The Quality of Life in Las Vegas

. The Quality of Life ‘in Las Vegas a report to the Las Vegas Valley EMPACT Program . Division of Comprehensive Planning Department of Planning And Development City of Las Vegas, Nevada in conjunction with: -The! Greenspun College of Urban Affairs University of Nevada, Las Vegas October, 1999 The Quality of Life in Las kregas October, 1999 Table of Contents . INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 3 I. T HE S URVEY ........................ .......................................................................................................................... II. OVERALLRESULTS.. ....................................................................................................................................... 5 6 A. B. C. D. Who is more satisfied with Las Vegas Quality of Life? ........................................................................... .8 What is Important for Quality of Life in Las Vegas? .............................................................................. I2 Rating Quality of Life Variables in the Valley ....................................................................................... 15 The Contribution of Variables to Quali& of Life in the Valley.. .................. . ........................................ .17 OF III. ECONOMIC Vs. NON-ECONOMIC FACTORS: THE ISSUE IV. DEMOGRAPHICS AND VOTING WITH YOUR FEET.. ........................... ..20 AND A. Economic Migrants ................................................................................................................................. QUALJTY OF LIFE: GENDER, MARITAL STATUS, INCOME, EDUCATION, 20 AGE...2 5 A. Gender.. .................................................................................................................................................. B. Marital Status ......................................................................................................................................... C. Income .................................................................................................................................................... 25 27 30 V. IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE: WILLINGNESS TO PAY ................................................................................ 47 VI. QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE DECISION OF STAYMG IN LAS VEGAS ............................................................ .49 53 VII. CONCLUSION ... .......................................................................................................................................... ’ D. Education.. .............................................................................................................................. l.............. 34 E. Race and Ethnic@ .................................................................................................................................. 38 F. Age.. ........................................................................................................................................................ 42 Page 1 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 List of Tables TABLE 1: OVERALL QUALITY OF:LIVE IN LAS VEGAS (% OF RESPONDENTS)..............................~ ....................... ...6 TABLE 2: QUALITY OF LIFE M NE.ICHBORHOODS BY OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE............................................... ...6 TABLE 3: RATING OF LAS VEGAS AS A PLACE TO RAISE CHILDREN............................................~ ....................... ...7 TABLET: QL IN LAS VEGAS TOD.AY COMPARED TO PASTAND FUTURE ............................................................. ...7 TABLE 5: QL RANKING BY ORIGIN OF RESIDENTS (% OF RESPONDENTS) ........................................................... ...8 TABLE 6: PERCENTAGEOFRESPC~NDENTSRANKINGLQAS"EXCELLENTORGOOD"BYREASONSTOMIGRATE~~ TABLE 7: RANKING QL BY DIFFERENT FACTOR~.................................................................................................~ 2 TABLE8:RANKINGVARIABLES A.SHEIRIMPORTANCE FOR.QUALITYOFLIFE..................................................~4 T TABLE 9: RAT~G VARIABLE~.................;............................................................................................................~ 6 TABLE~O: TOTALSCOREFORQL,VAR~ABLES ..................................................................................................... 18 TABLE 11: CO-REASONS FO~MICXATION AMONG ECONOMIC MIGRANTS..........................................................~ 1 TABLE 12: SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF LIFE ACROSS MIGRATION STATVS.................................................~ 2 TABLETS: RANKMGANDRATINGVAR~ABLESBYMIGIUTIONSTATIJS .............................................................. 24 TABLETS: SATISFACTIONWITHC!UALI~OFLIFEACROSSG~DER(AVERAGESCORES) ................................... 25 TABLE 15: RANKING AND RATING VARIABLES BY GENDER..........:.........................................~............................~ 6 TABLE 16: SATISFACTIONWITHC?UALI~OFLIFEACROSS~RITALSTATUS(AVERAGE SCORES)....................~ 7 TABLETS: RANKINGVAR~ABLESBYMARITALSTATUS ...................................................... ..-.............................. 28 TABLE 18: RATING VARIABLES BY MARITAL STATUS ....................................................................................... ..2 9 TABLE 19: RANKING ANDRATING VARIABLES ( TOTAL SCORE) BY MARITAL STATLJS.......................................~ 0 TABLE~O: SATISFACTIONWITHQUALITYOFLIFEACROSSINCOMELEVELS' (AvERAGESCORES)....................~ 1 TABLETS: RANKING VARIABLESBY~NCOME' ................................................................................................... .32 TABLE 22: RATING VARIABLES BY INCOME'.......................................................................................................3 3 TABLE 23: RANKING AND RATING VARIABLES ( TOTAL SCORE) By INcoME*.....................................................3 4 TABLETS: SATISFACTIONWITHC!UALI~OFLIFEACROSSEDUCAT~ONLEVELS(AVERAGESCORES)................~ 5 TABLE 25: RANKING VARIABLES BY EDUCATION LEVEL.....................................................................................3 6 TABLE 26: RATING VARIABLES BY EDUCATION LEVEL.. ................................................................................... ..3 7 TABLE 27: RANKING ANDRA~~G VARIABLES ( TOTAL SCORE) BY EDUCATION LEVELS...................................3 8 TABLE 28: SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF LIFE ACROSS RACE.. ................................................................... ..3 9 TABLE 29: RANKING VARIABLES BY RACE.........................................................................................................~ 0 TABLE 30: RATING VARIABLES BY RACE............................................................................................................4 1 TABLE 31: RANKING AND RATING VARIABLES ( TOTAL SCORE) BY RACE..........................................................~ 2 TABLE 32: SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF LIFE ACROSS AGE GROvpS............................................................4 3 TABLE 33: RANKING VARIABLES BY AGE GROW'S ........................................................................................... ..4 4 TABLE 34: RATING VARIABLES BY AGE GRO~~S................................................................................................~ 5 TABLE 35: RANKING AND RATING VARIABLES ( TOTAL SCORE) BY AGE GROU~S..............................................~ 6 TABLE 36: FUNDING FOR DIFFERENT PROJECTs.......................................................................~...........................4 7 TABLE 37: MORE TAXES FOR DIFIFERENT PROJECTS............................................................................................4 8 TABLE 38: SATISFACTION WITH QUALITYOF LIFE BY DECISION OF STAYING IN LAS VEGAS..............................~ 9 TABLE 39: RANKING VARIABLES BY DECISION OF STAYING IN LAS VEGAS...................................................... ..5 0 TABLE~O: RATMGVARIABLESBYDECISIONOFSTAYINGMLASVEGAS ........................................................... 51 TABLETS: RANKMGANDRAT~C~(TOTALSCORE)VAR~AB~ESBYDEC~S~ONOFSTAYMG~LASVEGAS.........~ 2 .. Page 2 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Introduction One major difficulty faced by researchers, public officials, and practitioners interested in the issue of “quality of life” (QL) is what exactly does “quality of life” mean. Although there are many publications that rank U.S. cities according to specific indexes of “quality of life”, city ranks generally differ substantially across publications even when similar variables are used to rank cities. In other words, a “quality of life” ranking of an area depends on which variables are included in the specific index measuring quality of life and how much weight is given to each of those variables. As pointed out by Douglas and Wall (1993, page 229), “a variety of biases can arise w’hen the choice of variables and weights is based on arbitrary and ad hoc methods.” An alternative way to look at “quality of life” is to focus on the relative attractiveness of an area as measured by human :migration. For example, the relative attractiveness of the Las Vegas Valley is confirmed by the large flow of migrants who have chosen this area as their destination in the last several years. This approach assumes that, other things being equal, people move from area A to area B if they expect to enjoy a higher “quality of life” in area B compared to what they had in area A. The “other things being equal”, in general refers to three economic variables (job opportunities, wage levels, and price levels) which have been shown by many studies in the literature to play very important roles in determining migration flows. Thus, one must take Iinto consideration the economic variables associated with other “quality of life” issues to det.ermine the relative attractiveness of an area. The brisk employment growth experienced by the Las Vegas Valley in the last years has served as a strong magnet to migrants. However, the important question to answer here is: beyond economic forces, what are the specific amenities (quality of life issues) that influence residents in their perception (of overall QL in Las Vegas? And, while the majority of residents of Las Vegas considered the overall quality of life in the Valley in 1999 as excellent or good, according with the survey reported here, there are concerns and related issues raised by respondents that deserve attention. There are six main sections to this report, most of them divided into sub sections. It is organized as follows: l l l l l Section I discusses the technical details of the survey. Section II presents the overallresults related to residents’ perceptions of QL in the Las Vegas Valley. Section III focuses on the differences between economic and non-economic factors that influenced respondent’s decisions to migrate to Las Vegas. Section IV summarizes the role demographic characteristics play on ranking and rating QL variables. Section V discusses residents willingness to pay for improving QL. Page 3 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 l 0 Section VI discusses how resident’s perception of QL in Las Vegas determines their willingness to remain in the area in the near fbture. Conclusions are drawn in Section VII. Page 4 . A team of experts was assembled to develop the survey questionnaire, determine the implementation process and compile and analyze the survey results. The telephone survey was conducted during February 1999, using a random-digit-dial methodology to select households. To randomly select an adult within the household, interviewers asked to speak with the person in the household who was at least 18 years old and who has had the most recent birthday. A total of 401 residents completed the survey, yielding a margin of error of + or - 5 percent at the 95 percent level of confidence. In addition, the responses of residents living within or near City of Las Vegas limits (as determined by zip code) were examined separately. Additional surveys were conducted with city residents to bring the total number~of city residents to 336 for secondary data analyses. The results for Cityof Las Vegas and Las Vegas Valley were similar, and therefore the Las Vegas Valley results are analyzed and contained in this report. -. . . - Page 5 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 II. Overall Results The majority of residents (63.4 percent) are relatively satisfied with the overall QL in the Las Vegas Valley today (See Table 1). Close to 14 percent of the survey respondents ranked the area overall QL as excellent compared to only one percent who see the QL as very bad. Additionally, virtually half of the respondents perceived QL here as good, ten times more than those ranking it as bad. Close to one-third of the respondents characterized the QL as fair. In other words, less than 6 percent of the residents, a clear minority, ranked LV overall quality of life as bad or very bad. Table 1: Overall Quality of Live in Las Vegas (% of Respondents) IT/q - It is important to note that people have a higher perception of QL in their own neighborhoods than in the city as a whole. For example, the percentage of the respondents ranking the QL in their neighborhoods as excellent was more than two times higher than those who chose excellent for the city as a whole. Table 2 shows that one-third of those who characterized the Las Vegas Valley quality of life as “good” perceived QL in their neighborhood as “excellent.” On the other hand, a few (3 percent) of those who ranked Las Vegas Valley quality of life as good were not satisfied with the QL of their neighborhood, ranking it as bad. Overall, however, more than two-thirds of respondents ranked the QL of their neighborhoods as excellent or good, 13 percent more than those who chose the same characterization for the Valley as a whole. Table 2: Quality of Life in Neighborhoods by Overall Quality of Life QL in Neighborhood Excellent Good Fair Bad Very Bad Total Columns Excellent 61.3% 34.7% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Good 32.9% 50.4% 13.2% 3.2% 0.4% 100.0% Overall QL Fair 17.9% 45.7% 32;4% 3.5% 0.6% 100.0% Bad 7.7% 38.5% 26.9% 15.4% 11.5% 100.0% Very Bad Total Row 0.0% 30.4% 16.7% 45.9% 66.7% 19.0%, 0.0% 3.4% 16.7% 1.2% 100.0% 100.0% Las Vegas residents, despite the fact that they are satisfied with the quality of life in the Valley in general and in their neighborhoods in particular, do maintain some doubts about QL that deserve to be mentioned. For example, less than 40 percent of the respondents Page 6 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 ranked the LV Valley as an excellent or good place to raise children compared to 63 percent who ranked the Valley as having an excellent or good overall quality of life (See Table 3). Moreover, close to one-quarter of the respondents characterized the Valley as a very bad or bad place to raise children, substantially higher than the less than 6 percent who perceived quality of life in the area as bad or very bad. Table 3: Rating of Las Vegas as a Place to Raise Children Excellent Good Fair Bad Verv bad 6.6 32.4 35.5 16.9 8.5 The Las Vegas Valley has experienced strong population growth for a,long period of time. More than twice as many believe QL is much better today than those who feel it’s much worse, although it was almost a tie between those who perceived improvement and those who reported a worsening in quality of life in the Valley compared to three years ago. Table 4 also shows that there is a less optimistic view of the future as well, with close to 40 percent of respondents forecasting a deterioration in the quality of life in the Valley five years from now compared to 34 percent who forecast improvements. liable 4: QL in Las Vegas Today Compared to Past and Future Today compared to ‘Three Years ago 10.4 19.2 42.0 24.6 3.8 In Five Years compared to today 10.5 23.4 27.6 27.9 10.5 Much better Somewhat better Generally the same Somewhat worse Much worse In summary, Las Vegas residents are generally satisfied with the overall quality of life of the area and even more so with the quality of life of their neighborhoods. However, they are still less satisfied with the area as a place to raise children and their perception ofcurrent quality of life compares unfavorably to their predictions for the near future. It is important to note, as will be discussed later, that although citizens are slightly pessimistic about future QL, they’ also intend to stay in Las Vegas. Over 75 percent believe they will definitely be in the Las Vegas Valley in three years, 18 percent said probably yes and less than 6% plan to leave in the next three years. Page 7 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 A. Who is more satisfied with Las Vegas Quality of Life? Las Vegas residents are in general satisfied with the overall quality of life in the Valley as discussed above. However, the perception of quality of life in Las Vegas differs across specific demographic groups., For example, rankings of QL differ between those born in LV and those who moved here as adults; and also between people who were attracted to the area by its climate and those who did not take climate -into consideration in their decision to move here. One can also find diffe:rent perceptions related to quality of life in the area between people who plan to stay in Las Vegas for the next three years and those who expect to move away in the near future. In this section, we look at some of these groups and their ranking of QL in the valley. 1. Some General Groups Those born in Las Vegas are more likely to report quality of life in the Valley as excellent or good (74.3 percent) than those who moved here as a child (62.3 percent) or as an adult (62.7 percent). (See Table 5.) Similarly, migrants who moved from a city of the same size as Las Vegas are generally more satisfied with QL here (70.2 percent) than those who came from either a smaller (61 percent) or a larger (64.2 percent) town. Additionally, none among those coming from a similar-size town reported QL here as bad or very bad, compared to around 5.5 percent of those coming from smaller or larger towns. Table 5: QL Ranking by Origin of Residents (% of respondents) Excellent Born in Las Vegas 20.0 Moved as a Child 7.5 Migrant 14.3 From a smaller city 11.9 From a similar size city 21.6 From a larger city 15.6 Good .54.3 54.8 48.4 49.1 48.6 48.6 Fair 20.0 31.2 31.8 33.5 29.7 30.1 Bad 5.7 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.6 Very bad 2.2 0.9 0.9 1.2 2. Amenities and Other Attraction Factors The reason for moving to Las Vegas also plays an ,important role in whether people are more or less satisfied with QL in th.e Valley. Table 6 shows the percentage of respondents ranking QL in Las Vegas as “excellent “ or “good” for those who reported specific reasons in their decision to migrate to the area as “very important” or “not important at all.” Among all reasons, “climate” seems to be the one that influenced the most migrants’ perceptions of quality of life in the Valley. Close to three-quarters of those who reported “climate” as very important in their decision to move to Las Vegas perceived QL here as “excellent or good.” Page 8 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 In contrast, less than 45 percent of those for whom climate was not important at all in their migration decision ranked QL here as “excellent or good.” In other words, those who moved here strongly motivated by the climate were not disappointed and remained quite satisfied with life in the Valley as climate did not change dramatically in the short run. As expected, most of those who were attracted to the area by its “life style,” perceived QL here as “excellent or good” (71.3 percent). In contrast, slightly less than 45 percent of those for whom quality of life did not play any role at all in their decision for coming to Las Vegas ranked QL in the Valley as “excellent or good.” Similarly, migrants attracted by the “overall quality of life” of Las Vegas remained satisfied with QL today as 73.7 percent of them continued to rank QL here as “excellent or good.” Among those who reported “retirement” as a “very important” or “important” factor in their decision to move to Las Vegas, close to 80 percent ranked QL in the Valley as “excellent or good”, while only 55 percent of those who said that retirement did not affect at all their decision to move here perceived QL here in the same way. These results are consistent with many studies in the literature of migration, as retirees, in general, do not move dueto job opportunities and wage levels, but are attracted to areas they expect will provide them with a higher quality of life overall. Despite the old images of Las Vegas as a “casino-town,” the area surrounding the city, with its mountains, lakes, and desert landscape, is perceived by many as an important attraction in both visiting and moving here. To be sure, among those who reported “outdoor recreational opportunities” as a reason in their migration decision, almost 70 percent ranked QL in the Valley as “excellent or good.“’ In contrast, only half among those who did not take “outdoor recreational opportunities” as an important factor in moving to Las Vegas ranked QL in the valley as “excellent or good.“’ “Arts and culture” did not pla,y a major role in attracting people to Las Vegas, with only 7.2 percent of respondents reporting it as very important in their decision to move here. On the other hand, close to 40 percent said that arts and culture was not at all important in their migration decision. Maybe, because of the small number of those attracted to the area for its art and cultural amenities, there are no major differences in ranking QL in the Valley between them and other migrants. Close to 65 percent of those attracted to Las Vegas by arts and culture ranked QL as “excellent or good” compared to 57.4 percent among those for whom arts and culture did not matter. ’ _ ,. 3. Economic Factors Economic variables play important roles in migration decisions in general. People moving to Las Vegas are not exceptions, although, as shown previously, many other non-economic variables (amenities) influenced migrants moving here. Among the economic variables, job opportunities is one of the most, if not the most, important. (See Table 6.) The issue of Page 9 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 economic migration will be discussed at length later. However, it is important to note how respondents who placed differing levels of significance on economic variables in their migration decision rank QL in the valley. For example, is it true that for some migrants, there is a trade off between job opportunities and other amenities? If this is true, one should expect a smaller percentage of those who reported job opportunities as “very important” in their decision to move to Las Vegas to rank QL here as “excellent or good” than among those for whom job opportunities were not important at all. The survey results contkm that, but only marginally, as 60.0 percent of those reporting job opportunities as important ranked QL as “excellent or good.” This number was not that different fi-om the 68.2 percent ranking QL also as “excellent or good” among those for whom job opportunities did not matter. (See Table 6.) Table 6: Percentage of Respondents Ranking LQ as “Excellent or Good” by Rqasons to Migrate ’ Reason to migrate as Climate Life Style Quality of Life Retirement Outdoor Recreation Cost of Living Housing Cost Arts and Culture Level of Wages Be Near Family Job Opportunities Very Important 74.4 71.3 73.7 78.5 Not at all Important 44.2 44.6 Difference 30.2 26.7 24.5 23.2 20.4 18.5 12.1 7.1 -2.6 -4.0 -8.2 49.2 55.3 69.5 70.5 68.5 49.1 52.0 56.4 57.4 63.2 65.6 68.2 64.5 60.6 61.6 60.0 ., There is almost no difference in ranking QL as “excellent or good” between people who considered wage levels as a very important factor in moving to Las Vegas (60.6 percent) and those who did not (63.2 percent). Larger differences arise, however, between those who put a high weight on cost of living and housing costs when deciding to move here. More than 70 percent of those reporting cost of living as a very important migration variable, ranked QL as “excellent or good.” Of those for whom cost of living played no role at all in their moving decision, only 52 percent ranked QL as “excellent or good.” Similarly, the presence of housing costs as a migration variable appears to have an impact on QL rankings in Las Vegas. Among those who considered housing costs as very important, close to 69 percent ranked QL as “excellent or good” against 56 percent among those who did not. Page 10 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 4. Other Important Differences in Ranking Quality of Life in Las Vegas There are other groups for w’hich QL in Las Vegas is perceived quite differently. For example, it is clear that the perception of QL in Las Vegas compared to the city of origin of migrants has an important impact on whether people rank QL here as “excellent or good.” As expected, the majority (85.3 percent) of those for whom quality of life in Las Vegas compared favorably to their city of origin ranked QL in the Valley as “excellent or good.” In contrast, among those who perceived QL here as much worse than in their city of origin only 14.3 percent ranked QL in Las Vegas as “good” (none ranked it as “excellent”). The “quality of life in the neighborhood” shapes a resident’s perception of quality of life in the Valley as a whole. More than 80 percent of respondents who ranked QL in their neighborhoods as excellent, also ranked QL in the valley as “excellent or good.” On the other side of the spectrum, less than 17 percent of people who characterized the QL in their neighborhoods as “very bad” ranked the QL in the entire valley as “excellent or good.” Thus, it is clear that the more satisfied people are with life in their neck of the woods, the more positively they see the entire region or community. Another important factor for ranking QL as “excellent or good” is the perception people have of Las Vegas as a good “place to raise children”. Close to 86 percent of the people who think that Las Vegas isan excellent place to raise children also rank the QL in the area as “excellent or good.” In contrast, only 36 percent of those who characterized Las Vegas as a “very bad” place to raise children ranked QL here as “excellent or good.” However, of the respondents who ranked QL as “excellent or good” when they characterized Las Vegas as a “very bad” place to raise children, only one-third reported at least one person younger than 18 years old living in the household. Respondents differ in their ranking of QL in the Valley according to their reading of how current quality of life “compares to three years ago.” Three-quarters of the respondents who perceive QL today as much better than what it was three years ago, ranked QL in Las Vegas as “excellent or good.” On the other hand, only one third of those who believe that QL has deteriorated to a level much worse today than three years ago ranked QL in the valley as “excellent or good.” Similarly, 80 percent of the residents who forecast a “much better” “quality of life in five years,“’ perceive QL today as “excellent or good.” In contrast, less than 40 percent of those who are pessimistic .about the evolution of QL here (i.e., expect a much worse QL in five years) rank QL today as “excellent or good.” Page 11 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 7: Ranking QL by Different Factors Variable QL in the city of origin Much better Somewhat better Somewhat worse Much worse QL in neighborhood Excellent Good Bad Very bad Place to raise children Excellent Very bad QL compared to 3 years ago Much better Much worse QL in 5 years Much better Much worse Overall QL as “excellent or good” 85.3 73.6 27.5 14.3 80.7 65.0 47.4 16.7 85-.7 36.3 75.0 31.6 79.3 38.6 . B. What is Important for Quality of Life in Las Vegas? There are some variables that Las Vegas residents rank as more important than others for quality of living in the Valley. Table 8 reports how respondents ranked 22 variables in their importance for quality of life, with the first five columns showing the percent of respondents choosing each rank. The last column reflects a weighted average of rankings, with decreasing values assigned for each ranking. A score of 10 was assigned to “very important,” 5 to “important,” 0 (zero) to “fair,” -5 to “not important,” and -10 to “not important at all.” Thus, for any variable, a maximum ranking of 10 results if all respondents chose “very important” and a minimum ranking of -10 means that all respondents would-have chosen “not important at all.” Additionally, any positive score for a specific variable means that some importance is associated with that variable, while any negative score suggests that such variable is not perceived as important to quality of life in general. For the 22 variables . together, the average rank was’6.86, but individual ranks varied from as high as 9.30 for “safe neighborhoods” to as low as 1.96 .for “shopping opportunities.” None of the variables . received a negative average score, meaning that all variables were perceived as having some degree of importance for quality of life in general. It is clear that Las Vegas residents perceive quality of life as strongly related to safety issues. Safe neighborhoods (9.30), fire protection (9.03), police force (WO), and crime rates (8.73) Page 12 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 were four out of the five variables perceived by residents as the most important as far as quality of life is concerned. The non-security related exception among the top five variables was “schools,” which ranked third with a score of 8.88. Two other variables related to education and children in general scored above average. The importance of libraries received a 7.49 score, slightly above the score received by “places for children activities.” On the opposite side of the age spectrum, “programs and facilities for senior citizens” also scored above average, although som.ewhat below the score given to activities and facilities associated with children. Two other areas, health care ,and recreational areas, received above-average scores from residents as important factors in determining quality of life in general. Quality and cost of health care are considered very important for Valley residents, with quality (8.3 1) scoring higher than cost (7.84). Closing out the variables which received above-average scores, water (7.25) and air (7.01) quality as well as protection of the environment (6.98) seemed to play an important role in determining quality of life, although less important than safety or ‘security, issues related to children, and health care. Additionally, traffic congestion (6.78) scores very close to average (6.86), consistent with a similar score given to air quality which in the Las Vegas Valley is strongly associated with carbon monoxide released by automobiles driven by residents and visitors. Seven variables received below average scores. It is somewhat of a surprise to find “climate” among them since this variable is reported in Section II-A2 above as one that most strongly influenced people’s perception of QL in Las Vegas. It is true that when residents list “climate” as very important in their decision to migrate to the area, they are also likely to rank QL as “excellent or good.” However, climate was very important in the migration decision of less than 40 percent of respondents. Additionally, less than 50 percent of respondents considered “climate” as very important for the overall QL compared, for example, to almost 90 percent for whom “safe neighborhoods” was very important. In other words, those for whom climate was important in their migration decision, the variable remains very important in their perception of QL in general, and they are, on average, very satisfied with QL in the area. Page 13 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 8: Ranking Variables as Their Importance for Quality of Life Variable - Very :mportanl 7.9 13.9 9.2 11.9 12.9 15.6 25.8 17.0 24.0 24.7 18 25.4 25.4 20.2 18.7 29.3 31.9 28.3 21.6 23.3 28.3 18.1 Fair 2.3 1.8 2.2 4.1 3.4 5.5 6.6 7.4 10.0 8.0 11.4 12.4 10.8 11.7 11.2 17.4 16.1 21.5 18.0 19.5 23.8 27.2 . Important Safe neighborhoods 89.4 Fire protection 83.8 Schools 86.2 Police force 82.9 Crime rates 82.2 Quality of health care 76.7 Parks and recreational 66.3 areas Cost of health care 72.3 Libraries 64.0 Places for children 64.3 activities Water quality 66.5 Air quality 59.4 Programs/facilities for 60.1 senior citizens Protection of the 63.1 environment Traffic congestion 63.6 Climate 45.7 Cultural events 42.6 Museums 42.5 Population growth 48.1 Public transportation 45.3 Shopping opportunities 39.1 Entertainment 29.4 opportunities Average - Not Not at all Important Important 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.7 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.9 0.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.8 2.1 3.2 2.7 3.5 5.4 5.0 5.6 5.3 5.9 12.6 1.6 0.2 1.1 2.0 , 1.1 1.7 1.8 3.8 4.2 4.0 2.8 6.7 6.6 2.9 12.6 Score 9.30 9.03 8.88 8.80 8.73 8.31 7.84 7.84 7.49 7.46 7.25 7.01 7.01 6.98 6.78 5.44 5.19 5.14 4.94 4.77 4.74 1.96 6.86 Cultural events and museums received scores that, although below average, are still above 5, suggesting that these variables remain, on average, important factors in determining quality of life for LV residents. However, they ptay a less important role than many other issues such as safety and children-related activity and programs. Similarly, population growth, public. transportation, and shopping opportunities, all received positive scores, although below 5, indicating that these variables are important but to a lesser degree than the ones discussed above. Finally; entertainment opportunities received the lowest score among all variables. One could argue that LV residents take “entertainment opportunities” for granted, thus, attaching a lower importance to this variable as a determining factor to quality of life. The survey respondents perceived all variables included in the study as having some degree of relevance (a positive score) to quality of life in general. However, the relative ranking Page 14 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 varied substantially across variables. Additionally, it is important to note that the rank (score) a variable receives is only one part of its contribution to the general perception of quality of life in the valley. The second and maybe the most important aspect of assessing which variables contribute more to the public’s perception of QL is the rating respondents give to them as their current conditions in the valley. In other words, the average grade (rating) a variable receives (from excellent to very bad) reflects how survey respondents perceive the current state of that variable in the valley. The next section discusses the average rating received by the variables discussed above. C. Rating Quality of Life Variables in the Valley There is a substantial difference between ranking and rating scores received by most .QL variables. First of all, the average rating score (1.57) pales compared to the much higher ranking score (6.86), suggesting that survey respondents consider the variables in this study important for QL but are not very satisfied with the current conditions ‘of many variables in the Valley. It is important to note once more that a score between 7.5 and 10 means that the current conditions for a specific variable are, on average, perceived as excellent. A score between 5 and 7.5 indicates that respondents are satisfied with the current conditions for that variable and rate it above “good.” A positive score below 5 suggests that residents consider the current state for that variable as acceptable, but also indicates that there is plenty of room for improvement. Negative scores raise a “red flag” concerning the state of specific factors (variables). The larger the negative score, the more dissatisfied respondents are likely to be. The survey results show that there is a wide variation across variables. For example, residents are quite satisfied with the overall quality of “entertainment opportunities” in Las Vegas compared to the current situation of traffic in the valley. Of the 22 variables included in the survey, 8 received negative scores and 14 posted positive grades. It is not surprising that “entertainment opportunities” received the highest rating score among all variables, as Las Vegas is internationally known as the “Entertainment Capital of the World.” It is also not surprising that “shopping opportunities” received the third highest score since the area experienced a large inflow of national-chain stores when -.the population reached and passed the one million mark a few years ago. . . . The other two variables receiving rating scores above 5, “fire protection” and “libraries” are less obvious. Survey respondents perceived “fire protection” as in good shape, giving the variable the second highest score, a solid 6.38. Similarly, libraries are .seen as in good condition, receiving a 5.24 score. A more detailed description of which demographic groups rated these two variables high among all variables will be discussed later in this report. Las Vegas climate remains a positive influence for the quality of life in the Valley, according to survey respondents, and consistent with most of the literature on QL, which suggests that Page 15 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 the number of sun-shining days is highly correlated with better quality of life. Additionally, the results show that respondents are relatively satisfied with the current state of parks and recreation, as well as recreational areas such as “Red Rock” and “Lake Mead;” as well as with programs and facilities designed for senior citizens. “Cultural events” closes the block of variables rating above 2.5, the mid-point between the ratings of “fair” and “good,” suggesting that respondents remain somewhat satisfied with the current situation of cultural events in Las Vegas, but with room for improvement. Table 9: dating Variables Variable Entertainment opportuuities Fire protection Shopping opportunities Libraries Climate Parks and recreational areas Programs/facilities for senior citizens Cultural events Police force Public transportation Quality of health can: Safe neighborhoods Schools Places for children activities Protection of the environment Museums Population growth Cost of health care Crime rates Air quality Water quality Traffic congestion Average Score I Excellent Good 63.7 45.4 46.3 . 37.6 30.3 22.8 18.6 Fair 12.4 13.1 Bad 2.6 1.2 Very Score Bad 2.6 6.91 0.8 39.6 36.9 36.7 34.5 13.9 19.8 27.7 26.8 33.6 1.6 4.8 3.9 7.5 8.5 1.3 1.2 3.5 4 3.4 20.7 21.3 19.4 16.5 19.1 14.6 17.3 19 9.5 11.6 18.2 11.9 7.4 5 7.7 5.2 38.9 33.9 32.1 32.3 32.6 25.4 22.4 22.2 27.9 32 30.7 33.5 13.3 11.3 11.2 11.4 12.7 16.5 20.8 18.8 24.4 20 21.1 21.7 23.5 22.6 24.3 5.4 5 6.38 6.27 5.24 4.21 3.45 3.00 2.53 9.1 10.7 4.3 2.49 1.81 1.54 1.52 -0.02 -0.80 -1.23 -1.51 -1.72 -1.83 -4.78 45.9 35.4 32.8 38.2 21.7 18.6 16.9 12.1 15.2 13 12.7 14 9.1 8.8 11.4 15.8 24.3 21.2 18.1 16.8 21.7 43.8 1.08 0.91 31.3 25.5 30.6 -1.01 39.7 41.9 34.1 20.8 5.9 I I I -.I 1 1.57 ., The next block of variables exhibit positive scores, but all below the mid-point between “fair” and “good,” thus, closer to a “fair” score than to a “good” score. The distinction is. important since three of those. variables were ranked by respondents among the top five most important variables for QL in general. Police force average rating was virtually at the 2.5 mid-point, while “safe neighborhoods received a low 1.52 score, and “schools” was barely above 1 .O. Additionally, “quality of health care,” another high ranked variable, also received a low score, and “places for children activities,” which ranked 10’ in order of importance for QL, scored below 1, barely making a “fair” grade. Page 16 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Survey respondents perceived the current conditions of variables related to population growth and the environment as below acceptable levels. With the exception of “museums” and “cost of health care,” all other variables showing a negative grade are related to growth and the environment in general. It is not surprising that residents perceive population growth in the valley as detrimental to overall QL given the fast population growth experienced by the area in the last years. Fast population growth is generally associated with increasing traffic congestion, higher crime rates, and deterioration of public services such as water quality. Additionally, population growth in LV is highly correlated to an increased flow of tourists resulting in more cars driving in the area and lower air quality. In other words, economic growth provides the opportunity and incentives for people to move to Las Vegas. However, as soon as they become residents, they perceive that growth is also associated with some social costs and rate the current conditions of variables affected by growth as “bad,” a classic “not in my backyard” type of result. D. The Contribution of Variables to Quality of Life in the Valley This section discusses the total contribution of different variables to the overall quality of life in the Valley using a combined score which takes into consideration the ranking (how important the variable is for overall QL) and the rating (how respondents perceive the current conditions of the variable) received by each variable included in this study. Note that all variables received a positive ranking score. To be sure, if a variable receives a negative ranking score, it means that respondents consider that variable as not important to the overall QL and, consequently, should not be included in the analysis. The total score for each variable shown in Table 10 is the result of the multiplication of the ranking and rating scores, thus, potentially ranging from -100 to +lOO. As explained before, only variables experiencing positive ranks should be included in the QL analysis since variables exhibiting negative scores are those considered non-important by the survey respondents. In the case of this report, all variables received a positive ranking-score, thus, at different levels, all were considered important for the QL issue. That said, positive or negative 100 scores have the same maximum rank of 10, but opposite rate of current conditions, a 10 meaning an “excellent” condition or a -10 suggesting a “very bad” current condition.- It is also important to note that two variables can show the same total score but, at the same time, experience opposite rank and rate scores. For example, “safe neighborhoods” and “entertainment opportunities” received virtually the same total score (around 14). However, “safe neighborhoods” experiences a ranking score of 9.3’ and a rating score of 1 S, while “entertainment opportunities” shows a ranking score of 2 and a rating score of close to 7. The question is how should one interpret these results. One important interpretation is that both variables have a similar contribution to the overall QL of the area. However, if a policy maker wants to invest in improving QL, there is no doubt that the most effective way is investing in “safe neighborhoods” since this variable is regarded as very important by residents and shows a low current rating score. Any one-point increase in the rating of “safe Page 17 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 neighborhoods” increases its total score by 9.3. On the other hand, residents consider “entertainment opportunities” as not very important for QL and its current status is perceived as very good. Investing to improve the current rating of that variable will have little impact on the total score. Additionally, the investment required to increase a current rating from 7 to 8 is likely to be proportionally higher than to increase it from 1.5 to 2.5. Table 10: Total Score f&r QL Variables Variable Fire protection Libraries Shopping opportunities Parks and recreational areas Climate Police force Programs/facilities for senior citizens Safe neighborhoods Entertainment opportunities Cultural events Quality of health care Schools Public transportation . Places for children activities Protection of the environment Museums Population growth Cost of health care Air quality Crime rates Water quality Traffic congestion Average Ranking 9.03 7.49 4.74 7.84 5.44 8.80 Rating 6.38 5.24 6.27 3.45 4.21 Total 57.58 39.21 29.70 27.03 - 2.49 3.00 22.90 21.90 21.02 7.01 9.30 1.96 5.19 8.31 8.88 4.77 7.46 1.52 6.91 2.53 14.08 13.51 13.12 1.54 1.08 1.81 12.80 9.59 8.63 0.91 -0.02 -0.80 6.79 -0.14 -4.08 6.98 5.14 4.94 7.84 -1.01 -1.23 -4.96 -9.60 -12.06 -13.13 -13.26 -32.41 7.01 8.73 7.25 6.78 6.86 -1.72 -1.51 -1.83 -4.78 1.57 9.46 Taking into consideration the discussion above, Table 10 shows that contributions by each variable to QL in Las Vegas differ substantially, with total scores ranging from as high as 57.6 for “fire protection” to a negative 32.4 for “traffic congestion.” Among the seven variables with the highest total scores (all above 20), police force, parks and recreational areas, and libraries have the highest potential to increase the QL in Las Vegas since each received a high ranking score. Qn the other hand, higher rating for climate and shopping. opportunities would have a lower total impact in QL. These results suggest that the variables with the highest potential impacts on QL are those that could be improved upon by public and private efforts, since “climate” is not possible to change in the short-run with local policies and “shopping opportunities” depend heavily on market conditions. Page 18 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 The next block of variables received total scores ranging from 6.8 to 14, with most of them showing a high ranking score but a low rating score. The main exception is “entertainment opportunities” as already discussed above. Of the other variables, “safe neighborhoods, quality of health care, schools, and places for children activities,” all received ranking scores above 7, but scored substantially lower in terms of current ratings, with “places for children activities” receiving a rating score below 1. To stress the importance of low ratings, one could compare the total score of 39.2 received by “libraries” to the total score of 6.8 received by “places for children activities.” Both variables are perceived by survey respondents as equally important for QL in general, with ranking scores around 7.5. The big difference here is that libraries are also regarded as in good shape, well above the current conditions for “places for children activities.” Eight variables received negative total scores as a result of their negative ranking scores. As discussed before, variables related to population growth and the environment in general are thti ones that respondents perceived in worse shape in Las Vegas, resulting in a negative ‘impact for the QL in the area. Among those variables, “traffic congestion” is the m&t detrimental to QL in the valley, followed by water and air quality, and crime rates. Some of these eight variables are natural targets for policy action as they are considered very important for QL in general (ranking scores close or above 7) and they rate poorly by survey respondents. Page 19 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 III.Economic Vs. Non-Economic Factors: The Issue of Voting with Your Feet. A recent article by Wall (1999) criticizes the use of quality of life indexes (livability) to rank places to live in the US. Alternatively, he suggests the use of migration data as the initial step to measure the relative attractiveness of an area. He uses migration data from 1990 to 1997 for 59 U.S. metropolitan areas with populations above 1 million in 1997, and ranks the Las Vegas metropolitan area as the most desirable area to live in the U.S. as measured by “rational” migrants, who vote with their feet. However, Wall’s methodology does not separate economic (job opportunities, wage and price levels) from non-economic (amenities) variables as migrants make their choices for a specific area. Most other studies in this area similarly focus on migration patterns for the so-called economic migrants, who move from one place to another motivated mainly by job opportunities and wage levels. However, economic migrants also take into consideration the amenities an area has to offer. (See Green et al on compensation differentials due to amenities.) In other words, people associate a real value to amenities (quality of living) and would be willing to accept a lower real income (wage and prices combined) if compensated by a higher quality of life. The recent large migration flows to Las Vegas have been strongly influenced by very healthy economic conditions; i.e., job opportunities, high wage levels relative to the rest of the country for the same level of skills, and favorable price levels. From 1990 to 1998, employment in the LV metropolitan area grew by 62 percent, 3 times faster than the rest of the nation. How important were these economic variables in attracting migrants to the Las Vegas Area? How important were other non-economic variables (amenities) as magnets for migrants? Can some variables (economic and non-economic) be associated with certain types of migrants? These are a few of the questions addressed in this section. A. Economic Migrants The majonry of Las Vegas restdents are mtgrants who moved to the area as adults. According to the survey, 6.2 percent of respondents were born in Las Vegas and 16.5 percent moved to the city as a child. Thus, 77 percent of those interviewed made a decision, as adults, to move to Las Vegas. Table 11 shows that, among many considerations, economtc factors have played an important role in the decision of a large number of respondents to move to Las Vegas. Of those who moved to LV as adults, slightly more than 50 percent reported “job opportunities” as very important in their migration decision. In contrast, 26 percent said that job opportunities were not at all important when making the decision to come to Las Vegas. Among economic migrants (those who reported job opportunities as very important), other economic variables were also reported as being “very important” or “important.” For Page 20 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 example, 62 percent considered the overall level of wages as very important or important, 45 percent reported housing costs as very important or important, and 48 percent said that cost of living was also very important or important in their decision to migrate to Las Vegas. Translating into a score, it is clear that, for economic migrants, the second most important reason to move to Las Vegas was wage levels (3.7) followed by overall quality of life (3.2). It is also important to note that the scores given to the economic variables by those respondents for whom “job opportunities” were not a factor at all in their migration decision (non-economic migrants) were well below the scores calculated for economic migrants. For example, “level of wages” received a negative 9.2 score by non-economic migrants. Similarly, scores by economic migrants were positive for “cost of living” (1.5) and “housing costs” (1.4), while both variables registered a -1.4 score for non-economic migrants Non-economic variables have also played a role in the decision of economic migrants to move to Las Vegas. However, the scores given to economic variables are well above those assigned to non-economic factors. In other words, economic migrants are more likely to give a higher weight to other economic variables in their migration decision than the noneconomic migrant, as shown in Table 11 Table 11: Co-Reasons for Migration Among Economic Migrants I mpoitan t 40.6 28.0 34.0 19.9 34.6 7.8 30.0 37.0 17.0 16.7 21.7 20.1 “T I mportan t Fair 21.2 25.2 25.1 21.3 22.6 26.7 21.2 17.1 13.3 Not nportan 4.1 7.9 7.0 14.4 3.7 18.9 9.2 7.4 6.9 7.9 Vat at all '12.4 18.7 22.3 25.9 13.8 35.5 23.5 21.8 56.9 57.4 Score 3.7 1.5 1.4 -0.4 3.2 -3.2 MirrorScores* -9.2 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 2.3 -3.7 11.6 18.5 25.3 11.1 16.1 16.7 6.0 6.9 1.0 2.0 -4.0 -4.1 1.0 2.9 -2.4 -0.5 11.1 * Score for those who said that job opportunities were not important at all in their migration decision Economic migrants appear to be only slightly less satisfied with overall QL in the Valley than non-economic migrants. That is not surprising given that economic migrants are, at least theoretically, willing to accept a lower level of amenities (quality of life) for a job (higher probability of getting and maintaining a job) and/or a higher wage level. Similarly, non-economic migrants also appear to be more satisfied with QL in neighborhoods than economic migrants, and they also perceive LV as better place to raise children than economic Page 21 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 migrants do. Both types of migrants, however, have virtually the same average view of QL in LV today compared to the recent past and to the near future. Table 12: Satisfaction with Quality of Life Across Migration Status Overall QL QL in neighborhood LV as a place to raise children QL in LV compared to former city QL in LV today compared to 3 years ago QL in LV in 5 years compared to now Non-Economic Migrant 3.80 4.19 3.21 3.54 3.10 2.97 Economic Migrant 3.66 4.00 3.09 3.65 3.07 3.00 Overall, there are not many differences between economic and non-economic migrant (ranking, rating, and total) scores of QL variables. As will be discussed below, other characteristics such as gender, income, and education levels are more determinant of how respondents score different variables. In other words, people move to Las Vegas for specific reasons and they differ substantially across groups (economic and non-economic migrants). However, as they become residents, their views on QL are influenced more strongly by other characteristics. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, given those characteristics, policy makers must pay attention to how people perceive different QL variables if they want to attract an increasingly skilled, diverse, and well-trained labor force. Economic migrants, on average, ranked variables slightly higher than non-economic migrants as their importance to QL in general. It is also true that both groups have similar perceptions of the relative levels of importance of variables. For example, both groups ranked “safe neighborhoods, fire protection, and police force” very high, while giving low ranking scores to “shopping and entertainment opportunities.” For some variables such as “cost of health care, libraries, public transportation, and shopping opportunities,” the rank given by both groups are virtually the same. However, there are somewhat larger differences between the two groups on their ranking of some specific variables. For example, economic migrants ranking of “population growth” is 40 percent higher than the ranking score given by noneconomic migrants. Similarly, “schools, protection of the environment, museums, and air quality” received a relatively higher rank from economic migrants compared.to rankings received from non-economic migrants. In contrast, non-economic migrants give a much higher score to “entertainment opportunities” than do economic migrants. Some of the similarities between the two groups are based on the fact that differences in ranking for tht: same variable are more of a function to other characteristics such as income or education level than to migration status as will be discussed below. Similarly, ranking scores are not substantially different between economic and non-economic migrants. Both groups perceive the current state of different variables basically in the same order, with “entertainment and shopping opportunities, fire protection, and libraries” receiving the highest scores, while “traffic congestion” shows the worst rating score. Despite Page 22 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 the similarities, there are some differences worth mentioning. For example, although both groups give a negative score to “population growth,” economic migrants appear to be less affected by the negative impacts of such growth than do non-economic migrants. On the other hand, economic migrants give a much lower rating score to “museums and public transportation” than non-economic migrants do. The similarities of both ranking and rating scores between the two groups are, as mentioned before, due to the composition of these two groups in terms of other variables such as income and education levels. Small and specific differences for both ranking and rating scores result in less than dramatic differences in total scores across migration groups. Overall, QL variables appear to impact economic and non-economic migrants in similar ways, with some important specific differences. Economic migrants are less disturbed by population growth than non-economic migrants, and perceive protection of the environment as slightly positive in comparison to a slightly negative view of non-economic migrants. In contrast, public transportation plays a smaller part for the well-being of economic migrants than for non-economic migrants, and the lack of social spaces such as “museums” has a more negative effect on QL of economic migrants compared to non-economic migrants. It is important to stress once more, that some differences are larger across other characteristics of residents as will be discussed in the next section. Page 23 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 13: Ranking and Rating Variables by Migration Status EC, onomic MIigrant Variable t-g Rating R ankin Total Air quality 7.26 -1.71 -12.37 Watdr quality -1.72 -12.99 7.55 7.64 3.28 0.43 Protection of the enwonmenr Climate 25.29 4.29 5.90 -0.39 -2.07 5.30 Population growth 6.74 -33.53 Traffic congestion -4.98 1.74 8.74 5.03 Public transportation 8.56 1.68 14.33 Quality of health care -1.23 -9.70 7.92 Cost of health care 9.44 1.24 11.65 Schools 5.57 43.72 Libraries 7.85 2.87 16.19 5.64 Cultural events MUSclUIls 5.75 -0.87 -4.97 1.65 13.12 Places for children activities 7.98 3.12 23.66 Programs/facilities for senior citizen s 7.60 .13.57 Crime rates -1.53 8.90 9.69 1.58 15.25 Safe neighborhoods Police force 2.95 27.24 9.24 9.24 6.75 Fire protection 62.32 3.82 31.53 8.27 Parks and recreational areas 6.42 4.80 30.82 Shopping opportunities 7.16 13.07 1.83 Entertainment opportunities Average 7.18 1.77 11.41 - (on-E concomic ligran Lankin gJ batin Total 6.51 -1.40 -9.12 7.10 -1.38 -9.80 6.47 -0.37 -2.36 6.07 4.73 28.66 3.85 -2.34 -9.01 -5.01 -34.51 6.90 5.00 3.08 15.38 7.75 2.02 15.66 7.96 -1.69 -13.41 0.93 6.97 7.53 7.84 5.43 42.57 13.79 5.19 2.66 5.00 -0.24 -1.17 0.76 5.44 7.21 4.44 32.04 7.23 8.61 .I.51 -12.96 8.65 1.34 11.59 8.27 2.58 21.28 6.75 60.65 8.99 4.00 30.86 7.73 4.82 6.52 31.39 19.19 7.68 2.50 1.77 6.69 11.05 - Page 24 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 IV.Demographics and Quality of Life: Gender, Marital Status, Income, Education, and Age As discussed above, most residents seem to be relatively satisfied with the overall quality of life in the Valley, but put different weights on specific variables as they consider some more important than others to the overall quality of life. Additionally, different variables received different scores as their current conditions in the Las Vegas Valley. For example, fire protection received a high total score (57.6), while the report card for traffic conditions showed a negative score (-32.4). (See Table 10.) However, it is important to know if the ranking and rating of specific variables differ across demographic groups. For example, are males more likely than females to give a higher rank to some variables? Are their ratings of school quality in the Valley different? Do income, age, and education influence how people rank and rate quality of life variables? This section discusses the differences and similarities ,of how some demographic groups rank and rate QL variables. . A. Gender Males and females are, in general, more satisfied with QL in their own neighborhoods than with QL in the city as a whole, with males slightly more satisfied than females with the overall quality of life in the city and females more satisfied than males with QL in neighborhoods. Both groups appear to have more reservations for Las Vegas as a place to raise children, with females even more cautious than males. Females rank QL in Las Vegas higher than where they lived before more often than males do. Both groups perceive QL in Las Vegas today only as marginally better than three years ago and expect a marginal deterioration of QL in the near future. Female respondents gave QL variables a higher ranking-score than males did with the exception of “entertainment oppoitunities.” Both groups gave virtually the same rank to “climate” and small differences were registered for variables such as“‘safe neighborhoods, crime rates, parks and recreational areas, and traffic congestion.” However, females put more emphasis than males do on variables such as “cultural events, museums, and shopping I rOverall QL QL in neighborhood LV as a place to raise children QL in LV compared to former city QL in LV today compared to 3 years ago QL in LV in 5 years compared to now Table 14: Satisfaction with Quality of Life Across Gender (Average Scores) Male 3.74 I Female 3.33 4.93 0.64 2.66 0.37 5.16 -. 0.55 2.89 0.41 -0.02 -0.44 Page 25 P” The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 opportunities.” Similarly, females are more concerned than males with “air and water quality and protection of the enviromnent” as variables impacting the general quality of life. Rating scores, as with ranking scores, of QL variables are similar for both males and females, with some important differences for specific variables. Both groups have very close views of the current state of “police force, climate, shopping opportunities, traffic congestion, crime rates, fire protection, public transportation, and cultural events.” However, females appear to have a more positive view of the current conditions of places for children activities, libraries, and parks and recreation areas. In contrast, males are more positive with respect to entertainment opportunities, quality of health care, programs/facilities for senior citizens, and schools. Although both groups rated many variables negatively, females were even more pessimistic about current conditions of variables related to population growth and the environment. For example, females were two times more negative in their rating of water quality than males were. Another example of their differences is how they view the policies for protecting the environment. While males gave the variable a marginal positive score, females were marginally negative in their assessment of the variable. Table 15: Ranking and Rating Variables by Gender MALE FEMALE Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection -. Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Ranking Rating 6.21 -1.56 6.31 6.30 5.41 4.64 6.63 4.54 7.88 7.30 8.30 6.89 4.29 4.33 6.78 8.51 9.05 8.46 8.66 7.56 3.68 2.22 6.37 -1.22 0.24 4.22 -0.77 -4.76 1.89 1.66 -1.09 1.52 4.50 2.62 -0.68 0.41 3.36 -1.50 1.69 2.52 6.48 3.35 6.28 7.30 1.66 Total Ranking Rating Total -9.69 7.71 -1.85 -14.26 -7.66 1.51 22.83 -3.57 -31.53 8.55 13.07 -7.95 12.61 30.98 11.21 -2.94 2.74 21.27 .-12.71 15.29 21.26 56.04 25.33 23.06 16.19 9.36 8.10 7.57 5.46 5.21 6.91 4.97 8.69 8.30 9.40 8.03 6.00 5.84 8.07 7.62 8.93 .9.53 9.13 9.35 8.07 5.71 1.75 7.29 -2.35 -19.04 -0.21 -1.59 4.19 22.86 -1.26 -6.56 -4.80 -33.13 1.78 8.84 1.45 12.56 -1.36 -11.24 0.70 6.53 5.91 47.42 2.46 14.72 -0.90 -5.23 1.32 10.65 2.71 20.61 -1.52 -13.52 1,.38 13.10 2.53 23.04 6.35 59.33 3.56 28.69 6.23 35.54 6.61 11.53 1.50 9.58 Programs/facilities for senior citizens 6.34 I . . Entertainment opportunities Average P a g e 2 6 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Average total score is slightly higher for females than males due to females higher ranking scores in general. It is clear, however, that some variables such as “places for children activities, shopping opportunities, libraries, and cultural events” have a higher impact on QL for females than males in Las Vegas. On the other hand, females’ QL is more negatively effected than males’ QL by ,variables such as “cost of health care, air and water quality, population growth, and museums.” B. Marital Status All marital-status groups appear to be relatively satisfied with the overall QL in the Valley, with separated-divorced people showing the highest levels of satisfaction and single people appearing to be the least satisfied. Married and widowed residents are also relatively satisfied with the overall QL in Las Vegas with very close scores among the two groups. As expected, given the overall results of the survey, all groups are even more satisfied with the QL in their own neighborhoods, with widowers again showing the highest levels and singles the least levels of satisfaction. Once again single residents appear to have a lower level of satisfaction with QL in Las Vegas compared to their former city than do the other groups. Widowers remain the most satisfied followed closely by married people. Scores decline substantially for Las Vegas as a place to raise children, with separated-divorced people given the area a negative grade followed by a low score given by married people. Similarly, scores are much lower when comparing QL today with the recent past and near future. Married and widowed people give the lowest scores to current QL compared to the recent past and they expect a deterioration of QL conditions in the near future. Singles, on the other hand, are more optimistic about the future and have a more positive view of current conditions compared to the recent past. Table 16: Satisfaction with Quality of Life Across Marital Status (Average Scores) Married Single Separated/Divorced Widowed Overall QL QL in neighborhood LV as a place to raise children QL in LV compared to former city QL in LV today cornpared to 3 years aga QL in LV in 5 years compared to now 3.55 3.14 4.31 0.75 4.21 5.00 3.64 5.45 5.39 0.62 -0.01 -. 2.63 0.57 -0.13 1.08 3.63 0.18 -0.16 3.13 0.15 -0.43 1.66 0.93 0.13 The average QL variables ranking score did not vary substantially across marital-status groups, with singles registering the lowest average ranking score, and widowers the highest, Additionally, for some individual variables the diffaences of scores across the four groups were small and, in some case:s such as “protection of the environment,” marginal. Other very small differences were registered for “safe neighborhoods, cultural events, traffic congestion, and crime rates.” On the other hand, much larger variation across groups is seen for some Page 27 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 variables s&h as “population growth, climate, and public transportation.” For population growth, for example, married people are much more attuned to the variable than widowers are, while silngles give smaller weight to climate and public transportation compared to widowers. As expected, singles give lower weights compared to the other groups for variables subh as “schools, Ilibraries, place for children activities, and programs/facilities for senior citizebs.” In contrast, singles ranked four variables (population growth, entertainment opportunitieg, cultural events, and protection of the environment) slightly above the average of the other three groups. Table 17: Ranking Variables by Marital Status Vafiable Aid quality Walter quality Protection of the environment CliFate Podulation growth Tr4ffic congestion Public transportation QuUity of health care Cost of health care Schools Libtaries Culltural events Mubeums Places for children a.ctivities Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safh neighborhoods Police force vlarried 7.11 7144, 7.06 6.03 5.47 6.91 4.85 8.46 8.16 8.97 7.77 5.27 5.61 7.88 7.23 8.82 9.24 8.92 9.22 8.22 4.63 1.82 7.05 Firei protection Parks and recreational areas Shqping opportunities Enkrtainment opportunities Aveirage Single 6.77 7.15 7.03 4.03 4.55 6.42 4.23 8.09 7.17 8.46 6.88 5.18 4.37 6.57 6.43 8.37 9.18 8.36 8.36 7.16 4.35 2.12 6.42 SeDaratediDivorcei 6.85 6.32 6.91 5.63 4.94 6.95 4.72 8.07 8.02 8.97 7.60 5.13 5.00 7.40 7.29 9.18 9.80 8.95 9.40 7.93 5.65 1.88 6.93 Widowed 7.58 -8.07 6.97 7.00 2.34 6.57 6.73 9.01 7.42 9.84 7.88 4.84 5.16 8.15 7.58 8.60 9.68 9.54 9.70 7.67 6.00 2.34 7.21 ., As with the ranking scores, widowed people give the highest average rating scores for QL variables in Las Vegas, while singles, once again, give the lowest average score. All groups gave QL variables lower rating scores compared to ranking scores, and there are more substantial differences across groups. For example, protection of the environment receives negative scoties by married and single groups, while showing positive grades by separateddivorced and; widowed groups. In most cases the widowed group is the source of the larger differences across groups. For example, all other groups rated “museums” negatively while widowers gave the variable a score of 1.6. Similarly, “places for children activities” received scores equal or below one from other groups but jumped to 4.3 among widowers. Traffic Page 28 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 congestion is the only variable widowers gave a score below the scores of all other groups. In summary, widowers seem to be the most satisfied with current conditions of QL variables in Las Vegas across marital-status groups, while singles appear to be the less satisfied group. Table 18: Rating Variables by Marital Status Variable 1 Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities fbr senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Married 1 Single 1 Smarated/Divorced 1 Widowed 1 -1.47 -1.94 -1.34 -1.51 -1.19 -1.93 -2.06 -0.93 -0.24 -5.00 -0.45 4.81 -1.13 2.21 1.40 -1.66 0.74 -4.50 0.62 3.11 0.15 1.24 4.00 -1.07 2.12 -0.14 1.93 4.92 3.81 -0.82 1.04 3.46 -1.08 6.51 4.12 6.50 6.50 -3.93 2.00 0.86 5.00 -4.07 -5.65 3.87 1.46 -1.08 0.96 4.76 2.15 0.87 2.57 -1.11 5.95 2.97 5.43 6.59 - 1.83. -0.65 3.13 6.73 3.85 1.60 4.28 4.53 -1.13 2.35 4.65 7.20 4.48 7.33 6.67 2.47 5.41 2.27 -0.93 0.68 -1.85 6.48 3.40 6.63 7.28 -0.91 2.95 Police force 1.59 2.71 0.89 1.96 2.14 2.09 Fire protection Parks and recreationial areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities Average 1.54 1.32 1.94 Combining ranking and rating scores result in the “widowed group” once again showing, on average, the highest total scores and the single group registering the lowest scores. Most of the differences are between the widowers and singles, although widowers differ from the other two groups as well. For example, widowers give a total score of 34.8 to “places for children activities” compared to a 5.4 score by married respondents. SimilarIy, they gave a positive 8.2 score to museums while all other groups gave negative scores ranging from -4 to -5.2 to the same variable. Overall, widowers appear to be the most satisfied group with general QL in Las Vegas, while singles seem to be the least satisfied, but all groups show some relative level of satisfaction with QL in the area. Consistent with the general results, larger dissatisfaction exists across all groups with “traffic congestion, air and water quality, crime rates, and cost of health care.” On the other hand, also consistent with general results, all groups appear to have the:ir QL levels in LV increased by variables such as “fire protection, police force, shopping opportunities, libraries, and parks and recreational areas.” Page 29 P’ The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 19: Ranking and Rating Variables ( Total Score) by Marital Status Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities tar senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection . Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunit:ies Entertainment opporknities A __--- -_ Average 1 Married Single Separated/Divorced Widowed -10.06 -13.79 -9.03 -11.44 -7.48 -14.35 -14.72 -7.50 8.57 -1.69 -3.16 5.96 22.50 12.53 34.94 29.00 -9.5 1 -5.26 -6.18 0.66 -27.3 1 -34.53 -28.89 -37.06 9.44 10.68 2.60 26.05 16.43 17.06 11.80 11.77 -1.12 -13.50 -7.71 -4.79 17.26 6.63 8.12 30.75 52.99 37.39 42.04 32.71 19.55 11.94 Il.16 18.63 8.23 -4.08 -5.21 -3.95 7.69 5.36 5.72 34.84 34.30 25.22 2 1.33 16.48 -9.91 -16.26 -9.24 -9.68 20.96 14.69 8.17 22.74 18.70 24.13 16.38 44.31 61.16 59.67 49.74 69.80 32.63 27.9 1 21.25 34.34 43.98 36.69 30.66 23.59 12.19 13.21 13.97 15.60 _^ ^_ .^ P.. n P.r N. .,. 1 Y.L3 1 l.lY lZ.L(I 1 18.81 -I C. Income The two extremes of the income brackets appear to be more satisfied with the overall QL in the valley than those in the middle, although all groups are relatively satisfied with QL in general. However, the level of satisfaction with QL in their own neighborhoods increased with income, and the differences are quite large, with those below $15,000 a year giving a score of 2.5 compared to 6.4 given by those with yearly income above $75,000. Compared to their former cities, QL in Las Vegas receives the highest scores from the two lowest income groups followed by the two highest income groups. .On average, the lowest income groups have a more positive view of QL today compared to the recent past and are definitely mdre optimistic about the QL in the future than the higher income groups. Page 30 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 20: Satisfaction with Quality of Life Across Income Levels’ (Average Scores) <$15 $15 to $25 to $35 to $50 to >$75 < $25 < $35 < $50 < $75 3.62 3.81 3.61 3.68 4.00 3.36 Overall QL 5.56 6.38 4.71 5.04 2.49 4.25 QL in neighborhood 0.88 0.82 0.92 0.39 0.94 -0.21 LV as a place to raise children 2.83 2.99 2.42 2.28 3.91 3.26 QL in LV compared to former city 1.15 -0.26 0.79 0.29 QL in LV today compared to 3 years ago 1.61 1.17 0.56 -0.04 -0.28 -1.32 0.28 1.47 QL in LV in 5 years compared to now 1- Income in thousand of dollars Ranking scores are, on average, higher among low-income groups compared to higherincome groups. The usual suspects, such as “safe neighborhoods, fire protection, police force, and crime rates,” received high ranking scores across all income groups. Other variables, however, experienced larger differences in scores across.income groups. For example, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the scores some variables received and the level of income, with higher income respondents attaching less weight to those variables and low-inco:me respondents given high ranking scores to them. Among other variables, this inverse relationship is clearly present for “public transportation, museums, programs/facilities for senior citizens, cost of health care, schools, and libraries.” For a few variables, the opposite is true, a direct relationship is present between income levels and ranking scores. For example, higher-income groups attach more weight than lowincome groups for variables such as “traffic congestion, cultural events, and population growth.” Page 3 1 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 21: Ranking Variables by Income’ Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth :$15 7.50 7.78 7.64 4.99 3.47 5.29 6.52 8.72 8.83 9.40 7.92 5.01 6.72 7.82 8.43 8.14 9.14 8.48 9.17 a.43 4.50 3.10 7.13 Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities Average - Income in thousand of dollars i15to :!§25 7.87 8.02 7.55 5.47 3.62 6.04 6.26 8.52 8.34 9.52 7.68 4.27 6.34 8.14 7.65 8.30 9.06 9.07 9.37 7.69 5.16 1.72 7.07 i25 to :!§35 7.27 7.50 7.86 5.93 4.59 6.73 5.06 8.52 8.41 9.41 8.09 5.24 5.07 7.72 7.05 8.85 9.07 8.89 9.35 8.27 5.86 2.14 7.13 635to =$50 7.14 7.53 6.87 4.70 5.29 7.17 4.92 8.31 7.37 9.15 7.42 5.33' 5.08 8.05 7.20 8.80 9.59 8.85 8.97 8.06 4.47 1.57 6.90 650to :$75 6.93 7.25 7.07 5.30 5.09 6.81 3.91 8.63 8.05 8.33 7.35 5.18 4.91 6.54 7.08 9.03 9.50 9.14 9.08 7.83 4.70 2.60 6.83 $75 5.75 5.88 5.56 5.63 5.58 7.21 3.02 7.63 7.08 8.55 6.97 5.53 4.49 7.01 5.44 8.82 9.43 8.32 8.50 7.53 4.89 1.84 6.39 Overall, the highest income group (above $75,000) gave the lowest rating score for the current state of QL variables in Las Vegas. Taking into consideration all six income groups, lower income groups, on average, are more satisfied than higher-income groups with the current conditions of QL variables. It is interesting to note that higher income groups are less satisfied with the current policies of environmental protection, and that they are also very dissatisfied with the current state of museums. On the other hand, low-income groups rate more negatively the current state of crime rates, and are less satisfied than higher-income groups with the safety of their neighborhoods. A few other facts deserve to be noted. For example, the lowest-income group was the only group to give a positive score to population growth, while the two extremes of the income brackets showed a much higher level of dissatisfaction than the median levels with the cost of health care. Page 32 P’ The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 22: Rating Variables by Income’ Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportationl Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities -Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities Average - Income in thousand of dollars -2.36 -2.08 0.58 4.29 0.74 -5.00 1.84 2.65 -2.90 0.84 4.86 2.50 0.00 1.67 2.74 -3.24 0.01 2.23 6.45 4.71 4.76 7.39 1.48 i15 to : $25 -0.64 -1.21 1.02 5.17 -2.60 -5.64 1.90 1.79 -0.09 1;67 7.18 3.16 0.34 2.19 5.00 -1.66 1.55 3.87 7.60 4.52 7.51 7.90 2.30 ;25 to : $35 -2.05 -1.83 0.12 3.70 -0.77 -4.76 2.40 2.47 0.13 1.67 5.58 3.38 1.03 0.82 2.06 -1.88 1.53 3.09 6.73 3.68 6.04 6.42 1.80 ;35 to : $50 -1.43 -1.98 -0.38 3.88 -0.70 -4.44 1.85 2.14 -1.02 1.70 5.04 2.24 -1.25 1.80 2.72 -0.67 1.89 2.44 5.86 3.71 5.91 6.18 1.61 150 to >$75 : $75 -1.65 -2.12 -1.71 -1.77 0.11 -1.11 2.90 5.41 -0.14 -1.27 -4.09 -5.57 2.28 0.16 0.95 1.37 -0.95 -2.61 0?66 0.40 4.85 5.13 1.04 2.90 -0.92 -2.74 0.47 -0.94 3.89 2.23 -1.16 -1.92 2.03 1.63 1.48 2.45 6.48 6.27 3.38 2.60 6.90 6.43 8.40 7.25 1.73 0.97 Total scores, which are supposed to measure the contribution of different variables to the overall QL for different groups in Las Vegas, show that the variables included in this study have a larger positive impact on the QL of the people in the middle of the income distribution than on the QL of those on the extreme of the income brackets. However, there are some variables for which total scores have a direct or inverse relationship with income groups. For example, “places for children activities” have a much larger impact on QL of-low-income groups than on QL of high-income groups. Similarly, museums have a small positive impact on QL of low-income groups but B negative impact on high-income group QL: In contrast, safe neighborhoods add more to the levels of QL of high-income population than to lowincome groups. Although crime rates decrease QL of all groups, they impact more negatively low-income groups than high-income groups. Page 33 P” The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 23: Ranking and Rating Variables ( Total Score) by Income’ Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities Average - Income in thousand of dollars <$15 $15 to < $25 -17.65 -5.00 -16.12 -9.66 4.39 7.66 21.38 28.25 2.55 -9.40 -26.43 -34.04 11.96 11.88 23.11 15.25 -25.5s -0.75 7.89 15.85 38.43 55.14 12.51 13.48 0.00 2.16 13.02 17.79 23.06 38.19 -26.32 -13.77 0.05 13.99 18.86 35.06 59.11 71.13 39.71 34.76 21.40 38.69 22.89 13.59 9.46 15.47 ;25 to < $35 -14.89 -13.69 0.94 21.89 -3.51 -32.01 12.13 20.99 1.09 15.67 45.10 17.69 5.19 6.29 14.48 -16.59 13.82 27.45 62.85 30.39 35.36 13.70 12.02 ;35 to < $50 -10.21 -14.91 -2.61 18.24 -3.70 -31.78 9.07 17.74 -7.52 15.55 37.33 11.90 -6.35 14.44 19.57 -5.90 18.13 21.55 52.56 29.86 26.39 9.69 9.96 ;50 to < $75 -11.43 -12.36 0.74 15.37 -0.71 .27.80 8.91 8.20 -7.60 5.49. 35.59 1.5.02 -4.49 3.07 27.5 1 ,10.47 19.29 22.38 58.84 26.41 32.43 21.84 10.28 >$75 -12.16 -10.40 -6.14 30.40 -7.09 -40.16 0.47 10.41 -18.47 3.42 35.73 5.75 -12.29 -6.59 12.13 -16.88 15.32 12.26 53.25 19.54 31.44 13.29 5.15 D. Education Respondents with some college up to two-year college (2-yrs college) appear to be more satisfied with the overall QL in the valley than respondents with High School (HS) or less and those with four-year college or more (Cyrs college). Table 24 shows also that the higher the education level the more satisfied respondents are with the QL in their o&r neighborhoods. This result :is similar to the scores across income groups and consistent with the fact that education levels are positively correlated with levels of income. It is also clear that the higher the education. level, the lower are the scores given to Las Vegas as a place to raise children, and the less favorably the Valley compares to respondents’ former cities. Note, however, that on average Las Vegas compares positively in terms of QL with former cities. People with HS and 4-yrs college have a higher perception than people with 2-yrs college of QL today compared to the recent past. In contrast, residents with HS or 4-yrs college are less optimistic than residents with 2-yrs college in regards to the perspective of QL in the near future compared to today’s levels. Page 34 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 24: Satisfaction with Quality of Life Across Education Levels (Average Scores) tiig h school Some college 4-yrs college or less / QL in neighborhood LV as a place to raise children QL in LV compared to former city 3.44 4.82 0.94 3.24 0.88 -0.21 to 2-yrs college 3.74 4.95 0.63 3.11 0.06 0.13 or more 3.56 5.58 0.22 1.97 0.34 -0.55 1 I Ranking scores, on average, decreased with higher levels of education, with m-my variables ranked at similar levels by all education-level groups. However; there are some differences across groups worth discussion. For example, “cultial events” received a 30 percent higher score from respondents with 4-yrs college compared to the average score received from respondents with high school or less. In contrast, entertainment and shopping opportunities received substantially higher scores Corn HS respondents (40 and 50 percent, respectively) compared to scores given by respondents with 4-yrs college. . ‘_ . Page 35 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 25: Ranking Variables by Education Level Variable --IAir quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activitiIs Programs/facilities for sen or citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities Average IHigh schoo Some college 4-yrs college or less 7.22 7.62 7.50 5.64 5.10 7.02 5.84 8.38 8.11 . 9.34 7,81 4.51 4.70 7.76 7.21 8.51 9.13 8.83 9.12 8.02 5.63 2.48 7.06 to 2-yrs college 7.02 7.30 6.80 5.29 5.15 6.67 4.54 8.36 8.01 8.73 7.69 5.40 5.80 7.68 7.27 9.08 9.33 8.85 9.12 7.90 4.95 1.96 6.95 or more 6.74 6.80 6.77 5.46 4.51 6.62 3.67 8.21 7.24 8.51 6.95 5.82 4.94 6.90 6.49 8.56 9.52 8.71 8.80 7.61 3.31 1.20 ’ 6.51 Similar to the ranking scores, avertage rating scores also decreased with levels of education. Larger differences exist across groups for some QL variables. For example, respondents with higher levels of education are much less satisfied than HS respondents with the current state of “places for children activities, schools, and cultural events”. Additionally, while respondents with HS attached a positive score to “museums and protection of the environment,” respondents with 4yrs college gave negative grades to the current status of these variables. These differences across groups with different education levels are important as long as the area wants to attract a more educatedand skilled work force. Page 36 II The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 26: Rating Variables by Education Level Variable iigh schoo Some college I-yrs college or less to or more 2-yrs college -1.80 -1.30 -1.97 -2.07 -1.47 -1.73 0.54 -0.63 0.01 4.42 4.19 4.02 -1.11 -1.27 -0.52 -4.92 -4.14 -5.08 2.96 1.45 0.89 1.42 1.93 1.32 -1.00 -0.98 -1.60 1.93 0.65 0.76 5.62 5.54 ‘4.51 2.94 1.81 2.73 0.62 -0.94 -2.35 2.03 0.56 0.08 3.30 2.91 2.77 -1.81 -1.04 -1.60 1.28 1.86 1.53 2.79 2.28 2.49 6.95 6.08 6.06 3.73 3.98 2.55 6.64 6.03 6.11 6.78 7.32 6.58 1.87 1.61 1.22 Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities Average The variables included in this study, on average, have a larger impact on the QL of respondents with lower levels of education than on the QL of those with 4-yrs of college or more. The differences are substantially large for many variables. For example, total scores from respondents with 4-yrs college are less than half of the scores from HS respondents for QL variables such as schools,, public transportation, and places for children activities. Additionally, “protection of the environment and museums” received negative scores from respondents with higher levels of education in contrast with positive scores given by HS respondents. Page 37 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 27: Ranking and Rating Variables ( Total Score) by Education Levels Variable High school Some college 4-yrs college or less to or more 2-yrs college -9.08 -13.23 -12.99 -10.72 -11.73 -15.74 -4.26 0.03 4.01 22.14 21.93 24.91 -5.70 -2.68 -5.63 -33.82 -27.41 -34.5 1 6.55 3.26 17.27 11.82 10.79 16.13 -12.81 -7.09 -8.07 - 18.02 5.63 6.42 42.57 31.32 43.85 14.72 10.50 13.26 -5.45 . -11.58 2.89 4.26 0.52 15.70 23.94 18.85 19.92 -9.44 -13.70 -15.39 17.31 14.57 11.69 21.64 20.13 24.58 53.50 55.22 63.35 31.44 19.35 29.90 29.82 20.21 37.35 14.35 7.89 16.81 I\ .Ta I I. rn .r lL.13 Y.&L 6.64 I I I Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities A __--- -Average E. Race and Ethnicity Although all respondents are relatively satisfied with QL in Las Vegas in general, African American respondents appear to be less satisfied than any other group with overall QL in the city as a whole and QL in their own neighborhoods. White people replace AC&n Americans as the least satisfied group when assessing Las Vegas as a place to raise children and when comparing QL in Las Vegas to former city. It is very important to note that whites are the’only group that grades QL in Las Vegas today as worse than in the recent past and also the only group that expects QL to be worse in the near future. Although the average scores for the group “others” are presented here, they will not be discussed given that this catch-all group includes different racial and ethnic groups which makes any interpretation of results difficult, if not meaningless. Page 38 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 . Table 28: Satisfaction with Quality of Life Across Race White Overall QL QL in neighborhood LV as a place to raise children QL in LV compared to former city QL in LV today compared to 3 years ago QL in LV in 5 years compared to now I 3.58 5.31 0.46 2.42 -0.10 -0.7 1 African Hispanic American 3.04 4.76 3.69 5.50 0.80 1.84 4.71 4.14 2.70 2.13 2.27 1.34 Others 3.33 4.16 1.02 3.64 1.48 1.15 Minority respondents, on average, gave higher ranking scores than whites to almost all QL variables. No major differences across racial groups are found among scores for variables such as “safe neighborhoods, cultural events, quality of health care, fire protection, and crime rates.” Larger differences, however, exist for some variables with minority respondents giving higher ranking-scores than whites to variables such as “entertainment opportunities, public transportation, museums, shopping opportunities, population-growth, and places for children activities.” Among the two larger minority groups, African Americans put more weight than Hispanics do on “entekinment opportunities, museums, and libraries.” In contrast, Hispanics attach more significance to variables such as “climate, protection of the environment, police force, and schools.” Despite these differences, there were more similarities in ranking variables among minority groups than between any minority group and whites. Page 39 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 29: Ranking Variables by Race Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools L i b r a r i e s Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportuuities Average white 6.89 7.00 6.88 5.44 4.65 6.79 4.34 8.23 7.52 .8.78 7.17 5.21 .4.85 7.15 6.82 8.72 9.33 8.77 8.94 7.71 4.46 1.50 6.69 African Hispanic American 7.69 7.17 8.81 8.30 6.75 8.05 4.20 5.21 5.86 5.69 7.39 7.44 6.49 5.92 8.54 8.15 8.81 8.75 8.91 9.88 9.13 8.42 5.01 5.13 7.21 6.03 8.84 8.25 7.50 7.82 9.12 8.47 9.25 9.38 8.05 9.63 9.24 9.52 8.81 8.38 6.05 6.40 3.76 5.20 7.55 7.56 Others 6.83 6.46 7.50 7.04 6.35 4.99 5.26 9.03 8.66 9.13 8.17 5.25 5.38 8.59 7.57 8.57 9.27 9.03 9.17 7.98 5.26 0.77 7.10 . .. Whites and African Americans rated QL variables lower than Hispanics did. Some differences are worth noting. For example, Whites gave a marginally negative rating for “protection of the environment” while minorities gave the same variable a marginally positive score. Similarly, whites rated “schools and places for children activities” well below the grades received from the minority groups. On the other hand, African Americans are less enthusiastic than Whites and Hispanics with respect to the current state of “police force, quality of health care, and safety of their own neighborhoods.” However, African Americans gave a higher rate to cultural events and libraries than the other two groups did. Hispanics perceived air quality and cost of health care as positive while’ Whites and African Americans gave negative grades to those,variables. In summary, Hispanics, on average, appear to be more satisfied with the current state of most QL variables than Whites and African Americans are. Page 40 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 30: Rating Varia(bles by Race Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events White -1.82 -1.59 -0.14 4.51 -1.33 -4.74 2.03 1.51 -1.34 0.68 5.10 2.35 African Hispanic AmeriCaIl Others -0.86 -1.96 0.88 3.15 2.80 -3.68 1.31 2.05 0.13 1.66 5.39. 3.16 0.30 1.29 3.01 -0.50 2.31 2.88 5.39 3.42 6.74 7.11 -2.45 -3.58 0.12 3.80 -0.98 -5.98 1.63 0.70 -2.32 2.27 6.36 4.21 0.38 -1.25 0.14 3.13 -0.50 -4.00 1.11 3.25 0.51 2.82 5.79 2.16 Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities for senior citizens -1.21 0.71 3.08 0.81 2.25 3.89 -2.72 0.88 1 .oo 7.05 4.57 6.20 7.31 . L-n 0.31 1.91 1.51 -0.13 2.17 4.13 7.75 3.43 7.08 7.00 n nr Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities . -.--- -Average -1.58 1.51 2.57 6.29 3.37 6.21 6.84 Minorities gave higher total on average, than Whites to most QL variables in Las Vegas. For example, “museums d protection of the environment” add to QL of minority groups while subtracting QL of Whites. Additionally, Whites gave scores well below those given such as “schools, places for children activities, entertainment oppo ties, and libraries.” Among the two main minority groups, African Americans of QL than Hispanics from variables such as “entertainment for senior citizens, cultural events, parks and recreational On the other hand, African Americans seem much less satisfied with factors such as “qu force, and safety of their own neighborhoods,” Environmental and water quality also appear to have a larger negative impact with Afiic Americans than any other group. Hispanics are the only group to register cost of health care in Las Vegas. Page 41 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 31: Ranking and Rating Variables ( Total Score) by Race Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportiities Average White -12.53 African Hispanic American -17.53 2.88 Others -5.84 -11.13 -0.93 24.48 -31.52 0.81 15.96 -5.57 -6.15 -32.18 8.81 12.42 -10.04 5.97 36.53 -44.19 10.54 5.66 -20.43 -10.37 1.09 16.28 -2.93 -29.76 6.54 27.74 4.42 27.80 48.75 -12.63 6.56 22.14 17.77 -18.36 6.88 18.51 1.08 15.15 20.17 58.07 12.24 -5,86 5.07 21.05 5.84 11.07 1.84 44.00 16.59 1.61 19.89 30.42 15.72 11.33 11.04 22.73 -4.28 21.41 20.96 -13.73 14.04 22.54 -24.79 8.09 8.05 -1.06 20.34 39.70 73.74 28.68 42.80 26.30 16.50 56.19 25.94 27.64 10.26 8.66 65.10 40.19 39.68 37.99 11.07 25.96 49.40 27.23 35.43 5.47 13.99 F. Age The overall satisfaction with QL in general for the whole city and in neighborhoods seems to increase with age, with the exception of the 36-45 year-old group, which ranked the least satisfied among all age groups. This group, ages more likely to have children at home, gave lower scores to Las Vegas as a place to raise children. Older residents are likely to compare Las Vegas more favorably to their former cities than younger residents. Younger residents, on the other hand, are more positive in regard to QL in Las Vegas today compared to the recent past and more optimistic. than older residents with respect to QL iti the near fhturti. Page 42 The Quality of Life in Las V’egas October, 1999 Table 32: Satisfaction with Quality of Life Across Age Groups 18-25 26-35 Overall QL 3.12 3.62 QL in neighborhood 4.37 5.31 1.72 -0.54 LV as a place to raise children 1.47 2.64 QL in LV compared to former city 1.80 QL in LV today compared to 3 years ago 2.40 QL in LV in 5 years compared to now 1.03 1.15 56-65 over 65 3.84 4.25 5.60 6.25 1.40 1.97 3.90 3.37 0.53 -1.07 0.65 -1.20 There are not many discernible patterns on ranks of QL variables across age groups. There are a few facts worth mentioning here. For example, “entertainment opportunities” received a negative ranking score from the 36-45 age group suggesting that for that group this variable does not enter their perception of QL in general. The importance of climate for QL, on .average, increases with age. Population growth is perceived as least important for the youngest and oldest respondents. As expected, a higher weight is given to “places for children activities” by people more likely to have children at home. Schools are ranked high by all groups, but they are the most important for people under the age of 36. Similarly, “crime rate and police force” also received high scores from all groups, but lower from respondents under 26 years old. Page 43 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 33: Ranking: Variables by Age Groups 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 over 65 Variable 6.84 6.88 6.79 6.85 7.94 7.25 Air quality 7.17 7.25 '7.32 7.81 7.15 Water quality 7.80 7.22 6.64 6.89 7.63 7.12 Protection of the environment 5.92 2.89 4.64 4.63 6.39 7.93 Climate 7.26 4.95 4.09 5.81 5.42 3.60 5.32 Population growth 6.93 7.47 6.63 6.91 6.26 6.47 Traffic congestion 5.96 4.11 4.67 4.85 4.45 Public transportation 5.00 8.53 7.54 8.46 8.10 8.36 8.78 Quality of health care 8.35 8.10 7.50 6.91 8.00 7.83 Cost of health care 7.88 8.95 8.92 8.56 9.46 9.65 Schools 7.33 7.61 6.89 8.59 7.11 7.66 Libraries 4.03 5.06 6.00 5.16 5.62 5.23 Cultural events 3.34 5.62 4.45' 6.49 4.77 5.67 Museums 7.27 7.00 8.06 6.45 7.78 8.03 Places for children alctivities 8.83 6.72 6.77 7.20 6.21 6.85 Programs/facilities fior senior citizens 9.09 8.87 8.75 7.90 8.70 8.71 Crime rates 8.91 8.99 9.63 9.48 8.91 9.70 Safe neighborhoods 8.99 8.83 8.79 8.68 8.28 9.44 Police force 9.08 8.67 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.59 Fire protection 8.14 7.08 8.54 7.32 7.54 8.40 Parks and recreational areas 5.33 4.63 5.29 5.86 4.00 4.01 Shopping opportunities 3.38 1.56 * 2.74 3.11 2.46 Entertainment opportunities 7.41 6.64 6.90 6.84 6.49 7.01 Average ’ Variable received a negative score suggesting that it is not important for QL in general. On average, respondents between 36 and 45 years old gave QL variables in Las Vegas the lowest rating scores among all age groups, followed by respondents between 46 and 55 years old. These two groups are much less impressed than other age groups with the current conditions in Las Vegas of variables such as “places for children activities, schools, quality of health care, public transportation, and police force.” The rating of “climate” is higher among older residents, while: the very young appear to be the least impacted by “air quality, traftic congestion, and crime rates.” Similarly, population growth receives a positive score from the two younger age gnoups, while the four older groups graded population growth negatively. Only the two older age groups gave positive scores to “protection of the environment.” Page 44 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 34: Rating Variables by Age Groups Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities Average 18-25 -0.86 -1.19 -0.33 2.89 1.27 -3.75 3.25 3.88 0.45 2.02 5.42 2.50 0.82 2.64 2.25 -0.86 1.19 2.85 6.61 3.88 5.89 6.78 2.16 26-35 36-45 46-55 -1.80 -2.20 -1.91 -2.81 -2.5 1 -1.90 -0.33 -0.87 -0.10 4.37 3.24 4.81 0.48 -1.96 -1.33 -5.11 -5.01 -4.70 2.25 0.47 1.14 1.15 0.16 0.92 0.28 -2.48 -2.14 1.39 0.76 0.25 4.94 5.36 5.23 2.92 2.23 2.13 -1.21 -1.21 -1.62 0.86 0.26 -0.01 2.59 2.71 2.21 -1.28 -1.85 -1.27 2.01 1.18 1.03 2.77 1.68 1.42 6.08 6.72 6.33 3.88 2.97 3.71 6.88 6.20 6.70 6.95. 0.00 7.21 1.69 0.72 1.28 56-65 over 65 -1.42 -1.61 -0.87 -0.08 1.05 0.45 5.24 4.84 -0.92 -3.04 -4.88 -5.71 2.84 3.26 2.56 2.33 -1.15 -1.94 2.39 0.12 6.24 4.26 3.23 2.65 0.34 -1.46 2.24 0.53 4.60 4.39 -1.97 -2.24 1.88 1.78 3.52 3.94 6.54 6.04 3.94 2.45 5.24 7.26 7.25 6.78 2.18 1.59 . ,. The middle-age groups (36 to 55 years old) appear to be the least satisfied with QL in Las Vegas. The main reason seems to be their low total scores for variables related to children such as “schools and places for children activities” as well as other variables such as “quality of health care and public transportation.” They are also negatively impacted by “traffic congestion, air and water qua&ty, cost of health care, crime rates, and population growth.” On the other hand, the young.est age-group gives the highest or close to the highest total scores to variables such as “places for children activities, quality of health care, and entertainment opportunities.” Younger groups seem also less affected than older groups by “traffk congestion, air and water quality, crime rates, and cost of health care.” Page 45 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 35: Ranking and Rating Variables ( Total Score) by Age Groups Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities Average 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 wer 65 -5.91 -12.21 -15.06 -13.06 -11.24 -11.67 -9.29 -20.04 -18.00 -13.74 -6.36 -0.62 -2.24 20.25 2.52 -35.28 10.47 10.05 2.24 13.41 37.84 16.37 -6.86 6.90 17.73 -11.14 19.49 26.09 54.89 32.59 27.53 17.05 10.35 -6.64 14.98 -11.35 -34.66 2.28 1.31 -20.09 6.73 40.72 11.65 -6.79 -2.10 18.30 -16.76 11.36 14.77 60.67 25.36 28.65 -0.68 7.54 2.63 30.70 41.55 35.10 -7.20 -4.55 -12.41 -35.11 -30.52 -36.91 5.05 16.88 16.28 7.41 21.79 17.56 -16.01 -9.60 -15.14 2.10 18.83 1.07 36.00 53.57 31.23 10.74 19.35 10.68 2.17 -7.21 -4.87 3.68 -0.03 16.28 15.90 40.62 29.47 -11.26 -17.18 -19.46 15.99 9.76 16.71 12.33 31.58 34.75 57.15 62.69 54.80 27.10 32.05 17.33 35.38 30.68 38.70 19.76 24.47 10.57 9.94 7.50 16.24 -2.19 8.34 4.57 -24.83 13.36 32.40 3.07 19.10 38.47 12.89 3.91 20.50 13.97 -6.79 10.55 23.60 57.27 29.24 23.56 21.05 13.04 0.00 4.98 Page 46 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 V. Improving Quality of Life: Willingness to Pay Survey respondents focused ‘on those areas they are least satisfied with as they revealed their preferences to increase, maintain, or decrease funding for different projects. Table 36 shows that projects focusing on improving water and air quality received the largest support, followed closely by projects aiming in decreasing traffic congestion and crime rates. Projects to improve schools closed the group of projects experiencing an index (percentage of respondents willing to increase funding minus percentage of respondents willing to decrease funding) above 50. Programs focusing on safe neighborhoods, fire protection, schools, places for children activities, parks and recreational areas, libraries, public transportation, and cultural events are all ranked important, but also rated relatively high for satisfaction. Respondents overwhehningl:y support maintaining or increasing funding in these areas. It is important to note, however, that some of the projects such as libraries, fire protection, programs/facilities for senior citizens, and parks and recreational.areas also received high total scores (See Table 10) suggesting that respondents are satisfied with those areas of QL and therefore see larger gains by increased funding in areas of least satisfaction. Table 36: Funding for Different Projects Should Funding for: Improve air quality Improve water quality Decrease traffic congestion Decrease crime rates Schools Places for children activities Police force Improve quality of health care Safe neighborhoods Protection of the environment Fire protection Programs/facilities for senior citizens Parks and recreational areas Museums Decrease cost of health care Libraries Public transportation Cultural events 1 Increase 1 Maintain 1 Decrease i --_--._ Tndex* 63.2 32.7 2.0 65.2 62.0 34.7 1.6 63.6 60.0 31.5 4.3 64.3 57.8 35.2 3.5 61.3 55.9 36.9 3.6 59.5 52.2 1.9 45.9 44.0 48.7 4.4 46.9 42.5 41.0 47.3 5.9 46.9 58.4 40.1 38.6 1.5 54.3 3.7 38.3 42.0 63.3 35.8 34.9 0.9 32.4 58.4 4.6 37.0 28.5 67.5 2.0 30.5 26.4 63.0 5.331.7 25.5 55.4 9.5 35.0 24.0 69.4 3.3 27.3 - 70.2. 20.6 4.6 25.2 19.2 69.0 5.9 25.1 . K Percentage of “increase” minus “decrease” Table 37 shows how respondents, at least theoretically, put their money where their mouth is. The large majority of those supporting an increase in funds for specific projects also support the idea of higher taxes to finance the increase in funding. The last column of the table provides a composite score; i.e., for all respondents it tells what percentage is willing to raise Page 47 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 taxes (pay more taxes) to finance specific projects. Other things being equal, this composite score gives public officials an idea of the probabilities that a specific tax increase would have to pass to finance specific projects. There are some differences between Tables 36 and 37. For example, “protection of the environment” was ranked tenth for more funds but jumped to third in terms of support for higher taxes. With a few exceptions, Table 37 is inversely related to Table 10, suggesting that the projects receiving the highest support for higher taxes (Table 37) are those that ranked lower in their current contribution to QL in Las Vegas (Table 10). In other words, respondents are willing to finance projects to improve the current status of those variables they perceived as not in goold shape but are important for the overall QL in the valley. It is important to remember ,that Table 37 indicates willingness to pay for those who support increased funding, and that only a slight majority (54.8%) of all respondents support increased taxes for “protection of ‘the environment, improving air qualiv, improving water quality (53.9%), and public transportation (50.5%),” followed closely by “decreasing traffic congestion” (48.5%). People may be willing to pay more for services through user fees or other tinding mechanisms. The willingness to pay information in this report provides an indication of which issues are viewed as top priorities. Table 37: More Taxes for Different qrojects YEiS* NO* Yes of total respondents** 53.9 53.9 17.4 82.6 Improve air quality 15.2 84.8 Improve water quality 54.8 14.7 85.3 Protection of the environment 48.5 20.8 79.2 Decrease traffic congestion 15.1 84.9 50.5 Public transportation 35.3 23.1 76.9 Improve quality of health care 36.9 21.3 78.7 Decrease cost of health care 43.4 7.4 92.6 Schools 36.5 8.9 91.1 Libraries 31.5 25.0 75.0 Cultural events 30.9 13.8 -. 86.2 Museums 33.3 10.0 90.0 Places for children activities 26.2 14.1 85.9 Programs/facilities for senior citizens 28.0 88.4’ . 11.6 Decrease crime rates t Safe neighborhoods 30.0 14.4 85.6 24.4 _ 10.8 89.2 Police force 22.6 10.5 89.5 Fire protection 22.1 12.0 88.0 Parks and recreational areas “Percentage only among respondents who suggested increased tiding for that activity ** Percentage among all respondents willing to increase taxes for that activity Page 48 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 VI.Quality of Life.aod the Decision of Staying in Las Vegas The large majority of Las Vegas residents plan to stay in the area for at least the next three years. Among all respondents, 93.6 percent said that they will be here in the next three years (75.6 percent definitely and 18 percent probably). Thus, only 6.4 percent plan to leave Las Vegas within in the next three years (3.5 percent definitely and 2.9 percent probably). Although we did not ask why they plan to move from Las Vegas, it is clear that quality of life is a major reason for such a decision. Among those who definitely plan to stay, 70.6 rank quality of life in Las Vegas as “excellent or good” compared to only 33 percent of those who definitely plan to move. Additionally, none of those who plan to move ranked quality of life in the Valley as excellent. It is important to note that quality of life not only plays a role in attracting people to the area but also in keeping residents here. , Table 38 confirms the discussion above, suggesting that those least satisfied with the overall QL in the area as a whole and in their neighborhoods are the ones planning to move out of the valley. Similarly, they are the same who have a substantially negative perception of Las Vegas as a place to raise children and compare QL here as below the levels of QL in their city of origin. The evidence: of how each group perceives QL today compared to the recent past is weak, however, those planning to move away have a very pessimistic view of QL in the Valley in the near future. Table 38: Satisfaction with Quality of Life by Decision of Staying in Las Vegas Definitely YES Overall QL QL in neighborhood LV as a place to raise children QL in LV compared to f;orrner city QL in LV today compared to 3 years ago QL in LV in 5 years compared to now 4.23 5.39 1.32 3.77 0.35 0.08 Probably YES 2.10 4.90 -0.24 1.22 0.65 Probably NO 0.56 4.16 -2.78 -1.88 0.35 -0.84 Definitely NO 0.33 2.00 -5.00 -1.44 -2.00 -3.85 -0.44 Although there are some differences in ranking-scores between those who reported that they definitely plan to be in Las Vegas for the next three years and those who definitely plan to move away, the average ranking scores do not differ substantially. However, there are a few variables playing substantially different roles for different groups, on their perception of QL. For example, those who plan to’be in Las Vegas ranked “climate, population growth, and cost of health care” much higher thandid those planning to move away. On the other hand, respondents planning to move away put a higher weight than those planning to stay on variables such as “cultural events and museums.” Page 49 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 39: Ranking Variables by Decision of Staying in Las Vegas Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cuhural events Museums Places for children activi.ties Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities Average Definitely Probably YES YES 7.10 7.04 7.40 7.02 6.85 7.37 6.11 4.79 5.36 4.39 7.03 6.87 4.77 3.86 8.43 8.35 7.98 7.60 8.99 8.04 7..55 7.53 5.26 5.01 5.18 4.73 7.60 6.87 7.25 6.41 8.83 8.72 9.42 8.86 9.05 8.53 9.18 8.82 7.95 7.14 5.19 4.05 2.33 1.88 7.03 6.54 Probably NO 6.11 7.50 6.67 1.82 2.22 5.28 5.33 7.50 6.95 8.89 6.94 4.72 5.83 8.34 6.39 8.61 9.17 8.06 7.78 7.51 3.19 * 6.42 Definitely NO 6.33 6.67 8.01 2.50 1.33 6.33 5.36 7.34 6.00 8.58 8.00 6.34 7.00 6.07 6.67 7.33 8.67 8.01 8.01 8.01 * * 6.62 ’ Variable received a negative score suggesting that it is not important for QL in general. The very large differences between those who plan to stay and those who plan to move away are based on their ratings of the current conditions of most of the QL variables in Las Vegas. Among the 22 variables included in Table 40, those planning to move away gave 13 negative ratings compared to 7 negative rating scores given by those who plan to stay. Those who plan to stay gave a higher positive score (or a lower negative score) than those who plan to move to 20 out of the 22 variables. Additionally, one of the variables rated higher by those who plan to move, shopping opportunities, received a negative ranking-score from them suggesting that the variable has no importance for the quality of their lives in Las Vegas. Overall, those who plan to m.ove have a substantially negative view of the current state of most of the QL variab1es.m the valley. Page 50 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 40: Rating Variables by Decision of Staying in Las Vegas Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population growth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities Average Definitely YES -1.52 -1.25 0.21 4.58 -1.17 -4.95 2.04 1.98 -0.86 1.12 5.51 2.65 -0.67 1.25 3.22 -1.29 1.85 2.92 6.66 3.54 6.47 6.98 1.78 Probably YES -1.98 -2.75 -0.06 4.02 -0.11 -4.02 2.40 0.53 -1.89 2.07 5.41 3.18 -0.21 0.70 3.19 -1.84 1.05 1.59 5.72 3.12 5.84 7.50 1.52 Probably NO -3.89 -4.44 -2.22 2.28 -3.89 -6.12 -1.57 0.88 -2.33 0.01 5.00 1.18 -4.24 -0.31 2.73 -3.33 1.57 0.59 5.00 2.22 5.92 4.55 -0.02 Definitely NO -3.66 -4.67 -2.34 1.25 -3.94 -4.00 -1.67 -0.72 -4.29 -2.28 1.37 1.44 -3.47 -2.28 2.78 -3.01 -0.67 0.36 5.00 2.86 7.50 6.25 -0.37 -. .. Combining ranking and rating scores suggests that those QL variables have an impact on people’s decision to stay in or move from Las Vegas. On average, those who plan to move away are dissatisfied with their QL in Las Vegas as indicated by the negative average total scores. Additionally, their total scores are lower (or more negative) than the scores assigned by those to plan to stay for 18 out of the 20 variables for which both groups had total scores. Among the seven variables scoring positively across those who plan to move, “fire protection” showed the highest score, followed by “parks and recreational areas and programs/facilities for senior citizens.” Two other variables, “libraries and cultural events,” had a median size positive impact’on their QL, and two more, “climate and police force,” had a small, but positive impact as well. All other variables subtracted from their.overall satisfaction with QL in the Valley. In summary, the relative level of satisfaction .with the QL in the Valley plays a very important role on whether the area would be able to attract and retain population. Page 51 The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 Table 41: Ranking amd Rating (Total Score) Variables by Decision of Staying in Las Vegas Variable Air quality Water quality Protection of the environment Climate Population gr&vth Traffic congestion Public transportation Quality of health care Cost of health care Schools Libraries Cultural events Museums Places for children activities Programs/facilities for senior citizens Crime rates Safe neighborhoods Police force Fire protection Parks and recreational areas Shopping opportunities Entertainment opportunities Average Definitely YES -10.75 -9.25 1.40 27.96 -6.27 -34.74 9.73 16.64 -6.86 10.02 41.56 13.93 -3.44 9.50 23.31 -11.35 17.37 26.43 61.06 28.13 33.55 16.25 11.55 Probably YES -13.94 -19.29 -0.44 19.26 -0.48 -27.56 9.26 4.38 -14.33 16.63 40.71 15.89 -0.99 4.81 20.42 -16.00 9.30 13.56 50.45 22.28 23.60 14.06 7.80 Probably NO -23.74 -33.24 -14.80 4.14 -8.62 -32.26 -8.33 6.60 -16.19 0.04 34.70 5.56 -24.67 y2.58 17.40 -28.63 14.39 4.71 38.86 16.66 18.84 * -1.48 Definitely NO -23.17 -31.09 -18.69 3.13 -5.23 -25.32 -8.95 -5.28 -25.69 -19.51 10.91 9.09 -24.24 -13.80 18.54 -22.0 1 -5.81 2.88 40.03 22.89 * * -6.07 Page ,p. .I 52 - I I / The Quality of Life in Las Vegas October, 1999 VII.Conclusion Las Vegas residents are relatively satisfied with the QL in the valley according to the survey reported here. There is always room to improve quality of life in the Valley, especially with projects focusing on those variables reported as important for QL but perceived as not in good shape by the respondents. Additionally, those variables are in general the same ones respondents revealed a willingness to pay for their improvement even through higher taxes. There were two primary quality of life focus areas for the survey: public policy and economic diversification. On the public policy side, we asked a series of questions to determine which factors are considered most important for quality of life, and how satisfied citizens are with those factors in Las Vegas. By measuring importance against satisfaction, we can begin to target the areas of concern with the highest potential for improving quality of life. We found out that the citizens of Las Vegas are very satisfied with their quality of life in general, and most importantly the vast majority of Las Vegans intend to stay here. The most important issues tend to relate to public safety issues, which are for the most part the responsibility of local government. Citizens are also more satisfied with these basic quality of life issues than other regional issues such as air and water quality, protection of the environment and traffic congestion. Advances in manufacturing and communications technology has led many to argue that place no longer matters, businesses and workers are no longer as dependent on location of raw materials or traditional transportation hubs as in the past. Others argue that now more than ever place matters most. As individuals and businesses become free to locate wherever they want, they consistently choose amenity rich cities. A number of studies provide empirical evidence that businesses with the highest paying jobs locate in amenity rich cities, because that’s precisely where the best educated, most highly skilled workers choose to live. In addition, representatives of the Nevada Development Authority tell us that managers are much more concerned about the availability of, and potential for attracting, retaining and training skilled workers. Therefore, they look at quality of life amenities - education, environment, health care, recreation and so on - more so in some cases than the regu1atoIy climate or even the tax structure. In order to sustain a strong economy, Las Vegas needs: l l l Economic diversification - retain businesses with high paying jobs and attract new ones, Highly Skilled