-- Greg Brown (gregb@uidaho.edu) Computer Services Adjunct Assistant Professor, College of Forestry,Wildlife,& Range Sciences University of Idaho Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 885-2126 Fax: (208) 885-7539------------
Report on Latah County Residents Attitudes Toward Growth and Rural Residential Development A Cooperative Study Conducted by Students at the University of Idaho Faculty Advisors: Dr. Gary E. Machlis, Department of Forest Resources Dr. William J. McLaughlin, Department of Resource Rereation & Tourism College of Forestry, Wildlife & Range Sciences Analysis and Report Prepared by Dr. Gregory G. Brown, Department of Resource Recreation &Tourism College of Forestry, Wildlife & Range Sciences Reviewed by Dr. Charles C. Harris Dr. Nick Sanyal Department of Resource Recreation & Tourism College of Forestry, Wildlife & Range Sciences August 21, 1995 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Respondent Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Characteristics that make Latah County Desirable/Undesirable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Characteristics of Latah County that should not change. . . . . . . 11 Location of Future Housing in Latah County. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Residents' Attitudes Toward Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A. Population Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B. Economic/Business Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 C. Housing Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Sub-population analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A. Comparison between Moscow and Non-Moscow Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B. Comparison between students and non-students. . . . . . . . 20
Conclusions and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Introduction
In the face of increasing requests for rural residential housing in Latah County, the Latah County Planning and Zoning Commission created two working subcommittees in December of 1993 to examine the issue of rural residential housing in Latah County. The two subcommittees, each with different charters, were composed of P&Z members and volunteer citizens. The two committees were to seek answers to questions like how much rural residential housing is needed? Where should it be located? What type of residential housing is most appropriate? What have other counties done in the face of increasing demands for rural residential housing? The charter of the first subcommittee (known as the public participation or research design subcommittee) was to examine ways to increase public participation in the planning process. The second subcommittee (known as the rural residential alternatives subcommittee) was to gather secondary data on how other counties were grappling with the issue of rural residential housing. Information from both subcommittees would be used by the Planning and Zoning Commission to better plan for rural residential housing needs. In an effort to increase public participation and representation in the planning process, the public participation subcommittee requested help from the University of Idaho. The subcommittee approached two University of Idaho faculty members, Dr. Bill McLaughlin and Dr. Gary Machlis to determine the feasibility of conducting a Latah County wide telephone survey of residents' attitudes toward growth and rural residential development. In a cooperative arrangement between two classes at the University of Idaho, a graduate research methods course taught by Dr. Bill McLaughlin, and an undergraduate social ecology course taught by Dr. Gary Machlis, these professors agreed to design and implement a scientific public opinion poll to ascertain Latah County residents' attitudes toward growth and rural residential development. McLaughin's research methods class was given the task of designing the survey instrument and training the students who would be conduct the telephone survey. The students in Machlis' class were responsible for actually conducting the telephone survey. This report reflects the results of the telephone survey completed by the two university classes. Due to class time limitations, there was not sufficient time for the students themselves to analyze the results and prepare a report of findings, although the data entry was performed by the students. As a consequence, this reported was compiled and written by Greg Brown, a public participation subcommittee member, and a university researcher trained in survey research methodologies and statistical procedures. Because of the ever present potential for biased analysis and reporting, the content of this report was reviewed for objectivity by two other individuals knowledgeable in survey research methodologies, Dr. Charles C. Harris and Dr. Nick Sanyal, both from the Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism at the University of Idaho. An important limitation must be acknowledged when viewing the contents of this study. An important objective of this study was to provide university students with a real-world project with which to gain experience in survey research methodologies. The study was conducted within the limitations imposed by the professors to fit their particular class structures and students. Within the range of feasible options for the two classes, every effort was made by the professors and students to ensure that the study results would be relevant and useful for decision-makers. Methods The tasks of designing and implementing the public opinion survey was divided between two University of Idaho classes. The first class, a graduate research methods class taught by Dr. Bill McLaughlin was responsible for designing the survey instrument. [See Appendix A for a copy of the survey instrument.] The second class, an undergraduate sociology of natural resources class taught by Dr. Gary Machlis was responsible for collecting the information, i.e., actually conducting the telephone survey. Research objectives for the county survey were developed in a workshop facilitated by Bill McLaughlin. This workshop was conducted in his graduate research methods class and attended by members of the public participation subcommittee who functioned as clients for the study. Some of the research objectives identified in the workshop that became the basis for the survey instrument include:
1) Identifying the characteristics of Latah County that make it both a desirable and undesirable place to live. 2) Identifying the characteristics of Latah County that residents would not like to see changed. 3) Measuring residents' attitudes toward various components of growth: population growth, economic/business growth, and housing growth. 4) Determining residents' preferences for locating residential housing in Latah County. 5) Determining residents' attitudes toward the conversion of farmland to residential housing. 6) Determining how the attitudes of Moscow residents differ from those in rural Latah County. 7) Determining the familiarity and level of participation of Latah County residents in the planning and zoning process. The above research objectives were operationalized by the graduate class into a telephone survey instrument to be used by students in Gary Machlis' class. The survey instrument was pilot tested and refined by the graduate research methods class. A random sample of Latah County residents was drawn from the telephone directory for Latah County. Students in the research methods class gave instructions and training in how to conduct a telephone survey to the undergraduate students. Each student in Gary Machlis' class spent approximately one hour telephoning and administering the survey instrument to Latah County residents. The questionnaire was administered over a one week period in November 1994. The collection methods described above resulted in 337 usable survey questionnaires. Based on this sample size, one can assume with 90 percent confidence that the reported result is within +/- five percentage points of the true population percentage for a given dichotomous (yes/no type) question. On 5 point scale questions, one can assume with 95 percent confidence that the results are with +/- five percentage points.
Results
Respondent Characteristics
The sampling design, a simple random sample of residents listed in the telephone directory for Latah County, attempted to ensure a broad cross-section of Latah County residents that is representative of the entire population of Latah County residents. A post- survey comparison of respondent characteristics with 1990 census data indicates that the random sample individuals selected in this for this study is over- representative of Moscow city residents. A proportional sample of residents based on 1990 census data would contain about 54% Moscow residents whereas in this random sample of Latah County residents, approximately 71 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Moscow residents (residence classification was based on the response from the survey participant). The significant over- representation of Moscow residents represents one of the weaknesses of the study. Differences between Moscow and non-Moscow residents are especially important where statistically differences were found between these two groups. Approximately 86% of Latah County residents have not participated in organized public involvement efforts dealing with planning and zoning in the past 2 years [See Table 1].
Table 1. Have you participated in organized public involvement efforts dealing with planning and zoning in Latah County in the last 2 years?
Yes 13.6% No 85.8%
A majority of county residents (58%) do not feel adequately informed about planning and zoning issues and roughly 1 in 10 are not at all interested in planning and zoning issues [See Table 2].
Table 2. In general, do you feel adequately informed about planning and zoning issues in Latah County? Yes 29.3% No 57.7% Not interested in planning and zoning 11.5%
Possibly as a result of the lack of participating and information about planning and zoning issues, almost one-third of Latah county residents do not know whether their views and opinions are represented in the planning and zoning decisions being made in Latah County. Of those residents that expressed an opinion about whether their views were representing in planning and zoning decisions, about 43% said "no" and 24.4% said "yes." [See Table 3].
Table 3. Do you feel your views and opinions are represented in the planning and zoning decisions being made in Latah County?
Yes 24.4% No 42.8% Don't know 32.2%
Slightly less than one-third (31.3%) of the respondents indicated that they are a university student, either full or time part time [See Table 4]. No question was asked to differentiate part-time from full-time students.
Table 4. Are you a university student, either full or part time?
Yes 31.3% No 68.4%
The largest percentage (43.8%) of respondents are employed full- time, followed by part-time employment (18.2%) [See Table 5].
Table 5. Employment Status
Employed full-time 43.8% Employed part-time 18.2% Don't work because student 10.7% Retired 10.4% Housewife 5.1% Unemployed 2.7%
About 13% of the respondents surveyed are supported primarily by income from farming and about 10% actually live on a farm that is presently used for agricultural purposes [See Table 6].
Table 6. (a) Is your household supported by income from farming or agricultural related businesses?
Yes 12.7% No 86.7%
(b) Do you live on farm that is presently being used for agricultural purposes?
Yes 10.2% No 89.8%
About half of the responding households own land in Latah County [See Table 7] while the average length of residence for the survey respondents in Latah County is 16 years [See Table 8]. The average age of the respondent is almost 40 years old with the minimum age of the respondents being 18 [See Table 9]. The survey was limited to those individuals 18 years or older.
Table 7. Do you, or does the head of your household own land in Latah County?
Yes 49.9% No 48.7%
Table 8. How long have you lived in Latah County?
Average 16 years Max 86 years Min 1 month
Table 9. Age of respondent
Average 39.6 years Minimum 18 years Max 86 years
Finally, the survey participants were asked where they live in Latah County. As would be expected based on actual population distribution, the majority of the sampled respondents (71.1%) live within the Moscow City limits with the remaining 28.9% living outside of Moscow [See Table 10]. As stated previously, this higher than expected percentage of Moscow residents in the random sample is significant to the extent that the attitudes of non-Moscow residents differ from Latah County residents living outside of Moscow.
Table 10. Where respondents live:
71.1% Within Moscow city limits 12.0% Within small incorporated communities 3.3% Within small unincorporated communities 13.6 Outside any community
Characteristics that make Latah County Desirable/Undesirable
Latah County residents were asked whether Latah County had become more desirable, less desirable, or stayed about the same over the past 3 years. The results in Table 11 indicate that about 63% percent of residents believe Latah County has stayed about the same over the past 3 years. Of those that perceive Latah County has changed, more residents (23%) believe that Latah County has become a less desirable place to live than believe Latah County has become a more desirable place to live (14%).
Table 11. Over the past three years would you say that as a county in which to live, Latah County has become more desirable, less desirable or stayed about the same?
14.0% More desirable 62.7% Stayed about same 22.6% Less desirable
To find out specifically why Latah County had become a more/less desirable place in which to live, those that answered either "more desirable" or "less desirable" were asked for the "main reason" Latah County had changed. Table 12 indicates the responses from those individuals that felt that Latah County had become more desirable. The phrases in the table reflect groupings of similar responses and in most cases, preserve the original words and phrases given by the respondents. The number in parentheses indicates the frequency of responses. Interestingly, the reason most often cited by respondents for believing Latah County has become a more desirable place to live is the contrast in the perceived crime rate between Latah County and other areas. Latah County appears more desirable because of a relative comparison to crime conditions found elsewhere. As will be shown, other individuals perceive crime to have gotten worse in the last 3 years. Other reasons cited include the perceived benefits of an expanding economy (more businesses, jobs, shopping, and population growth).
Table 12. Latah County has become a more desirable place to live because:
Less Crime than other areas (6) More businesses (3) Better job opportunities(3) Growth of shopping areas(2) Population growth(2) People friendly (2) Economic growth Growth of shopping areas (except Walmart) More things to do - sports, theater, mall Rural lifestyle Opportunities for children Community involvement increasing Educational opportunities Better weather Community Variety of people can live here Better hunting Art Commissions UI and WSU Unique physical setting Sheltered from other problems Good place to raise family New homes
Table 13 indicates the responses to those that felt that Latah County has become a less desirable place to live over the last 3 years. The most frequent reasons given were those associated with population growth such as overcrowding and increased traffic.
Table 13. Latah County has become a less desirable place to live because:
Population Growth/Overcrowding(26) Traffic(7) Increased costs (housing,taxes)(7) Increased crime(3) Recall of County Govt(3) Housing development(2) More out-of-staters coming in(2) Growth of urban areas Less sense of community Poor Sheriff's department Rural people have less votes Local businesses don't cater to students Lack of sufficient planning Zoning plan backfired People more concerned with themselves than other people Contractor cheated us out of thousands Respondent Characteristics
Characteristics of Latah County that should not change
Residents were asked a question about the most important characteristic of Latah County that they would not like to see changed. Table 14 shows the coded responses to this question. The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of times a particular response was mentioned. Overwhelmingly, the residents of Latah county believe that the population size is the most important characteristic that they would not like to see changed. These results are consistent with the reasons given by those who believe Latah County has become a less desirable place to live. The concepts of increased development (housing and industrial), maintaining a "small town" atmosphere, keeping a "rural" character in the county, and preserving the agricultural base in the county are related to resident's desires not to see major change in the county's current population. Latah County residents would also like to maintain the low crime rate and the friendliness of the people that live in Latah County. The University of Idaho is important to the County as are amenities such as outdoor recreation opportunities, scenery, Moscow mountain, and forested lands. These desirable characteristics are consistent among both residents of Moscow and those that live outside Moscow.
Table 14. Most important characteristic of Latah County that residents don't want to see changed.
Population Size and Development Growth (107) Small Town Atmosphere (25) Rural Character (25) Low Crime (23) University of Idaho (13) Agricultural base (12) Friendly People/Sense of Community (10) Local School System (8) Downtown Moscow (7) Outdoor Recreation Opportunities (5)
Less than 5 mentions
Scenery Moscow Mountain Housing prices (no increase) Forest lands Environmental awareness Water availability
Location of Future Housing in Latah County
Latah County residents were asked several questions about where future housing should be located within the county. Five choices or alternatives were given to the residents ranging from within existing city limits of towns to several dispersion options throughout the county. The frequency of responses is shown in Table 15.
Table 15. Where do you think future housing should be built in Latah County?
34.3% Within existing city limits of towns 21.6% Adjacent to existing towns 4.1% Dispersed individual homesites throughout county 4.4% Dispersed housing developments throughout county 17.5% Some mix of these 10.2% No preference
The frequency of responses indicate fairly strongly that Latah County residents believe that future housing should be located within existing city limits of town or adjacent to existing towns. There appears to be little support for encouraging new housing as dispersed individual homesites or as dispersed housing developments throughout the county. Related the location of future housing was a question about the desirability of building future housing units on existing farmland. About 68 percent of the respondents believe that the building of future housing on