Conducted by:Wright State University

Center for Urban and Public Affairs

401 citizens were surveyed via a telephone survey of residents in Montgomery, Greene, Miami and northern Warren Counties.◦ 95 % confidence, +/- 5 % margin of error region-

wide

Survey conducted from February 10, 2011 through March 30, 2011

53 question survey developed by CUPA in partnership with MVRPC.

Random digit dial (RDD) sampling method utilized◦ Any household with landline telephone could

participate.◦ A cell phone sample was also utilized to reach

those who do not have landline telephones.

Quota sampling method used to closely approximate sample with demographics of area (age, gender)

More than two-thirds of respondents (68.2 percent) indicated some level of agreement with the statement: “I am satisfied with the way land has been used in the region.”

Female respondents (35.9 percent) were significantly more likely to disagree or strongly disagree than male respondents (27.1 percent).

Lower income respondents and respondents who have lived in Miami Valley for 11+ years more likely to disagree.

44.5 percent of respondents indicated the government does too little in managing land use.

40.1% say government does the right amount, while 15.4% say government does too much.

Female respondents, lower income respondents, renters, and those who have lived in the Miami Valley for over 20 years were all significantly more likely to indicate the government does too little.

When asked what they would change about the way governments manage land, the following themes emerged in the responses:

Better communication (both between local governments and with residents) 94.5% later indicated that they wish governments

would communicate more with each other.

Less development / more green space More development Stronger commitment to redevelopment

Respondents were provided with a list of five options, and were asked to indicate which one they would provide an incentive for: “Help farmers keep farming their land” (32.9 %) “Locate local businesses in existing downtown

space” (30.6%) “Finance new commercial and industrial

development (16.4%) “Help finance a historical preservation project

(10.3%) Opposed to incentives (9.9%)

Asset-Based

Business-As-Usual

Infill/Conservation

Radial Corridor

Unrestricted

Mixed-Themes

Jobs and Destination

Three-quarters of respondents (74.3 percent) indicated the development of jobs centers near existing housing was important . 67.0 percent said it was important to develop

housing around existing job centers

Three in five respondents (58.5 percent) would like to see development in urban areas. Suburban areas (38.5%) Rural areas (10.7%)

Respondents were presented with 12 paired statements and asked to indicate which was closer to their views

Results showed:◦ Support for strategies that reused/revitalized

existing structures for business/residential◦ Support for development around regional assets◦ Living in areas with established infrastructure more

important than parks/green space◦ Easy access to roads more important than ability to

walk, bike or take transit

Statement OnePercentag

ePercentag

eStatement Two

Reuse/revitalize properties in existing neighborhoods for

housing development88.6% 11.4%

Focus housing development along major highways

Reuse/revitalize properties in existing business districts for

business development84.8% 15.2%

Focus business development along major highways

Reuse/revitalize properties in existing neighborhoods for

housing development78.4% 21.6%

Focus housing development around regional assets

Reuse/revitalize properties in existing business districts for

business development80.0% 20.0%

Focus business development around regional assets.

Focus housing development along major highways

24.8% 75.2%Focus housing development

around regional assets

Focus business development along major highways

40.3% 59.7%Focus business development

around regional assets.

Statement OnePercentag

ePercentag

eStatement Two

It is important to live within a mile of a library, shopping

center or school47.5% 52.5%

It is important to drive fewer miles / reduce commute time

When choosing where to live, it is important to consider air

quality51.4% 48.6%

It is important to live in a neighborhood where I can

have a large yard

It is important to live within a mile of a park

23.7% 76.3%It is important to live in an area with existing water,

sewer and utilities

It is important to have privacy from my neighbors

73.2% 26.8%It is important to live within a mile from a shopping center

It is important to walk, bike or use public transit to work

29.2% 70.8%It is important to have easy and well-maintained access

to major roads

It is important to preserve farmland in the region

57.8% 42.2%It is important to bring

industry and jobs to the region

The Infill/Conservation Development scenario has the highest degree of support.◦ Supportive of maintaining farmland, reusing

existing space, promoting urban development Next highest level was for asset-based,

though not nearly as high as Infill/Conservation.

The Business-As-Usual and Jobs and Destination Development scenarios have little support among residents.

For more information, please contact:

David JonesSurvey Research DirectorWright State University, Center for Urban and

Public Affairs(937) 775-2941David.jones@wright.edu