vision2020
Comprehensive Planning (Report text)
Visionaries:
Below is a text version of the report I prepared
on growth in Latah County. Bottom-line type
people can skip down to the summary.
Greg Bown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
existing farmland is either somewhat (33.7%) or very (34%) undesirable.
The results are shown in Table 16.
Table 16. Do you feel building future housing units on existing farmland
is very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable, or very
undesirable?
6.3% Very desirable
20.5% Somewhat desirable
33.7% Somewhat undesirable
34.0% Very undesirable
Residents' Attitudes Toward Growth
A. Population Growth
A number of questions sought to measure residents' attitudes toward
various components of growth: population growth, economic/business
growth, and housing growth. Attitudes toward population growth were
measured 2 different ways. The first method used 3 separate questions, each
describing a population growth rate scenario and the expected population
that would result from that rate of growth over the next five years. The 3
population growth scenarios included a growth rate approximately equal to
the current growth rate (2% which adds about 800 people per year resulting
in 38,000 residents in the year 2000), a rate of growth half as fast as the
current growth rate (1% which adds about 400 people per year resulting in
36,000 residents in the year 2000), and a growth rate that is double the
current rate (4% which adds about 1600 people per year resulting in 42,000
residents in the year 2000). Respondents were asked the extent to which
they agreed/disagreed with the particular population growth scenario.
Results describing the level of agreement with each growth scenario are
presented in Table 17 and also in Figure 1.
Table 17. Agreement with 3 population growth scenarios over next 5
years*
63.9% Agree Half the current rate (400 per year or about 1%)
52.6% Agree Current Rate (800 per year or about 2%)
12.7% Agree Double the current rate (1600 per year or about 4%)
*Differences in all 3 growth scenarios are statistically significant p < .05
Figure 1.
Of the 3 possible population growth scenarios presented to residents,
there was strongest agreement with a growth scenario that would have Latah
County growing at the half the current rate, or about 1 percent. The current
growth rate of approximately 2 percent is agreeable to just over just over
half the residents sampled. Doubling the current growth rate appears very
disagreeable to Latah County residents.
Thus, while the current growth rate of 2 percent is marginally
agreeable to a majority of Latah County residents, a preferred growth rate
for Latah County would be half the current rate of growth, or about 1
percent.
A concern with population growth in Latah County was confirmed by
3 other questions. One question simply asked residents whether the county
should encourage or discourage population growth. The results, presented
in Table 18, show that more residents would rather see the county
discourage rather than encourage population growth.
Table 18. Do you think the County should encourage or discourage
population growth?
Encourage Pop. Growth 39.2%
Discourage Pop. Growth 45.1%
Neither 5.3%
This question about encouraging/discouraging growth was analyzed
further to explore the differences and similarities between opponents and
proponents of growth in Latah County. Opponents of growth tend to see
Latah County as a more desirable place to live than proponents of growth (P
< .05), tend to be slightly older than proponents of growth (P < .05), and
tend to have lived longer in Latah County (P < .10). Interestingly,
statistically significant differences between opponents and proponents of
growth did not emerge between farmers/non-farmers, between students/non-
students, between landowners/non-landowners, between those that live in and
outside Moscow, and between those that have been active/non-active in the
planning and zoning issues. In short, there are few variables from this
study that offer strong differentiation between opponents/proponents of
growth in Latah County.
Another question asked residents whether the County needs to adopt
measures to promote population growth. Consistent with the results in the
previous table, Table 19 shows that residents do not believe that the County
should promote growth with 61.4 percent disagreeing (combining the
"disagree" with "strongly disagree" categories) with the need to promote
population growth.
Table 19. Latah County needs to adopt measures to promote
population growth.
Strongly agree 4.3%
Agree 21.4%
Neither agree or disagree 11.0%
Disagree 45.6%
Strongly disagree 17.7%
Results from yet another question dealing with population growth are
again consistent with residents' attitudes toward population growth. Table
20 shows the responses to a question asking whether Latah County is
attracting enough new residents. The results show that Latah County
residents disagree with the notion that Latah County is not attracting enough
new residents. Only 10% of residents believe Latah County is not attracting
enough new residents.
Table 20. Latah County is not attracting enough new residents.
Strongly agree 2.2%
Agree 8.3%
Neither agree or disagree 8.0%
Disagree 54.3%
Strongly disagree 27.2%
A final question pertaining to the issue of population growth offers
ambiguous results, perhaps a result of the lack of specitivity in the question
resulting from the phrase "too many" in the question. Table 21 shows the
responses to a question asking about whether too many people are moving
into Latah County. The results indicate that residents are equally divided
on the "too many" issue (41.0% vs. 40.4% with 18.6% percent undecided).
Those that believe too many people are moving into Latah County have
stronger feelings about this issue than those who don't (11.0% vs. 2.2%).
Table 21. There are too many people moving into Latah County.
Strongly agree 11.0%
Agree 30.0%
Neither agree or disagree 18.6%
Disagree 38.2%
Strongly disagree 2.2%
In summary, the seven questions in the survey that asked about residents'
attitudes toward population growth in Latah County show consistent concern
about the rate of population growth in the county. This concern is perhaps
best captured by the very specific set of 3 questions that ask residents what
rate of growth is most agreeable to them. A slower growth rate than the
present growth rate is most agreeable to current Latah County residents.
B. Economic/Business Growth
There were 4 questions asked of residents pertaining to the issue of
economic/business growth in Latah County. In general, residents do not
believe there is too much emphasis on economic growth and that the County
should work to attract new businesses. However, this general positive
attitude toward economic growth has limits. Residents also believe that
rapid economic growth often creates more problems than benefits.
Table 22 shows the results of a question asking residents about the
present emphasis on encouraging economic in Latah County. Residents do
not believe there is too much emphasis on encouraging economic growth.
However, a significant percentage of residents are ambivalent on this issue.
Over one in 5 residents are uncertain about whether there is too much
emphasis on economic growth.
Table 22. In Latah County, there is too much emphasis on encouraging
economic growth and not enough on limiting it.
Strongly agree 8.7%
Agree 20.5%
Neither agree or disagree 23.7%
Disagree 42.6%
Strongly disagree 4.5%
A majority of residents surveyed (64.4%) believe that Latah County
government should work to attract new businesses.
Table 23. Latah County Government should work to attract new
businesses.
Strongly agree 17.4%
Agree 51.3%
Neither agree or disagree 10.1%
Disagree 18.4%
Strongly disagree 2.8%
Much like the population question asking about whether there are "too
many" people moving to Latah County, Table 24 demonstrates the ambiguity
that can result from asking residents about whether there are "too many"
businesses being built in Latah County. Residents appear to be equally
divided (41% vs. 41.6%) on the issue of whether "too many" businesses are
being built. Equally significant, a significant percentage of residents
(17.5%) are likewise ambivalent on this issue.
Table 24. There are too few businesses being built in Latah County.
Strongly agree 7.0%
Agree 34.0%
Neither agree or disagree 17.5%
Disagree 37.5%
Strongly disagree 4.1%
Table 25 shows that residents agree that rapid economic growth in Latah
County can be more negative than positive with about 66 percent agreeing
with this position.
Table 25. Rapid Economic Development in a County like Latah often
creates more problems than benefits.
Strongly agree 17.5%
Agree 48.6%
Neither agree or disagree 10.5%
Disagree 20.0%
Strongly disagree 3.4%
Thus, residents' attitudes toward economic growth and business
development, while generally favorable, are not entirely conclusive or
consistent. More definitively, residents do agree that Latah County should
work to attract new businesses.
C. Housing Growth
There were 3 questions that addressed the issue of housing growth. The
results are consistent in showing that residents believe that new housing
should be built to accommodate new residents. Table 26 shows that
residents do agree (53%) vs. (34%) that Latah County needs new
subdivisions to provide housing for new residents.
Table 26. Latah County needs new subdivisions to provide housing for
new residents.
Strongly agree 13.0%
Agree 42.2%
Neither agree or disagree 9.3%
Disagree 26.1%
Strongly disagree 9.3%
Tables 27 and 28 show that a majority of residents (56.7%) do not believe
there are too many housing units being built in Latah County and that
residents believe that more housing units ought to be built for new residents.
Table 27. There are too many new housing units being built in Latah
County.
Strongly agree 7.5%
Agree 18.8%
Neither agree or disagree 13.8%
Disagree 48.0%
Strongly disagree 11.9%
Table 28. Additional housing units for new residents should be built in
Latah County.
Strongly agree 8.0%
Agree 60.7%
Neither agree or disagree 10.7%
Disagree 16.0%
Strongly disagree 4.6%
Sub-population analysis
A. Comparison between Moscow and Non-Moscow Residents
Because the random sample of Latah County residents appears to over-
represent Moscow residents, understanding the magnitude and direction of
attitudinal differences between Moscow and non-Moscow residents is
important to understanding how these study results might otherwise appear
with a truly proportional sample of Latah County residents. Statistically
significant differences between Moscow and non-Moscow residents were
limited to the items shown below. In general, non-Moscow residents may
be considered slightly more concerned about future development and growth
in Latah County, perhaps because they believe Latah County to be a more
desirable place to live and because they are more likely to own land and
engage in agricultural practices. Non-Moscow residents are also less likely
to be university students. As a result, the sampling error inherent in this
study would tend to underestimate the level of concern expressed by
residents about population growth and economic development.
Statistically significant differences emerged between Moscow and Non-
Moscow residents on
the following items:
1) Non-Moscow residents had stronger agreement that rapid economic
development often creates more problems than benefits.
2) Non-Moscow residents had stronger agreement that there are too many
people moving into Latah County.
3) Non-Moscow residents believe Latah County to be a more desirable
place to live than Moscow residents.
4) Non-Moscow residents are more adequately informed and interested in
planning and zoning issues although the rate of participation in organized
public involvement does not differ significantly.
5) As might be expected, non-Moscow residents are more likely to a) own
land, b) live on a farm, c) receive farming income, and less likely to be a
university student.
B. Comparison between students and non-students
Statistically significant differences emerged between students and non-
students on 4 items:
1) Non-students have stronger feelings about the desirability of living in
Latah County. For example, about 67% of non-students view Latah County
as "Very Desirable" as compared to about 30% of students. This difference
is a matter of degree as both groups still view Latah County as a desirable
place to live. A reasonable explanation is that students may not be as
attached to area, having lived in the area a shorter period of time and for
only part of the calendar year when school is in session.
2) Non-students tend to more strongly disagree with the statement that
Latah County is not attracting enough new residents.
3) Non-students have stronger feelings about the importance of planning for
future growth.
4) Students tend to be less adequately informed about planning and zoning
issues.
5) As might be expected, students are less likely than non-students to own
land.
Conclusions and Discussion
A reasonable starting place for a discussion of the desirability of growth
and the location of future housing in Latah County is how residents
currently view Moscow as a place to live. Fifty-four (54) percent of the
residents surveyed believe that Latah County is a "very desirable" place to
live while another 41 percent view Latah County as a "somewhat desirable"
place. In contrast, less than 1 percent of residents view Latah County as a
"very undesirable" place to live and 3 percent view Latah County as
"somewhat undesirable". Thus, most residents (95 percent) view currently
view Latah County as a desirable place to live.
The desirability of Latah County as a place to live is associated with the
characteristics that residents do not want to see changed. These attributes
include the population size of Latah County, small town atmosphere, rural
character, low crime rate, the University of Idaho, the agricultural base,
and the friendly people. To the extent that Latah County has become less
desirable over the last 3 years (a perception shared by just over 1 in 5
residents), this decreasing desirability can be attributed to increased
population growth/overcrowding, increased traffic, and the increased costs of
housing and taxes. The belief that Latah County has become more desirable
to live over the last 3 years (a perception shared by less than 1 in 5
residents), can be attributed to relatively less crime and to more businesses
and job opportunities when compared with other areas . About 63 percent
of county residents perceive Latah County to have stayed about the same
over the last 3 years.
A consistent pattern of responses from residents on numerous survey
questions indicate concern about future population growth in the county. Of
3 possible growth scenarios for Latah County presented to residents (one
that would halve the current growth rate, one that would maintain the
current growth rate, and one that would double the current growth rate)
residents are most accepting of a growth rate that would be half (about 1
percent) the current growth rate (about 2 percent). About 53 percent of
respondents find the current growth rate acceptable, but a larger percentage
(64%) find a growth rate that is half the current rate even more acceptable.
This finding is consistent with the belief of a plurality of residents that the
county should discourage rather than encourage population growth (45% vs.
39%).
Residents' concern about increased population growth may be viewed as
somewhat inconsistent with the finding that a majority of residents agree that
new housing should be built in Latah County for new residents (69% vs.
21%). One logical presumption is that increases in housing units should
accompany increases in human population. Concern over population
growth that were apparent throughout the survey should also be reflected in
concern about the desirability of building new housing units. And yet this
logical relationship between population and housing was not reflected in the
survey results. A likely explanation is that residents' agreement that new
houses should be built is bounded by the most acceptable levels of
population growth as found in the survey. Additonal housing should be
built that is within the range of the most acceptable and modest population
increase scenario in the county agreeable to residents (about 1 percent). An
additional factor contributing to residents' support for new housing is the
frustration of some residents (many of whom are students) with present
housing costs to the point where the negativity of population growth might
be viewed as an acceptable trade-off for reduced housing costs. The
unhappiness with housing costs was mentioned by about 10 percent of those
believing that Latah County had become a less desirable place to live.
Residents' concern with increased population growth also did not
manifest strongly in attitudes toward economic development. Residents'
attitudes toward economic growth and development, while generally
favorable, were not entirely conclusive or consistent. Residents do agree
that Latah County should work to attract new businesses though residents
are ambivalent on whether too few businesses are being built.
When new housing is to be built, residents believe the housing should be
located first and foremost within existing city limits of towns. The second
best alternative would be to locate new housing adjacent to existing towns.
There is little support (less than 10 percent) among Latah County residents
for alternatives that would locate new housing dispersed throughout Latah
County. Residents want to see the agricultural base of the county preserved
as they see the building of future housing on existing farmland as
undesirable.
In general, Latah County residents do not feel adequately informed about
planning and zoning issues and only about 14 percent of the survey
respondents stated that they had participated in planning and zoning efforts
in the past 2 years.
While the random sample of Latah County residents that participated in
the survey appear to be over-representative of Moscow residents based on
census data, statistically significant differences between Moscow and non-
Moscow residents emerged on relatively few items. These differences in
responses were associated with differences in strength of
agreement/disagreement rather than actual differences in opinion. The
sampling error that is present in this study would tend to underestimate the
level of concern expressed by residents about population growth and
economic development. Specifically, non-Moscow residents had stronger
agreement that rapid economic development often creates more problems
than benefits and stronger agreement that there are too many people moving
into Latah County. Non-Moscow residents believe Latah County to be a
more desirable place to live than Moscow residents and appear to be more
adequately informed and interested in planning and zoning issues although
the rate of participation in planning and zoning did not differ significantly
between Moscow and non-Moscow residents.
University students comprise a significant portion of Latah County
residents. Because of obvious differences in the lifestyles and living
situations of students and non-students, one could hypothesize that
significant differences in opinion on planning and zoning issues might
emerge between students and non-students. In fact, the findings reveal
relatively few significant differences in perspective between students and
non-students. Non-students tend to have stronger feelings about the
desirability of living in Latah County than students and non-students tend to
more conservative about the desirability of attracting enough new residents.
As might be expected, non-students have stronger feelings about the
importance of planning for future growth and tend to be more adequately
informed about planning and zoning issues.
Finally, proponents and opponents of growth for Latah County are not
easily differentiated based on social groupings and other variables collected
in this study. While opponents of growth tend to believe that Latah County
is a more desirable place to live than proponents of growth and tend to be
slightly older and have lived longer in Latah County, opponents/proponents
cannot be distinguished by where they live (a rural/urban dichotomy does
not hold), whether they are students or not, whether they farm or not,
whether they own land or not, or by how active they are in the planning and
zoning process. In short, the encourage/discourage growth attitudes of
Latah County residents appear to be complex and cannot be adequately
described in terms of social groupings, demographic characteristics, or area
of residence as collected in this study.
----------
Greg Brown (gregb@corecom.net)
Asst. Professor, Environmental Science Dept.
Alaska Pacific University
Home: (907) 346-2777
Work: (907) 564-8267
Fax: (907) 562-4276
Back to TOC