt they were important. Less than one in ten
respondents (8.5%) answered neither important nor unimportant. Only 8.7% of respondent felt
quality of life issues were unimportant and 1.4% responded that quality of life issues were very
unimportant.
Table 4: Community Issues Needing Local Government Attention
Percent of Range
Issue Meanb respondentsa Standard Deviation Min Max
Economic Issues 4.59 .65 1 5
Very important 66.5
Important 28.4
Neither important nor unimportant 3.2
Unimportant 2.0
Very unimportant --
Environmental Issues 4.32 .85 1 5
Very important 50.2
Important 38.7
Neither important nor unimportant 5.2
Unimportant 5.2
Very unimportant 0.8
Social Issues 3.86 1.03 1 5
Very important 28.4
Important 45.8
Neither important nor unimportant 11.1
Unimportant 12.9
Very unimportant 1.8
Quality of Life Issues 4.15 .48 1 5
Very important 44.2
Important 36.9
Neither important nor unimportant 8.5
Unimportant 8.7
Very unimportant 1.4
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding (n=504).
b
The mean score for all variables was derived by using the four categories on a scale.
Of all the issues respondents indicated were important or very important, economic issues
ranked as the most important followed by environmental issues (94.9% and 88.9%, respectively).
Quality of life issues ranked just behind environmental issues with 81.1% of respondents
11
indicating quality of life issues were either important or very important. Social issues contained the
most variation of responses with only 74.2% indicating they were either important or very
important.
To understand how communities perceived their relationship with various government
agencies, the following question was asked: “In recent years, concerns about relationships between
different units of government have received much attention. Please rate your community’s
relationship with each of the following using the scale, “very positive, positive, neither positive nor
negative, negative, very negative.” The results are summarized in Figures 5 through 8.
More than half (54%) of the respondents (n=273) indicated a positive relationship between
their community and other Delaware County communities; one in six (16%, n=81) indicated the
relationship was very positive. Slightly more than one of every five respondents (21%, n=108)
believed the relationship was neither positive nor negative. A small percentage of respondents
(6%, n=32) perceived a negative relationship between other Delaware County communities and
their community, and only 2% (n=9) considered it very negative.
12
When respondents were asked their opinions about the relationship between their
community and state agencies, less than half were either very positive (5%, n=26) or positive
(41%, n=205). One third (33%, n=165) indicated the relationship between their community and
state agencies was neither positive nor negative. In total, slightly less than one quarter of the
respondents felt the relationship was either negative (17%, n=84) or very negative (5%, n=23).
When respondents were asked their perceptions about the relationship between their
community and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, slightly more than one third (35%,
n=178) indicated they did not perceive it to be either a positive or negative relationship.
Approximately 32% of respondents (n=160) felt the relationship was positive and 6% (n=32) said
it was very positive. One in five survey respondents (21%, n=104) felt the relationship was
negative and 6% (n=29) indicated it was very negative.
Respondents, when asked about the community’s relationship with New York City, were
more negative. Nearly one in four respondents (24%, n=122) indicated the relationship was very
negative, and an additional 38% (n=193) perceived it as negative. Among those surveyed, 23%
(n=117) felt the relationship was neither positive nor negative. Only one out of every ten
respondents (11%, n=55) felt the relationship was positive, and an additional 3% (n=16) indicated
there was a very positive relationship between their community and New York City.
Among the items used to learn about communities’ relationship with governmental
agencies, only the relationship between respondents’ community and New York City differed
significantly among the sampled regions. These differences are summarized in Table 5. When
using the five category scale ranging from one (very negative) to five (very positive), respondents
from the hamlet/village sample were significantly more likely than respondents from the not at risk
sample to believe the relationship was very negative. The means for the two samples were 2.15
and 2.53, respectively.
13
Table 5: Communities Relationship with New York City
Percent of Range
Meanb respondentsa Standard Deviation Min Max
Hamlet/Village (n=203) 2.15 1.11 1 5
Very Negative 31.0
Negative 37.9
Neither Positive nor Negative 20.2
Positive 8.9
Very Positive 1.5
Not Risk (n=101) 2.53 1.03 1 5
Very Negative 14.9
Negative 36.6
Neither Positive nor Negative 33.7
Positive 9.9
Very Positive 5.0
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
b
The mean score for all variables was derived by using the five categories on a scale.
To learn about programs or opportunities county government should support, respondents
were asked their opinion (yes or no) about five avenues of development possibilities. Results from
this question are summarized in Figure 9.
14
As shown in the histogram below, respondents overwhelming felt county government
should be supportive of economic development programs. Approximately 90% of respondents
(n=454) answered yes when asked whether or not county government should support business
attraction programs, business retention programs (n=453), and expanding tourism business
opportunities (n=453). A slightly higher percentage (91%, n=456) felt county government should
encourage business expansion programs. The highest percentage of respondents (96%, n=485)
indicated county government should encourage economic development by supporting local
agriculture.
15
(4) Local Natural Resource and Economic Issues
To understand the importance of local natural resource issues, we asked respondents to
rank the importance of access to four frequent uses of natural resources using a five category scale
ranging from very important (5) to very unimportant (1). Respondents were asked their perceptions
about the following: (1) access to land for fishing; (2) access to land for hunting; (3) access to local
waterways; and (4) access to land for hiking and walking. Responses to these questions are
summarized in Table 6.
When respondents were asked how important access to land for fishing was for them, a
majority of respondents consider it to be either important (39%) or very important (33%). Only
6% of respondents indicated it was neither important nor unimportant. Slightly more than one in
six respondents (17%) said access to land for fishing was unimportant, and an additional 5%
considered it very unimportant. The mean for this five category access to land for fishing scale was
3.77.
Respondents were then asked their perceptions about access to land for hunting. Nearly a
third of respondents (32%) considered it very important, and almost as many (29%) said it was
important. Few respondents were neutral about access to land for hunting – less than one in twenty
(4.8%) gave this response. On the other hand, nearly one in four respondents (22.8%) considered it
unimportant, and additional 11% said it was very unimportant. The mean for this five category
access to land for hunting scale was 3.48.
Next, we asked respondents to rank access to local waterways. In response, 39% indicated
access to local waterways was very important and nearly the same percent (40%) of respondents
said it was important. Few respondents, 6%, indicated it was neither important nor unimportant.
Finally, approximately one in nine respondents (11%) said it was unimportant and 4% considered
16
access to local waterways very unimportant. The mean for this five category access to local
waterways scale was 4.0.
The final question asked respondents about the importance of access to land for hiking and
walking. Nearly one in three respondents (30%) considered it very important and an additional
near half of the sample (46%) said it was important. Those who indicated it was neither important
nor unimportant accounted for 6% of the sample. Only 14% of respondents said access to land for
hiking and walking was unimportant and 3% considered it very unimportant. The mean for this
five category access to land for hiking and walking scale was 3.87.
Table 6: Natural resource importance
Percent of Range
Issue Meanb respondentsa Standard Deviation Min Max
Access to land for fishing 3.77 1.22 1 5
Very important 32.9
Important 38.7
Neither important nor unimportant 6.0
Unimportant 17.3
Very unimportant 5.2
Access to land for hunting 3.48 1.42 1 5
Very important 32.1
Important 29.2
Neither important nor unimportant 4.8
Unimportant 22.8
Very unimportant 11.1
Access to local waterways 4.00 1.15 1 5
Very important 39.1
Important 39.5
Neither important nor unimportant 6.2
Unimportant 10.9
Very unimportant 4.2
Access to land for hiking and
walking 3.87 1.09 1 5
Very important 30.4
Important 46.4
Neither important nor unimportant 6.2
Unimportant 13.9
Very unimportant 3.2
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding (n=504).
b
The mean score for all variables was derived by using the five categories on a scale.
17
We then asked respondents to indicate their level of concern about each of the four access
issues measured above using a three point scale – “very concerned,” “concerned,” or “not
concerned.” As Table 7 indicates, one third of the respondents (33%) were very concerned about
access to land for fishing and 43% said they were concerned. One in four respondents (24.2%)
indicated they were not concerned about access to land for fishing. Using a three category scale,
where one was not concerned and three was very concerned, the mean of access to land for fishing
was 2.09.
When asked about whether access to land for hunting was a concern for them, 33% of
respondents said they were very concerned and approximately the same number (32%) reported
they were concerned; 35% of respondents were not concerned about access to land for hunting.
The mean for this question was 1.97.
Respondents were then asked about their concern regarding access to local waterways;
38% of respondents indicated they were very concerned, followed by 43% who were concerned.
Those who indicated they were not concerned made up 18% of the sample. The mean for this
question was 2.21.
Finally, respondents were asked whether they were concerned about access to land for
hiking and walking. Approximately one third of the respondents (34%) said they were very
concerned; 44% were concerned; and only 22% were not concerned about access to land for hiking
and walking. The mean for this question was 2.12.
18
Table 7: Natural Resource Concern
Percent of Range
Issue Meanb respondentsa Standard Deviation Min Max
Access to land for fishing 2.09 .75 1 3
Very concerned 33.3
Concerned 42.5
Not concerned 24.2
Access to land for hunting 1.97 .82 1 3
Very concerned 32.5
Concerned 32.1
Not concerned 35.3
Access to local waterways 2.21 .79 1 3
Very concerned 38.3
Concerned 43.3
Not concerned 18.3
Access to land for hiking and walking 2.12 .74 1 3
Very concerned 33.9
Concerned 44.0
Not concerned 22.0
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding (n=504).
b
The mean score for all variables was derived by using the three categories on a scale.
To learn about the importance of agriculture to the local community, we used a scale coded
from one (very unimportant) to five (very important). Answers given by respondents are
summarized in Table 8.
Responses to the question about agricultures importance differed significantly among the
three regions of the county. Respondents from the not at risk sample were significantly less likely
than respondents from either the hamlet/village sample or the at risk sample to indicate agriculture
was either important or very important. Overall, the majority of respondents (55%) indicated
agriculture was very important and one in three (33%) said it was important, while 5% indicated it
was neither important nor unimportant; 6% of the sample answered unimportant and 1% responded
very unimportant. The overall mean, using the five category scale, was 4.35.
19
Table 8. Importance of Agriculture, by Sample Region
Percent of Range
Issue Meanb,c respondentsa Standard Deviation Min Max
At risk (n=200) 4.44 .88 1 5
Very important 61.5
Important 27.5
Neither important nor unimportant 5.0
Unimportant 5.0
Very unimportant 1.0
Not at risk (n=101) 3.98 1.13 1 5
Very important 39.6
Important 38.6
Neither important nor unimportant 5.0
Unimportant 13.9
Very unimportant 3.0
Hamlet/Village (n=203) 4.44 .76 1 5
Very important 56.2
Important 35.5
Neither important nor unimportant 4.4
Unimportant 3.9
Very unimportant
Overall (n=504) 4.35 .91 1 5
Very important 55.0
Important 32.9
Neither important nor unimportant 4.8
Unimportant 6.3
Very unimportant 1.0
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
b
The mean score for all variables was derived by using the five categories on a scale.
c
Significant differences existed between Risk and Not at risk; Hamlet/Village and Not at risk (F=7.28; p=.001).
To understand respondents’ perceptions of local economic issues we asked them to rank,
on a scale where one was very unimportant and five was very important, a series of issues related
to the community’s economy. These issues were: (1) viability of local agriculture; (2) outmigration
of youth; (3) employment opportunities; (4) loss of taxable land from local communities; and (5)
loss of jobs. Following this question we then asked respondents to rank their concerns about these
same issues on a scale where 1=not concerned and 3= very concerned. Findings from these
questions are summarized in Tables 9 and 10.
20
Respondents indicated the first issue, viability of local agriculture, was either very
important (66%) or important (27%). A small number of respondents indicated it was neither
important nor unimportant (2%); unimportant (4%); or very unimportant (2%). When asked about
their levels of concern, two-thirds (67%) said they were very concerned, followed by 27% who
were concerned and 5% who were not concerned. The mean score, using the five category scale of
importance, was 4.51; the mean was 2.62 using the three category scale of concern.
When asked their thoughts about outmigration of youth, over half (52%) indicated it was
very important, followed by 29% who indicated it was important; 6% considered it neither
important nor unimportant, while 10% said it was unimportant and 3% found it to be very
unimportant. Nearly half (49%) of the sample said they were very concerned about outmigration of
youth; 37% were concerned and 13% were not concerned. The mean score for this issue using the
five category scale of importance was 4.19; the mean was 2.36 using the three category scale of
concern.
When asked about employment opportunities, more than nine of ten respondents indicated
it was very important (72%) or important (19%). Only 2% of respondents were neutral, indicating
neither important nor unimportant, while 6% considered it unimportant and 1% very unimportant.
Asked their perceptions about concern over employment opportunities, nearly three-quarters (72%)
were very concerned; 21% were concerned and 6% were not concerned. The mean score for this
issue using the five category scale of importance was 4.56; the mean was 2.66 using the three
category scale of concern.
Loss of taxable land from local communities was also seen as a very important issue by a
majority (68%) of respondents, while one in five (21%) considered it important. A small
percentage of the sample (3%) considered this issue neither important nor unimportant and the
remaining respondents answered either unimportant (5%) or very unimportant (3%). Turning to
21
respondents’ level of concern, 69% of respondents were very concerned about loss of taxable land
from local communities; 21% were concerned and 11% were not concerned. The mean for this
issue was 4.46 using the five category scale of importance; the mean was 2.58 using the three
category scale of concern.
Of all the economic issues respondents were asked to rank, loss of jobs was seen as the
most important by respondents. Over three-fourths (78%) said loss of jobs was a very important
economic issue and an additional 16% indicated it was important; only 1% responded it was
neither important nor unimportant, while a very small percentage of respondents said it was
unimportant (3%) or very unimportant (2%). Similar to the level of importance, loss of jobs was
seen as the issue of most concern to these respondents. Over three-fourths (77%) of the sample
indicated they were very concerned about loss of jobs; 17% said they were concerned and 6% said
they were not concerned. Using the five category scale of importance, the mean for this issue was
4.63; the mean was 2.71 using the three category scale of concern.
22
Table 9. Importance of Economic Issues
Percent of Range
Issue Meanb respondentsa Standard Deviation Min Max
Viability of local agriculture 4.51 .86 1 5
Very important 65.7
Important 26.8
Neither important nor unimportant 2.0
Unimportant 3.6
Very unimportant 2.0
Outmigration of youth 4.19 1.09 1 5
Very important 52.2
Important 29.4
Neither important nor unimportant 6.0
Unimportant 9.9
Very unimportant 2.6
Employment opportunities 4.56 .87 1 5
Very important 72.2
Important 19.4
Neither important nor unimportant 1.6
Unimportant 5.6
Very unimportant 1.2
Loss of taxable land from local
communities 4.46 .97 1 5
Very important 67.7
Important 21.2
Neither important nor unimportant 3.4
Unimportant 5.2
Very unimportant 2.6
Loss of jobs 4.63 .84 1 5
Very important 77.6
Important 15.7
Neither important nor unimportant 1.4
Unimportant 3.4
Very unimportant 2.0
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding (n=504).
b
The mean score for all variables was derived by using the five categories on a scale.
23
Table 10. Economic Issues Concern
Percent of Range
Issue Meanb respondentsa Standard Deviation Min Max
Viability of local agriculture 2.62 .59 1 3
Very concerned 67.3
Concerned 27.4
Not concerned 5.4
Outmigration of youth 2.36 .71 1 3
Very concerned 49.4
Concerned 37.3
Not concerned 13.3
Employment opportunities 2.66 .59 1 3
Very concerned 72.4
Concerned 21.4
Not concerned 6.2
Loss of taxable land from local
communities 2.58 .67 1 3
Very concerned 68.7
Concerned 20.8
Not concerned 10.5
Loss of jobs 2.71 .58 1 3
Very concerned 76.8
Concerned 17.1
Not concerned 6.2
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
b
The mean score for all variables was derived by using the three categories on a scale.
To gauge feelings about the importance of new and existing business development,
respondents were asked how important they felt it was using a five category scale where 1 was
very unimportant and 5 was very important. The results of this question are summarized in Figure
10. Overall, respondents felt development of new and existing business was very important (66%,
n=332) to their community; 29% (n=145) said it was important; 3% (n=17) considered it neither
important nor unimportant, while 2% (n=9) said it was unimportant and less than 1% (n=1)
indicated it was very unimportant.
24
(5) Perceptions of Community Satisfaction and Quality of Life
This section summarizes respondents’ responses to a series of questions used to assess
community satisfaction and quality of life. Results from the initial question, “In general, how
satisfied are you with life in your community?” are summarized in Figure 11. Overall, the majority
of respondents were very satisfied (38%, n=191) or mostly satisfied (51%, n=255) with life in their
community. A small number of respondents were either mostly unsatisfied (4%, n=21) or very
unsatisfied (2%, n=8). Only 6% (n=29) indicated they were neither satisfied nor unsatisfied.
25
Next, respondents were asked how they perceived quality of life in their community. Respondents
were asked the following two questions:
(1) Overall, how would you rate the quality of life of your community?
(2) Overall, how would you rate the quality of the natural environment in and
around your community?
Respondents’ answers are summarized in Table 11. On a scale from one to four, where four
meant excellent and one indicated poor, a majority of respondents said their quality of life was
good (51.2%) or excellent (30.0%). About one in five respondents said their quality of life was
either fair (16.1%) or poor (2.8%). The mean for this question was 3.08.
When asked about the quality of the natural environment, using the same scale, 46% of the
respondents indicated they perceived the natural environment in and around their community to be
excellent, 47% regarded its quality as good, 5.4% as fair, and 1.4% considered the quality to be
poor. The mean, using the above scale, was 3.38.
26
Table 11. Quality of Life and the Natural Environment
Percent of Range
Meanb respondentsa Standard Deviation Min Max
Quality of life 3.08 .75 1 4
Excellent 30.0
Good 51.2
Fair 16.1
Poor 2.8
Quality of the natural environment 3.38 .65 1 4
Excellent 46.2
Good 47.0
Fair 5.4
Poor 1.4
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding (n=504).
b
The mean score for all variables was derived by using the four categories on a scale.
(6) Concern about NYCLAP
In an attempt to synthesize the above findings into a more coherent and simpler model, we
used a multivariate technique known as factor analysis to find common dimensions of concern
among the respondents. The basic assumption of factor analysis is that underlying correlated
factors can be used to explain a complex relationship among related variables. This “grouping”
reduces the total number of variables and eliminates the guess procedure in determining which key
variables belong in the analysis when there is limited theory available for guidance. Doing this
revealed ten indicators (viability of local agriculture; outmigration of youth; employment
opportunities; school consolidation; loss of taxable land from local communities; loss of jobs;
access to land for fishing; access to land for hunting; access to local waterways; and access to land
for hiking and walking) that shared a common structure and were significantly associated with
each other. This factor, concern about NYCLAP, had an alpha reliability coefficient of .79, an
27
eigenvalue of 3.46, and explained 34.6% of the common variation among these ten indicators (see
Table 12).2
Since these ten items were similar, and the resulting factor had a high level of reliability,
we summed responses to each of these items for each respondent and used this sum in further
analysis as a composite measure of concern. We also included in this secondary analysis,
individual and household characteristics and place of residence to assess the degree to which
relationships between concern and these variables accurately describe the aggregate sample.
Finally, a discriminant analysis model was estimated to assess the predictive probability of
correctly categorizing the dependent variable. These results are discussed in order.
Table 12. Varimax Factor Loadings for Concern about NYCLAP
Factors/Items Factor 1
a) Loss of Jobs .63
b) Access to land for fishing .62
c) Access to local waterways .61
d) Outmigration of youth .61
e) Employment opportunities .61
f) Loss of taxable land from local communities .59
g) Access to land for hiking and walking .58
h) Access to land for hunting .57
i) Viability of local agriculture .55
j) School consolidation .51
N 504
Eigenvalue 3.46
% of variance 34.61
Cronbach’s alpha .79
The variables level of income, program familiarity, relationship with NYC, and
NYCLAP’s perceived impact were significantly related to concern about NYCLAP.3 Since the
category “not concerned” in our composite variable (described above) had only two cases and
2
The alpha reliability coefficient indicates the strength of the relationship across the variables that measure the
underlying, or latent, variable on a scale from 0 to 1. The eigenvalue indicates the proportion of the amount of
variation capture by the factor (concern about NYCLAP). The corresponding percentage of variance reflects the total
amount of information retained from the original measures.
3
Significant relationships were determined using ANOVA.
28
those who were very concerned were greatest in number, we “dummy” coded the composite
variable concern (0= other; 1= very concerned).
Level of concern differed significantly depending on respondents’ familiarity with
NYCLAP. As respondents’ knowledge of NYCLAP program increased, so too did their concern.
Those who were either somewhat familiar or very familiar with the program were most concerned
with NYCLAP. Of those who indicated they were either somewhat familiar or very familiar, 86%
said they were very concerned. Treated as a dichotomous variable where 0 was other and 1 was
very concerned, significant differences (F=9.2, p<.000) existed between “I know nothing of the
program” and the other four categories of program familiarity. The means for each category ranged
from .47 for those who knew nothing of the program to .86 for those who were somewhat familiar
with the program. Those who were very familiar with the program had a mean score of .85,
followed by those who were not very familiar with the program (.80) and those who knew very
little of the program (.73).
Table 13. Level of Community Concern by Program Familiarity
Program Familiarity
I know nothing I know very little Not very familiar Somewhat familiar Very familiar with
Level of of the program of the program with the program with the program the program
Concern (n=62) (n=92) (n=85) (n=189) (n=75)
Percent
Other 53.2 27.2 20.0 13.8 14.7
Very
Concerned 46.8 72.8 80.0 86.2 85.3
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
χ2=46.28; df=4; p=.000
Finally, when concern was treated as a dichotomous variable, significant differences
(F=11.7, p<.001) existed among those who perceived NYCLAP’s impact as positive, neutral, or
29
negative. Those who perceived NYCLAP as having a negative impact were also the most
concerned having a mean score of .85, followed by those who perceived a neutral impact (.66).
Those who thought NYCLAP would have a positive impact were the least concerned (.59).
Table 14. Level of Community Concern by NYCLAP’s Perceived Impact
Perceived Impact
Level of Negative impact Neutral impact Positive impact
Concern (n=329) (n=136) (n=37)
Percent
Other 15.2 33.8 40.5
Very Concerned 84.8 66.2 59.5
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
χ2=27.26; df=2; p=.000
There were no significant differences for level of concern about NYCLAP among the three
regions of the county, or by gender, education, age, income, or employment. Taken together, these
results suggest the relationship between concern about NYCLAP and individual and household
characteristics might not accurately describe the aggregate sample.
In order to address this issue, discriminate analysis was conducted to assess whether the
nine predictors – gender, age, income, education, employment status, location, familiarity with
NYCLAP, relationship with New York City governmental units, and NYCLAP’s impact – could
distinguish those who were very concerned about NYCLAP from those who were not. Several
measures of goodness of fit of the model were examined to see how well this model worked. The
first, Wilks’ lambda, was significant, λ= .86, χ2= 78.50, p< .001. Wilks’ lambda indicates the
model including these nine variables was able to significantly discriminate between the two
groups. Table 15 presents the standardized discriminant function coefficients, which suggest
30
familiarity with NYCLAP, perceived impact from NYCLAP, and respondents’ age contributed
most to distinguishing those who were very concerned from those who were not. The correlation
coefficients in the table indicate the extent to which each variable correlates with the resulting
discriminant function. The second measure of fit is drawn from the classification results (Table
16). This measure indicates the model correctly predicted 74% of those who were very concerned
and 65% of those who were not.
Table 15. Standardized Function Coefficients and Correlation Coefficients
Correlations between
Standardized Function Variables and Discriminant
Variable Coefficients Functions
Gender (1=male, 2=female) -.04 .11
Age .35 .41
Income -.04 .18
Education .29 .19
Employment Status (1=employed,
2=unemployed) .13 .17
Location (1=Hamlet/Village,
2=else) -.05 -.05
Familiarity with NYCLAP -.67 -.67
NYCLAP impact .43 .59
Relationship with NYC .20 .44
Table 16. Classification Results
Actual Group
Membership Predicted Group Membership Total
Level of Concern Other Very Concerned Other
Other 73 39 112
Count
Very Concerned 101 290 391
Other 65.2 34.8 100.0
Percentage
Very Concerned 25.8 74.2 100.0
31
Part II
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This sample of Delaware County respondents indicated a level of awareness and concern
not typical of most local surveys. This was reflected in the very high participation and completion
rates we experienced when gathering the data. Unlike many current surveys, our response rates
were extremely good – and our refusal rates remarkably low. Appendix A summarizes the survey
participation, including total callable sample, number of refused, and the number of suspends, as
well as details on a few other indicators. Of the total callable sample, we received a remarkably
low number of qualified refusals (20) and initial refusals (407). Qualified refusals refer to
individuals who possessed the necessary characteristics to be included in the survey, but declined
to do so and initial refusals represent the number of people who immediately refused to participate.
Of those respondents who opted to be included in the survey, only 12 suspended their participation
after the survey had started. Such high levels of interest resulted in a 54% response rate and 94%
completion rate. These patterns suggest NYCLAP was a salient issue in Delaware County, one
deserving attention by local, county, and state officials.
Residents of the three regions served by the Delaware County Department of Watershed
Affairs indicated both high levels of knowledge and considerable levels of concern about New
York City’s Land Acquisition Program. Over three-quarters of the respondents rated concern as a
three on a scale of one to three. In the discriminate analysis model, familiarity with NYCLAP,
perceived impact from NYCLAP, age, education, and relationship with New York City
governmental units contributed the most to distinguishing respondents who were very concerned
about NYCLAP from those who were not. Possible explanations for these findings are advanced
below.
32
The findings in this study are consistent with prior studies of risk analysis, specifically the
role of communication and information dissemination. The social amplification of risk framework
suggests “events pertaining to hazards interact with psychological, social, institutional, and cultural
processes in ways that can heighten or attenuate perceptions of risk and shape risk behavior”
(Kasperson 1992:157-158). Media coverage often serves as the conduit through which community
residents learn of impending or unfolding risks and/or threats (Mazur 1989). As the concern over
the risk unfolds, community residents can serve as amplification stations by relaying knowledge to
others. If the public begins to form a negative opinion of such events then a corresponding increase
in news coverage occurs. This further compounds such attitudes (Stallings 1990). In addition,
perceptions of trust can serve to either attenuate or heighten concerns (Breakwell et al. 2001).
Trust of organizations is a key element in tempering elevated risk concerns. When these qualities
of trust are absent, there is a greater likelihood that concern about risks will intensify.
This analysis suggests those who knew of NYCLAP held negative perceptions of potential
impacts caused by it; this has led to an elevated level of concern. Conversely, respondents
unfamiliar with NYCLAP were understandably less concerned. Newspapers were the most
frequently mentioned source of knowledge about NYCLAP, followed by word of mouth. While
information dissemination through these media does not ensure community residents will become
concerned about programs such as NYCLAP, they do provide important local sources of
information about current issues. Those who gain their information from them are likely to pass
this on to others and contribute to a heightened recognition of potential issues and/or problems. As
well, poor relationships with various government agencies can also result in community residents
forming negative perceptions. When respondents were asked their opinions about different units of
government, nearly two-thirds held a negative or very negative opinion of New York City
governmental units.
33
While knowledge and perception of impact provided insight into some of the reasons
respondents were deeply concerned about NYCLAP, a deeper issue may reflect low levels of trust
between communities and governmental agencies. Involving community residents in the decision
making process is the surest way to overcome impasses resulting from distrust in such agencies.
Doing so engages local citizens who are then able to share their concerns among local, state, and
federal agencies. By allowing community residents to express their concerns, trust between
governmental agencies and the community can be restored. Restoring public trust through
community engagement builds a relationship between communities and agencies, which also
encourages future communication to address local issues before concerns become elevated.
Additionally, community concerns become better understood and are therefore easier to address,
thereby lessening the community residents’ perceptions of risk.
34
References
Breakwell, G.M., J. Barnett, R. Lofstedt, R. Kemp, and C. Glaser. 2001. The Impact of Social
Amplification of Risk on Risk Communication. Caerphilly, United Kingdom: HSE Books.
Kasperson, R.E. 1992. "The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative
Framework." in Social Theories of Risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding. Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers.
Mazur, A. 1989. "Communicating Risk in the Mass Media." in Psychosocial Effects of Hazardous
Toxic Wase Disposal on Communities, edited by D. L. Peck. Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas Pub Ltd
Stallings, R.A. 1990. "Media Discourse and the Social Construction of Risk." Social Problems
37:80-95.
35
Appendix A
Table A1. Disposition Table of the DCDWA Telephone Survey
At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk Total
Callable Sample
Total Sample 2582 2150 3119 7851
Total Dead Sample 1562 1707 512 3781
Total Callable Sample 1020 443 2607 4070
Not Contacted
No answer 131 108 84 323
Answering machine 157 119 86 362
Busy 7 26 7 40
Unspecified callback 39 20 7 66
Total Not Contacted 334 273 184 791
Bad Sample
Nonworking 749 720 192 1661
Computer/Fax 17 28 8 53
Priv. MGR 2 - - 2
Non-BUS 80 206 33 319
Duplicate Number 20 49 30 99
Total Bad Sample 868 1003 263 2134
Initial Refusals
No such person 4 11 3 18
Language barrier 4 3 - 7
Terminated 1 1 - 2
Qualified Refusal 5 10 5 20
Refused 166 148 93 407
Total Initial Refusals 180 173 101 454
Available Contacts
First Attempt 235 133 39 407
Second Attempt 73 152 39 264
Third Attempt 71 61 13 145
Fourth Attempt 121 35 128 284
Total Available Contacts 500 381 219 1100
Suspends 5 5 2 12
Callbacks 18 51 19 88
Total Completes 201 203 101 504
Response Rate 53.50%
Completion Rate 94.04%
Average Length of Interview (mins.) 17 16.5 16.3 16.8
36
Appendix B
Table B1. Descriptive Statistics of Individual, Household, and Place of Residence Characteristics,
by Area
Variable At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondentsa
Age
18 to 30 4.0 5.4 4.0
31 to 40 6.5 4.4 4.0
41 to 60 40.5 36.9 38.6
61 or older 49.0 53.2 53.5
Gender
Male 52.0 49.3 42.6
Female 48.0 50.7 57.4
Education (n=504)
Less than a high school degree 3.0 1.5 5.0
High school degree or GED 34.5 26.1 41.6
Some college or post high school training 15.0 16.7 13.9
Two year technical or associate degree 11.0 13.3 10.9
4 year college degree (BA/BS) 18.0 19.2 16.8
Advanced degree (i.e., Master’s, JD, MD, Ph.D.) 16.0 19.7 10.9
Don’t Know/Refused 2.5 3.4 1.0
Total 2007 pre-tax household incomeb
Less than $20,000 8.5 10.8 11.9
$20,000 to $34,999 22.0 15.3 21.8
$35,000 to $59,999 24.5 26.1 22.8
$60,000 to $99,999 19.5 29.1 21.8
Over $100,000 15.0 7.9 8.9
Don’t know/Refused 10.5 10.8 12.9
Children in the household?
Yes 21.5 14.3 25.7
No 76.0 82.8 72.3
Don’t know/refused 2.5 3.0 2.0
Type of home
Single family home 90.0 89.2 85.1
Mobile home or trailer 6.5 2.0 7.9
Townhouse or duplex - .5 4.0
Apartment 2.5 5.9 1.0
Other 1.0 2.5 2.0
Average time of work commute
0 to 30 minutes 28.0 30.0 27.7
31 minutes to 60 minutes 2.0 4.4 4.0
60 minutes or more 2.0 2.0 -
Don’t know 68.0 63.5 68.3
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
b
Significant differences existed between Not at Risk and Hamlet/Village.
37
Table B1. Descriptive Statistics of Individual, Household, and Place of Residence Characteristics, by Area (cont.)
Variable At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondentsa
Number of people in household
1 to 3 79.0 80.3 78.2
4 to 6 17.5 15.8 18.8
7 or more 3.5 3.9 3.0
Don’t know/refused --
Source of incomeb
Wages and/or salary 35.6 51.7 35.6
Income from business 16.8 13.8 16.8
Interest and/or investment income 18.8 17.7 18.8
Income from property 4.0 8.4 4.0
Disability benefits 4.0 4.4 4.0
Social Security payments 46.5 33.5 46.5
Retirement pensions payments 25.7 25.6 25.7
Unemployment compensation -- 1.5 --
Public assistance/welfare/food stamps 2.0 1.5 2.0
Other 7.9 9.4 7.9
Employment status
Employed for pay by a company, business, or agency 32.0 36.5 31.7
Self-employed 20.5 15.8 11.9
Unemployed, but looking for work 1.5 1.5 1.0
Unemployed, not looking for work .5 1.0 1.0
Retired 38.0 38.4 47.5
Homemaker 2.0 1.5 4.0
Other 3.5 2.0 2.0
Don’t know/refused 2.0 3.4 1.0
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
b
Totals exceed 100 if respondents had more than one source of income.
38
Appendix C
Table C1. Knowledge about NYCLAP, by Area
Variable At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondentsa
Level of knowledge about NYCLAP b
Very familiar with the program 15.8 10.8 15.8
Somewhat familiar with the program 24.8 18.7 24.8
Not very familiar with the program 20.8 17.7 20.8
I know very little about the program 27.7 40.9 27.7
I know nothing about the program 10.9 11.8 10.9
Where did you learn about the program
Newspaper 40.5 36.9 27.7
Television 6.0 9.4 5.0
Radio 7.0 11.8 6.9
Word of mouth 30.0 24.6 20.8
Direct mail 4.0 7.4 1.0
Other 11.5 11.3 2.0
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
b
Significant differences existed between Not at Risk and Risk.
39
Table C2. Importance of Local Issues, by Area
Local Issue At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondentsa
Viability of local agriculture
Very important 68.0 65.5 61.4
Important 26.5 26.6 27.7
Neither important nor unimportant 2.0 2.5 1.0
Unimportant 2.0 3.9 5.9
Very unimportant 1.5 1.5 4.0
Outmigration of youth
Very important 48.0 57.1 50.5
Important 33.0 26.1 28.7
Neither important nor unimportant 9.0 3.9 4.0
Unimportant 9.0 9.4 12.9
Very unimportant 1.0 3.4 4.0
Employment opportunities
Very important 67.5 74.9 76.2
Important 23.0 17.7 15.8
Neither important nor unimportant 2.5 1.0 1.0
Unimportant 6.5 5.4 4.0
Very unimportant .5 1.0 3.0
Loss of taxable land from local communities
Very important 69.5 66.5 66.3
Important 22.5 21.2 18.8
Neither important nor unimportant 2.5 3.4 5.0
Unimportant 3.5 6.4 5.9
Very unimportant 2.0 2.5 4.0
Loss of jobs
Very important 73.0 81.3 79.2
Important 20.5 12.3 12.9
Neither important nor unimportant 2.5 .5 1.0
Unimportant 3.0 3.9 3.0
Very unimportant 1.0 2.0 4.0
School consolidation
Very important 33.0 29.6 38.6
Important 39.5 36.9 31.7
Neither important nor unimportant 8.5 7.9 6.9
Unimportant 13.0 19.7 15.8
Very unimportant 6.0 5.9 6.9
Access to land for fishing
Very important 32.0 31.5 37.6
Important 40.5 37.9 36.6
Neither important nor unimportant 8.0 5.9 2.0
Unimportant 16.0 18.2 17.8
Very unimportant 3.5 6.4 5.9
40
Table C2. Importance of Local Issues, by Area (cont.)
Local Issue At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondents
Access to land for hunting
Very important 32.0 30.5 35.6
Important 32.5 28.1 24.8
Neither important nor unimportant 4.5 4.4 5.9
Unimportant 20.0 26.1 21.8
Very unimportant 11.0 10.8 11.9
Access to local waterways
Very important 34.5 43.3 39.6
Important 47.5 34.5 33.7
Neither important nor unimportant 4.0 7.9 6.9
Unimportant 9.5 10.8 13.9
Very unimportant 4.5 3.4 5.0
Access to land for hiking and walking
Very important 30.5 33.0 24.8
Important 45.5 46.3 48.5
Neither important nor unimportant 5.5 6.9 5.9
Unimportant 14.5 11.8 16.8
Very unimportant 4.0 2.0 4.0
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
41
Table C3. Concern about Local Issues, by Area
Local Issue At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondentsa
Viability of local agriculture
Very concerned 67.5 70.9 59.4
Concerned 27.0 25.6 31.7
Not concerned 5.5 3.4 8.9
Outmigration of youthb
Very concerned 48.5 55.2 39.6
Concerned 38.5 33.5 42.6
Not concerned 13.0 11.3 17.8
Employment opportunities
Very concerned 68.0 76.8 72.3
Concerned 25.0 18.2 20.8
Not concerned 7.0 4.9 6.9
Loss of taxable land from local communities
Very concerned 71.5 68.5 63.4
Concerned 20.5 21.2 20.8
Not concerned 8.0 10.3 15.8
Loss of jobsc
Very concerned 71.0 80.8 80.2
Concerned 20.5 14.8 14.9
Not concerned 8.5 4.4 5.0
School consolidation
Very concerned 31.5 27.1 44.6
Concerned 43.5 41.9 26.7
Not concerned 25.0 31.0 28.7
Access to land for fishing
Very concerned 31.0 34.5 35.6
Concerned 45.0 41.4 39.6
Not concerned 24.0 24.1 24.8
42
Table C3. Concern about Local Issues, by Area (cont.)
Local Issue At risk Hamlet/Village Not at risk
Percentage of Respondentsa
Access to land for hunting
Very concerned 32.0 33.0 32.7
Concerned 33.0 34.0 26.7
Not concerned 35.0 33.0 40.6
Access to local waterways
Very concerned 37.5 38.4 40.0
Concerned 46.0 44.8 35.0
Not concerned 16.5 16.7 25.0
Access to land for hiking and walking d
Very concerned 37.0 35.5 24.8
Concerned 40.5 47.8 43.6
Not concerned 22.5 16.7 31.7
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
b
Significant differences existed between Not at Risk and Hamlet/Village.
c
Significant differences existed between At Risk and Hamlet/Village.
d
Significant differences existed between At Risk and Not at Risk; Hamlet/Village, At Risk, and Not at Risk.
43
Table C4. Relationships Between Different Units of Government, by Area
Unit of Government At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondents a
Other Delaware County communities
Very positive 18.0 15.8 12.9
Positive 52.0 55.7 55.4
Neither positive nor negative 21.0 20.7 23.8
Negative 6.5 6.4 5.9
Very negative 2.0 1.5 2.0
Don’t know/refused .5 --
State agencies
Very positive 5.5 3.4 7.9
Positive 37.0 44.8 39.6
Neither positive nor negative 33.5 29.1 38.6
Negative 20.0 16.3 10.9
Very negative 3.5 6.4 3.0
Don’t know/refused .5 --
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Very positive 5.5 6.4 7.9
Positive 34.5 28.6 32.7
Neither positive nor negative 33.5 36.9 35.6
Negative 19.5 21.2 21.8
Very negative 6.5 6.9 2.0
Don’t know/refused .5 -- --
New York Cityb
Very positive 4.0 1.5 5.0
Positive 13.5 8.9 9.9
Neither positive nor negative 21.0 20.2 33.7
Negative 39.5 37.9 36.6
Very negative 22.0 31.0 14.9
Don’t know/refused -- .5
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
b
Significant differences existed between Hamlet/Village, At Risk, and Not at Risk.
44
Table C5. Thoughts about NYCLAP, by Area
Suggestions At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondents a
Allowing both purchase of lands and easements
Yes 25.5 22.2 19.8
No 74.5 77.8 80.2
Allowing New York City to purchase new lands
Yes 16.5 16.3 10.9
No 83.5 83.7 89.1
Only allowing New York City to purchase easements
Yes 28.5 70.4 25.7
No 71.5 29.6 74.3
Limiting land acquisition to existing purchased or easement
lands
Yes 51.5 59.6 59.4
No 48.5 40.4 40.6
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
Table C6. Thoughts on County Government Support of Programs, by Area
Programs At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondents a
Business attraction programs
Yes 91.0 89.7 89.1
No 9.0 10.3 10.9
Business retention programs
Yes 93.0 87.2 89.1
No 7.0 12.8 10.9
Business expansion programs
Yes 93.5 88.2 89.1
No 6.5 11.8 10.9
Expanding tourism business opportunities
Yes 91.5 89.7 87.1
No 8.5 10.3 12.9
Supporting local agriculture
Yes 97.5 95.6 95.0
No 2.5 4.4 5.0
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
45
Table C7. Importance of Developing New and Existing Business, by Area
Issue At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondents a
How important is the development of new
and existing business to your community
Very important 62.0 70.0 65.3
Important 33.5 24.1 28.7
Neither Important nor unimportant 3.0 3.9 3.0
Unimportant 1.5 1.5 3.0
Very unimportant -- .5 --
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
Table C8. Importance of Local Issues, by Area
Local Issue At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondentsa
Economic issues
Very important 65.0 65.5 71.3
Important 30.0 29.6 22.8
Neither important nor unimportant 3.0 3.0 4.0
Unimportant 2.0 2.0 2.0
Very unimportant -- -- --
Environmental issues
Very important 45.5 50.7 58.4
Important 42.0 38.4 32.7
Neither important nor unimportant 5.0 5.9 4.0
Unimportant 6.5 4.4 4.0
Very unimportant 1.0 .5 1.0
Social issues
Very important 20.5 32.0 36.6
Important 51.0 43.3 40.6
Neither important nor unimportant 13.5 10.3 7.9
Unimportant 12.5 13.3 12.9
Very unimportant 2.5 1.0 2.0
Quality of life issues
Very important 40.0 44.3 52.5
Important 42.0 34.5 31.7
Neither important nor unimportant 9.0 8.9 6.9
Unimportant 6.5 11.8 6.9
Very unimportant 2.0 .5 2.0
Don’t know .5 -- --
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
46
Table C9. Community Satisfaction, Quality of Life and Quality of the Natural Environment, by Area
At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondentsa
How satisfied are you with life in your community
Very satisfied 40.5 37.9 32.7
Satisfied 47.5 50.2 57.4
Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied 8.0 4.9 3.0
Unsatisfied 3.0 5.9 3.0
Very unsatisfied 1.0 1.0 4.0
How would you rate quality of life in your community
Excellent 34.0 27.1 27.7
Good 48.5 55.2 48.5
Fair 15.0 14.8 20.8
Poor 2.5 3.0 3.0
How would you rate the quality of the
natural environment in and around your community
Excellent 48.0 46.8 41.6
Good 45.5 46.8 50.5
Fair 5.5 4.9 5.9
Poor 1.0 1.5 2.0
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
Table C10. Perceived Impact of the City’s Land Acquisition, by Area
At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondentsa
Will the City’s land acquisition have a
negative, neutral or positive impact upon your communityb
Positive 8.5 5.9 7.9
Neutral 29.0 20.2 36.6
Negative 62.5 73.4 55.4
Don’t know -- .5 --
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
b
Significant differences existed between Hamlet/Village and Not at Risk.
47
Table C11. Land Use Priority, by Area
At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondentsa
Use local land use planning and regulations
to guide community change
High Priority 34.5 41.4 31.7
Medium Priority 41.5 38.9 40.6
Low Priority 14.0 9.9 15.8
Don’t know 10.0 9.9 11.9
Encourage greater planning coordination
with nearby municipalities
High Priority 43.5 50.7 42.6
Medium Priority 38.0 28.6 34.7
Low Priority 13.5 13.8 11.9
Don’t know 5.0 6.9 10.9
Protect open space from development
High Priority 40.5 41.9 42.6
Medium Priority 38.0 35.5 27.7
Low Priority 15.0 15.3 17.8
Don’t know 6.5 7.4 11.9
Maintain the community the way it is
High Priority 36.5 34.5 38.6
Medium Priority 46.0 39.4 40.6
Low Priority 14.0 22.7 17.8
Don’t know 3.5 3.4 3.0
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
48
Table C12. Perceptions of Local Land Use Issues, by Area
Land Use Issues At Risk Hamlet/Village Not at Risk
Percentage of Respondentsa
Local governments should regulate
changes in land use to limit negative impacts
on the community
Strongly agree 27.0 30.0 32.7
Agree 45.5 43.3 38.6
Neither agree nor disagree 9.5 9.9 15.8
Disagree 14.0 11.8 10.9
Strongly disagree 4.0 4.9 2.0
Property owners should have unrestricted right
to use and sell their land as they see fit
Strongly agree 40.0 36.5 32.7
Agree 38.5 37.9 34.7
Neither agree nor disagree 8.0 7.4 9.9
Disagree 8.5 13.3 18.8
Strongly disagree 5.0 4.9 4.0
Communities should be allowed to control
where development occursb
Strongly agree 23.5 26.1 17.8
Agree 46.0 56.2 54.5
Neither agree nor disagree 10.5 7.9 8.9
Disagree 16.0 9.4 15.8
Strongly disagree 4.0 .5 3.0
Non-local organizations should control
local land use decisions
Strongly agree 1.5 3.9 3.0
Agree 6.5 5.4 8.9
Neither agree nor disagree 10.0 6.9 5.9
Disagree 45.0 40.9 41.6
Strongly disagree 37.0 42.9 40.6
a
Some figures might not total 100 because of rounding.
b
Significant differences existed between Hamlet/Village, At Risk, and Not at Risk.
49
Related docs
Other docs by HC1209130958
Canadian Institute of Actuaries L�Institut canadien des actuaires - Get as PowerPoint
Views: 1 | Downloads: 0
