1 | P a g e
Coeur d’Alene
Community Survey Resident’s Perspectives on Values, Trends,
Issues, and Future Vision
October 2013
Prepared for:
Coeur d’Alene 2030 Visioning Project
Prepared by:
Monica A. Reyna Jennifer C. Smith
Barbara E. Foltz
Social Science Research Unit (SSRU) University of Idaho
P.O. Box 444290 Moscow, ID 83844-4290
Telephone (208) 885-5595 Fax (208) 885-5554
http://www.agls.uidaho.edu/ssru
2 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Comparison to Census Data .................................................................................................................... 7
Section 1: Demographics ............................................................................................................................ 7
General Demographics of Respondents ................................................................................................. 8
Political Profile of Respondents .............................................................................................................. 9
Section 2: Strengths and Weaknesses ...................................................................................................... 10
Section 3: Current Issues and Immediate Needs ...................................................................................... 12
Section 4: Residents’ Future Vision .......................................................................................................... 13
Section 5: Meeting Expectations .............................................................................................................. 14
Importance of Community Qualities .................................................................................................... 14
Rating greater Coeur d’Alene ................................................................................................................ 16
Comparisons of Each Community Quality ............................................................................................ 18
Section 6: Past and Future ........................................................................................................................ 27
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 28
3 | P a g e
List of Tables
Table 1: Comparison to Census Data .......................................................................................................... 7
Table 2: Time lived in community by strength community/people ......................................................... 11
Table 3: Time lived in the area by biggest weakness is lack of jobs ......................................................... 11
Table 4: Primary/secondary residence by accountability of community leaders .................................... 12
Table 5: Primary/secondary residence by improved education in vision ................................................ 13
Table 6: Primary/secondary residence by more jobs in vision ................................................................. 13
Table 7: Quality of primary and secondary schools .................................................................................. 18
Table 8: Small town feel ............................................................................................................................ 18
Table 9: Good place to raise children ....................................................................................................... 18
Table 10: Availability of living-wage jobs .................................................................................................. 19
Table 11: Diversity of jobs and professional opportunities ...................................................................... 19
Table 12: Natural Environment ................................................................................................................. 19
Table 13: Availability of parks, trails and recreational opportunities ...................................................... 20
Table 14: Availability of shopping ............................................................................................................. 20
Table 15: Quality health care .................................................................................................................... 20
Table 16: Safe, crime free neighborhoods ................................................................................................ 21
Table 17: Good relations between people from different cultural backgrounds .................................... 21
Table 18: Availability of social services ..................................................................................................... 21
Table 19: Availability of affordable housing ............................................................................................. 22
Table 20: Availability of the arts including music, theatre and dance ..................................................... 22
Table 21: Air and water quality ................................................................................................................. 23
Table 22: Respectful dialogue and cooperation among community leaders ........................................... 23
Table 23: Quality of local government leadership .................................................................................... 23
Table 24: Community involvement in local government and decision-making ....................................... 24
Table 25: Being friendly to tourists ........................................................................................................... 24
Table 26: Well-planned city ...................................................................................................................... 24
Table 27: Assessing service taxes on tourists ........................................................................................... 25
Table 28: Lack of traffic congestion .......................................................................................................... 25
Table 29: Availability of bike paths ........................................................................................................... 25
Table 30: Availability of public transportation ......................................................................................... 26
Table 31: Proximity to major airport ........................................................................................................ 26
Table 32: Access to high speed internet ................................................................................................... 26
4 | P a g e
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Time lived in greater Coeur d’Alene ............................................................................................ 8
Figure 2: Income ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Political Views .............................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 4: Political Party ............................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Importance of Community Qualities ......................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Importance of Community Qualities Cont. ................................................................................ 15
Figure 7: Rating Community Qualities ...................................................................................................... 16
Figure 8: Rating Community Qualities Cont. ............................................................................................ 17
Figure 9: Comparing views of the past and future ................................................................................... 27
Figure 10: Relationship between views of the past and future................................................................ 27
5 | P a g e
The Coeur d’Alene Community Survey covers a variety of issues and topics. Residents ranked qualities of the greater Coeur d’Alene area, identified strengths and weaknesses, as well as gave their perspectives on the future of the region. Several key issues surfaced in this research including jobs, growth, our natural environment, recreation, and education. Residents value key elements of our natural environment, the availability of parks, trails and recreation, air and water quality. Residents also value social elements such as a good place to raise a family, quality healthcare, and safety. In general these key values appear to be met as resident’s rate greater Coeur d’Alene highly in these areas. Quality schools and affordable housing are also valued but are not rated as highly as the above. The biggest gap between what is valued and how we rate greater CDA as delivering on that value is the area of good wage jobs and job diversity. Growth and how we manage growth is very important to respondents as well. Other specific findings include:
- Half of residents feel that in the future, the greater Coeur d’Alene area will become better.
- Over half of residents reported Coeur d’Alene’s greatest strength to be its scenic beauty and environment.
- One in five residents believe that the greatest issue facing Coeur d’Alene today is population growth.
- One out of four residents reported that the greatest issue facing Coeur d’Alene today is a lack of jobs.
- Over seventy percent of respondents feel that it is ‘Very important’ for a community to have good relations between people who have different cultural background.
- Seven out of ten respondents also feel that respectful dialogue and cooperation among community leaders and citizens is ‘Very important’.
- One in five respondents believe that population growth will influence the greater Coeur d’Alene as a better or worse place to live.
Executive Summary
6 | P a g e
Methodology
The final response rate
was 20.7% with a
cooperation rate of 35.8%.
The Social Science Research Unit (SSRU) at the University of Idaho was contracted by Coeur d’Alene 2030 Visioning Project, which is a group of private and public organizations in the greater Coeur d’Alene area, to conduct a community survey for the residents of the greater Coeur d’Alene area. Two frames were used for the sample: a landline frame (n = 800) and a wireless number frame (n = 2,000). An oversample of 133 listed numbers were selected from the city of Plummer in order to increase the response of hard to reach residents and residents within certain race, income and geography. The final survey instrument is shown in Appendix A. The survey took 15 minutes on average to complete as was approved by the University of Idaho Institutional Review Board. All SSRU telephone interviewers receive training in proper telephone interviewing, phone etiquette, and the use of Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) software. In addition, interviewers receive training specific to the survey, including what kinds of questions respondents may have regarding the study and how to code specific types of responses. Each interviewer is required to complete an online National Institutes of Health training course in human subject research, including confidentiality rules and regulations. Interviewers were monitored during each calling session by trained supervisors. Data was collected on WinCati, a computer assisted telephone interviewing system, and analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (Version 9.3. 2009. SAS Institute, Cary, NC). To increase the telephone survey response rate, a pre-calling postcard was sent to all landline respondents prior to the telephone calls (26 July, 2013). The postcard stated the SSRU would be contacting the household within the next week, it also described the purpose of the survey and provided a toll-free number to call the SSRU if they had any questions or concerns regarding the study (Appendix B). Calls began the 29th of July, 2013 and continued until the 4th of September 2013. Each number in the sample was called at least eight times and up to ten times in attempt to complete an interview. Interviewers made calls during the work week in the mornings, afternoons, evenings, as well as on Saturdays 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. PST in an attempt to reach as many potential respondents for this project as possible. The final response rate for the two frames combined is 20.7 percent, the final cooperation rate is 35.8 percent, and the final refusal rate is 31.6 percent. Respondents were also asked several open ended questions which were transcribed verbatim and submitted to a vigorous coding process. The following are the results from the interviews. Data was analyzed using the SAS statistical software package. Frequencies, standard errors (using the finite population correction), and 95% confidence limits were computed using the ‘surveyfreq’ procedure in SAS. Full tabular results are presented in Appendix C and; all open ended responses are presented in Appendix D.
7 | P a g e
U.S. Census Bureau. 2005-2009 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates
Age Category ACS Sample 95% CL
18 – 19 yrs old 4.3% 1.8% 0.5% - 3.1%
20 – 24 yrs old 10.4% 4.0% 2.1% - 6.0%
25 – 34 yrs old 18.3% 10.6% 7.6% - 13.7%
35 – 44 yrs old 17.6% 10.4% 7.3% - 13.4%
45 – 54 yrs old 18.6% 15.4% 11.8% - 19.0%
55 – 59 yrs old 8.1% 13.6% 10.2% - 17.0%
60 – 64 yrs old 6.5% 9.3% 6.5% - 12.2%
65 – 74 yrs old 8.6% 23.2% 19.1% - 27.4%
75 – 84 yrs old 5.4% 10.1% 7.1% - 13.1%
Over 85 yrs old 2.2% 1.5% 0.3% - 2.7%
Comparison to Census Data In order to determine sample representativeness, we compared the age distribution of adults (over 18) for the respondents in the Coeur d’Alene Community Survey to the percent of adults over age 18 in the state of Idaho as estimated in the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) by the U.S. Census Bureau. When the Census figures are compared to the ninety-five percent confidence intervals of the sample estimates (both landline and cell phone frames), the youngest residents are slightly underrepresented and the older age groups are slightly overrepresented. To account for the high proportion of older respondents we have checked for bias by checking responses of older respondents against others to see if any statistically significant differences were detected.
Section 1:
Demographics
Table 1: Comparison to Census Data
8 | P a g e
0%25%50%
Less than 5yrs
Btwn 5-9 yrs
Btwn 10-14yrs
Btwn 15-24yrs
Btwn 25-34yrs
Btwn 35-49yrs
More than50yrs
General Demographics of Respondents Respondents were asked demographic questions such as occupation, age, income, voter status, education, and more. Most respondents have lived in the area between fifteen and twenty four years. In regards to occupational status, the highest proportion of respondents were employed full time (thirty-eight percent) while the next highest were retired (thirty-six percent). The majority (seventy-nine percent) are home owners. Also, the majority of respondents (seventy-two percent) live outside of city limits. Respondents had a variety of education levels, the highest being some college (twenty-eight percent) or bachelor’s degree (twenty-three percent). The majority of people interviewed listed the greater Coeur d’Alene area as their primary residence (ninety-two percent). Fifty percent of respondents were female and fifty percent were male.
Figure 1: Time lived in greater Coeur d’Alene
Figure 2: Income
9 | P a g e
0%25%50%
Very conservative
Conservative
Moderate
Liberal
Very liberal
35.1%
14.6%
47.9%
2.3%
Republican
Democrat
Independent/nopreference/other
Don't know
Political Profile of Respondents About fifty percent of respondents identified their political views as ‘Very conservative’ or ‘Conservative’. This is followed by thirty-four percent who identified as ‘Moderate’ and fifteen percent who identified as ‘Liberal’ or ‘Very Liberal’. When asked about political party affiliation, a little less than half (forty-eight percent) of respondents identified as ‘Independent/No preference/Other’. A little over one-third of respondents identified as Republican (thirty-five percent). Fifteen percent of respondents identified as Democrat and two percent were unsure. Eighty-one percent of respondents are registered to vote at their current address.
Figure 3: Political Views
Figure 4: Political Party
10 | P a g e
Respondents were asked several open-ended questions during the interview including ‘What is the greater Coeur d’Alene area’s greatest strength?’ and ‘What is the greater Coeur d’Alene area’s greatest weakness?’ The most frequently reported strength was scenic beauty and environment with fifty-two percent of respondents. The next highest reported strengths were trails and recreation (eighteen percent), climate (fifteen percent), and community/ people (fifteen percent). When asked about the greatest weakness, greater CDA residents also had a variety of answers. The most frequent responses were low paying jobs at sixteen percent. The next highest weaknesses were local government at twelve percent, and lack of jobs at twelve percent. Several cross tabulations were run with the highest ranking strengths and weaknesses. This included age, number of years living in the area, political view, primary/secondary residence, and outside/inside Coeur d’Alene city limits. There were no statistical differences against those who live within city limits and those who live outside of city limits. Also no statistical differences were detected by residents who most likely will and will not be alive in 2030.
Section 2: Strengths
and Weaknesses
Half of greater Coeur d’Alene’s residents feel that the area’s greatest
strength is its scenic beauty and
environment.
11 | P a g e
Strength
community/people Strength not
community/people
Less than 5yrs 32.3% 67.7%
Between 5-9yrs 3.2% 96.8%
Between 10-14yrs 12.7% 87.3%
Between 15-24yrs 15.4% 84.6%
Between 25-34ys 17.2% 82.8%
Between 35-49yrs 18.0% 82.0%
More than 50yrs 11.1% 88.9%
p-value = .0162
Biggest weakness
is lack of jobs Biggest weakness is
not lack of jobs
Less than 5yrs 87.1% 12.9%
Between 5-9yrs 96.8% 3.2%
Between 10-14yrs 90.5% 9.5%
Between 15-24 yrs 98.1% 1.9%
Between 25-34ys 86.2% 13.8%
Between 35-49yrs 93.4% 6.6%
More than 50yrs 100.0% 0.0%
p-value = 0.0096
Differences were found based on the number of years respondents have lived in the area. Residents who have lived in the greater Coeur d’Alene for less than five years were the most likely to feel that the community/people is its greatest strength. Interestingly, residents who have lived in the area between five and nine years were the least likely to list people/community as its strength.
Residents who have lived in the area between fifteen and twenty-four years or for more than fifty years were more likely to list lack of jobs as greater Coeur d’Alene’s biggest weakness.
Table 2: Time lived in community by strength community/people
: Time lived in area by community/people strength
Table 3: Time lived in the area by biggest weakness is lack of jobs
12 | P a g e
Section 3:
Current Issues and
Immediate Needs When asked about the greatest issue facing greater Coeur d’Alene today one out of five residents listed population growth. This was followed by lack of jobs at twelve percent, and local government leadership at ten percent. These highest ranking issues were cross tabulated with key demographics such as age of respondent, primary or secondary residence, political view, or residence within or outside of city limits. No statistically significant differences were found. Respondents were also asked the question ‘In your opinion, what one thing can the greater Coeur d’Alene area do in order to grow and develop in a way that meets your expectations for the future?’ Fifteen percent of respondents believe that creating a better business climate is one thing that the greater Coeur d’Alene can do right now to better meet the their expectations for the future. This is followed closely by twelve percent who would like to see more accountability for community leaders. The third most frequent response was control or manage growth (eleven percent). Cross tabulations of key demographics were also run with these top responses. From these, only one statistically significant relationship was detected. Respondents who identified greater Coeur d’Alene as their primary residence were significantly more likely to mention accountability of community leaders.
Accountability of
community leaders
Did not mention accountability of
community leaders
Primary Residence 12.8% 87.2%
Secondary Residence 0.0% 100.0%
p-value = 0.0233
One out of five residents believe that population
growth is the biggest issue facing
greater Coeur d’Alene today.
Table 4: Primary/secondary residence by accountability of community leaders
Fifteen percent of respondents believe that the one thing
greater Coeur d’Alene can do in order to grow
and develop in a way that meets their
expectations for the future is to create a
better business climate.
13 | P a g e
Section 4: Residents’
Future Vision
Respondents were also asked what their vision was for their area. The answers varied among twenty different topics. The most frequent answer was more jobs with fifteen percent. The second most frequent answer was improved education with ten percent. Cross tabulations were run with age, number of years lived in the area, political views, primary/secondary residence, and residence outside and inside city limits. Statistical significance was only found based on primary or secondary residence. Respondents who listed greater Coeur d’Alene as their primary residence were more than four times more likely to include more jobs in their vision.
Vision Includes more jobs
Vision does not include more
jobs
Primary Residence 16.4% 83.6%
Secondary Residence 2.8% 97.2%
p-value = 0.0297
Also respondents who identify greater Coeur d’Alene as their primary residence were more likely to list improved education as a part of their vision for Coeur d’Alene.
Vision includes more improved
education
Vision does not include
improved education
Primary Residence 11.1% 88.9%
Secondary Residence 0.0% 100.0%
p-value = 0.0233
Table 5: Primary/secondary residence by improved education in vision
Fifteen percent of respondents see
more jobs in their vision for Coeur
d’Alene.
Table 6: Primary/secondary residence by more jobs in vision
14 | P a g e
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Quality of primary andsecondary schools
Small town feel
Good place to raisechildren
Availability of living-wage jobs
Diversity of jobs andprofessional
opportunities
Natural environment
Availability of parks,trails, and
recreational…
Availability ofshopping
Quality health care
Safe, crime freeneighborhoods
Good relationsbetween people from
different cultural…
Availability of socialservices
Good place to own orrun a business
Not important Important
Importance of Community Qualities
Respondents were asked how important twenty-seven different community qualities were to them. Each respondent could select ‘Very Important’, ‘Somewhat Important’, ‘Somewhat Unimportant’, or ‘Very Unimportant. Generally the majority of respondents felt that each quality was either very important or somewhat important. The areas that had the lowest proportion of residents who felt it was very important or somewhat important were: assessing service taxes on tourists (sixty-eight percent), availability of shopping (seventy-five percent), and proximity to major airport (seventy-nine percent). There was, however, variation between ‘Somewhat important’ and ‘Very important’. See ‘Comparisons of Each Community Quality’. The qualities that contained higher proportions of ‘Very important’ than ‘Somewhat important’ were air and water quality with eighty-eight percent, safe crime free neighborhoods with eighty-nine percent, natural environment with eighty-four percent, and good place to raise children with eighty-six percent. The qualities where higher proportions of respondents selected ‘Somewhat important’ than ‘Very important’ were proximity to a major airport (fifty percent), availability of the arts (fifty-one) percent, and availability of shopping (fifty-three) percent.
Section 5: Meeting
Expectations
Figure 5: Importance of Community Qualities
15 | P a g e
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Availability ofaffordable housing
Availability of the arts,including music,
theater, and dance
Air and water quality
Quality of localgovernment leadership
Respectful dialogue andcooperation amongcommunity leaders
Communityinvolvement in local
government and…
Well-planned city
Being friendly totourists
Assessing service taxeson tourists
Lack of trafficcongestion
Availability of bikepaths and trails
Availability of publictransportation, such as
buses or car pools
Proximity to majorairport
Access to high speedInternet
Not important Important
Figure 6: Importance of Community Qualities Cont.
16 | P a g e
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Quality of primary andsecondary schools
Small town feel
Good place to raisechildren
Availability of living-wagejobs
Diversity of jobs andprofessional
opportunities
Natural environment
Availability of parks,trails, and recreational
opportunities
Availability of shopping
Quality health care
Safe, crime freeneighborhoods
Good relations betweenpeople from differentcultural backgrounds
Availability of socialservices
Good place to own or runa business
Very Poor/Poor Fair Very Good/GoodRating greater Coeur d’Alene
When asked to rate the greater Coeur d’Alene for each quality we see that generally CDA residents feel that each quality in the area is ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’. There is, however, variation in the distribution of the responses. Some qualities contain an extremely high proportion of ‘Very good/Good’ (see Figures 7 and 8). Those qualities are availability of bike paths and trails (ninety-two percent) being friendly to tourists (ninety-one percent), air and water quality (ninety percent), good place to raise children (ninety-four percent), natural environment (ninety-six percent), and availability of parks, trails and recreational opportunities (ninety-eight percent).
Figure 7: Rating Community Qualities
17 | P a g e
The qualities that had a more even distribution were availability of public transportation at fifty-one percent, assessing service taxes on tourists at forty-nine percent, lack of traffic congestion at forty-two percent, well planned city at fifty-five percent, respectful dialogue and cooperation among community leaders at forty-four percent, and quality of local government leadership at forty-four percent. The only quality that had higher proportion of residents who felt it was ‘Fair’ was diversity of jobs and professional opportunities (forty percent). The only quality that had a higher proportion of respondents select ‘Poor’ or ‘Very Poor’ was availability of living wage jobs (thirty-nine percent). Assessing service taxes is the only quality to have the highest proportion of respondents selected ‘Don’t know’ (thirty-four percent).
Figure 8: Rating Community Qualities Cont.
0%25%50%75%100%
Availability of affordablehousing
Availability of the arts,including music, theater,
and dance
Air and water quality
Quality of localgovernment leadership
Respectful dialogue andcooperation amongcommunity leaders
Community involvementin local government and
decision-making
Well-planned city
Being friendly to tourists
Assessing service taxes ontourists
Lack of traffic congestion
Availability of bike pathsand trails
Availability of publictransportation, such as
buses or car pools
Proximity to major airport
Access to high speedInternet
Very Poor/Poor Fair Very Good/Good
18 | P a g e
Quality Importance % Rating %
Quality of primary and secondary
schools
Very Important 76.2% Very Good 15.3%
Somewhat Important
17.3% Good 45.4%
Somewhat Unimportant
4.3% Fair 26.2%
Very Unimportant 1.2% Poor 7.2%
Don’t know 1.0% Very Poor 2.0%
Don’t know 4.0%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Small town feel
Very Important 54.4% Very Good 26.7%
Somewhat Important
37.2% Good 48.6%
Somewhat Unimportant
6.2% Fair 17.5%
Very Unimportant 1.4% Poor 6.2%
Don’t know 0.7% Very Poor 1.0%
Don’t know 0.0%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Good place to raise children
Very Important 85.9% Very Good 45.6%
Somewhat Important
11.0% Good 47.3%
Somewhat Unimportant
1.4% Fair 3.9%
Very Unimportant 1.4% Poor 2.2%
Don’t know 0.2% Very Poor 0.2%
Don’t know 0.7%
Comparisons of Each Community Quality
Ninety-three percent of respondents feel that quality of primary and secondary schools is ‘Very important’ or ‘Somewhat important’. A little under half of respondents felt that the greater Coeur d’Alene area is ‘Good’, Twenty-six percent of respondents selected ‘Fair’. Residents outside of Coeur d’Alene city limits were almost twice as likely to rate quality of primary and secondary schools as ‘Poor’ or ‘Very poor’ (p-value 0.0208). Ninety-two percent of
respondents feel that a small
town feel is ‘Very important’ or
‘Somewhat important’. A total of
seventy-five percent feel that
CDA is doing ‘Good’ or ‘Very
good’ at having a small town feel.
Those who live outside of city
limits were more likely than those
who live inside of city limits to
answer that small town feel is
very important and to rate it as
‘Good’ or ‘Very good’.
Again, almost all respondents feel
that the community quality of
‘Good place to raise children’ is
‘Very Important’ or ‘Somewhat
Important’ (ninety-seven
percent). Ninety-three percent of
respondents also feel that greater
CDA is doing ‘Very good’ or
‘Good’ as a good place to raise
children.
Table 7: Quality of primary and secondary schools
Table 8: Small town feel
Table 9: Good place to raise children
19 | P a g e
Quality Importance % Rating %
Availability of living-wage jobs
Very Important 80.1% Very Good 4.0%
Somewhat Important
15.3% Good 17.5%
Somewhat Unimportant
2.6% Fair 35.8%
Very Unimportant 1.0% Poor 32.8%
Don’t know 1.0% Very Poor 6.7%
Don’t know 3.2%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Diversity of jobs and professional
opportunities
Very Important 68.8% Very Good 4.9%
Somewhat Important
26.7% Good 22.5%
Somewhat Unimportant
2.4% Fair 40.2%
Very Unimportant 1.4% Poor 25.7%
Don’t know 0.7% Very Poor 3.5%
Don’t know 3.2%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Natural environment
Very Important 83.8% Very Good 58.1%
Somewhat Important
15.5% Good 37.4%
Somewhat Unimportant
0.2% Fair 3.9%
Very Unimportant 0.2% Poor 0.5%
Don’t know 0.2% Very Poor 0.0%
Don’t know 0.0%
When asked about the availability
of living wage jobs ninety-five
percent of respondents selected
‘Very important’ or ‘Somewhat
important’. When rating the CDA
area forty-percent of respondents
felt that greater CDA was doing
‘Poor’ or ‘Very poor’. About one
third of respondents (thirty-six
percent) felt that greater CDA was
‘Fair’, and only twenty-two percent
felt that it was ‘Good’ or ‘Very
good’.
On the same topic of jobs, residents
were asked about diversity of jobs.
Sixty-nine percent of respondents
felt that diversity of jobs and
professional opportunities is ‘Very
important’ followed by twenty-
seven who felt that it was
‘Somewhat important’. When
rating greater CDA forty percent felt
that it was ‘Fair’. Twenty-nine
percent feel that it is doing ‘Very
poor’ or ‘Poor’. Twenty-seven
percent felt that the area is ‘Very
good’ or ‘Good’.
Almost all respondents (ninety-nine
percent) feel that the natural
environment is ‘Very important’ or
‘Somewhat important’. Ninety-six
percent of respondents feel that
the greater CDA’s natural
environment is ‘Very good or
‘Good’.
Table 10: Availability of living-wage jobs
Table 11: Diversity of jobs and professional opportunities
Table 12: Natural Environment
20 | P a g e
Quality Importance % Rating %
Availability of parks, trails, and
recreational opportunities
Very Important 66.5% Very Good 59.5%
Somewhat Important
30.4% Good 37.8%
Somewhat Unimportant
2.2% Fair 2.0%
Very Unimportant 1.0% Poor 0.2%
Don’t know 0.0% Very Poor 0.0%
Don’t know 0.5%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Availability of shopping
Very Important 21.0% Very Good 25.2%
Somewhat Important
53.3% Good 49.1%
Somewhat Unimportant
22.4% Fair 17.0%
Very Unimportant 3.4% Poor 7.9%
Don’t know 0.0% Very Poor 0.2%
Don’t know 0.5%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Quality health care
Very Important 80.7% Very Good 32.8%
Somewhat Important
17.6% Good 42.7%
Somewhat Unimportant
1.2% Fair 15.6%
Very Unimportant 0.2% Poor 4.4%
Don’t know 0.2% Very Poor 1.2%
Don’t know 3.2%
Ninety-seven percent of
respondents rated availability of
parks, trails and recreation as
‘Very important’ or ‘Somewhat
important’. Ninety-seven percent
of respondents feel that greater
CDA is ‘Very good’ or ‘Good’.
When asked about the availability
of shopping fifty-percent of
respondents feel that it is
‘Somewhat important’. Twenty-
two percent of respondents feel
that it is ‘Somewhat unimportant’,
followed closely by twenty-one
percent who feel it is ‘Very
important’. When rating greater
CDA a little under half of
respondents (forty-nine percent)
feel availability of shopping is
‘Good’, one-fourth feel it is ‘Very
good’ and seventeen percent feel
that it is ‘Fair’.
Eighty-one percent of respondents feel that quality health care is ‘Very important’, followed by eighteen percent of respondents who feel it is ‘Somewhat important’. About three quarters of respondents rated greater CDA as ‘Very good’ or ‘Good’. This is followed by sixteen percent who feel it is ‘Fair’.
Table 13: Availability of parks, trails and recreational opportunities
Table 14: Availability of shopping
Table 15: Quality health care
21 | P a g e
Quality Importance % Rating %
Safe, crime free neighborhoods
Very Important 88.7% Very Good 20.7%
Somewhat Important
10.6% Good 50.1%
Somewhat Unimportant
0.5% Fair 22.7%
Very Unimportant 0.0% Poor 4.9%
Don’t know 0.2% Very Poor 0.2%
Don’t know 1.2%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Good relations between people from different
cultural backgrounds
Very Important 70.8% Very Good 12.6%
Somewhat Important
25.3% Good 44.6%
Somewhat Unimportant
2.4% Fair 28.8%
Very Unimportant 1.0% Poor 7.1%
Don’t know 0.5% Very Poor 2.2%
Don’t know 4.7%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Availability of social services (such as health,
nutrition, and family assistance
programs etc.)
Very Important 49.3% Very Good 15.3%
Somewhat Important
39.9% Good 50.6%
Somewhat Unimportant
8.0% Fair 19.0%
Very Unimportant 2.7% Poor 4.9%
Don’t know 0.2% Very Poor 10.1%
Don’t know 0.0%
Eighty-nine percent of residents feel
that safe crime free neighborhoods
are ‘Very important’, followed by
eleven percent who feel it is
‘Somewhat important’. Seventy-one
percent of respondents rated greater
CDA as ‘Very good’ or ‘Good’.
Another quality we asked residents
to rate was good relations between
people from different cultural
backgrounds. Seventy-one percent of
respondents feel it is ‘Very
important’. Followed by twenty-five
percent who feel it is ‘Somewhat
important’. Over half of respondents
feel that greater CDA is doing ‘Very
good’ or ‘Good’ (fifty-seven percent).
Twenty-nine percent feel it is ‘Fair’.
Less than ten percent feel that it is
‘Poor’ or ‘Very poor’ (nine percent).
Those whose secondary residence is
in greater Coeur d’Alene were less
likely to feel that this quality is
‘Somewhat important’ or ‘Very
important’.
Eighty-nine percent of respondents feel that availability of social services is ‘Very important’ or ‘Somewhat important’. Sixty-six percent of respondents feel that greater CDA is doing ‘Very good’ or ‘Good’. Nineteen percent feel that it is ‘Fair’ and (sixteen percent) feel that it is ‘Very poor’ or ‘Poor’.
Table 16: Safe, crime free neighborhoods
Table 17: Good relations between people from different cultural backgrounds
Table 18: Availability of social services
Table 19: Good place to own or run a business
22 | P a g e
Quality Importance % Rating %
Good place to own or run a
business
Very Important 60.4% Very Good 16.5%
Somewhat Important
32.9% Good 42.0%
Somewhat Unimportant
4.1% Fair 27.2%
Very Unimportant 1.2% Poor 6.7%
Don’t know 1.4% Very Poor 0.2%
Don’t know 7.4%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Availability of affordable housing
Very Important 66.6% Very Good 10.9%
Somewhat Important
30.0% Good 45.2%
Somewhat Unimportant
2.4% Fair 30.4%
Very Unimportant 0.7% Poor 8.9%
Don’t know 0.2% Very Poor 1.5%
Don’t know 3.2%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Availability of the arts, including music, theater,
and dance
Very Important 34.1% Very Good 16.3%
Somewhat Important
50.6% Good 42.0%
Somewhat Unimportant
11.6% Fair 27.4%
Very Unimportant 3.4% Poor 9.6%
Don’t know 0.2% Very Poor 0.7%
Don’t know 4.0%
Six out of ten CDA residents feel
that it is ‘Very important’ for a
community to be a good place to
own or run a business, followed
by thirty-three percent of
respondents who feel that it is
‘Somewhat important’. Forty-two
percent of respondents rated
greater CDA as ‘Good’, followed
by twenty-seven percent who rate
it as ‘Fair’ and seventeen percent
who rated it as ‘Very good’.
The majority of respondents feel
that availability of affordable
housing is ‘Very important’ sixty-
seven percent. Thirty-percent of
respondent feel that it is
‘Somewhat important’. When
rating greater CDA, forty-five
percent feel that it is ‘Good’,
followed by thirty-percent who
feel that it is ‘Fair’ , and eleven
percent who feel that it is ‘Very
good’.
A little over half of respondents
believe that availability of the arts
including music, theater, and
dance is ‘Somewhat important’.
Thirty-four percent believe that it
is ‘Very important’ and twelve
percent believe that it is
‘Somewhat unimportant’. Fifty-
eight percent of residents rated
greater CDA as ‘Very good’ or
‘Good’ for this quality. Twenty-
seven percent rated it as ‘Fair’.
Table 19: Availability of affordable housing
Table 20: Availability of the arts including music, theatre and dance
Table 19: Good place to own or run a business
23 | P a g e
Quality Importance % Rating %
Air and water quality
Very Important 88.1% Very Good 36.9%
Somewhat Important
11.2% Good 52.2%
Somewhat Unimportant
0.5% Fair 8.6%
Very Unimportant 0.2% Poor 0.7%
Don’t know 0.0% Very Poor 1.0%
Don’t know
0.5%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Quality of local government leadership
Very Important 74.0%
Very Good 6.2%
Somewhat Important
24.1%
Good 33.5%
Somewhat Unimportant
1.5% Fair 37.4%
Very Unimportant 0.5% Poor 13.8%
Don’t know 0.0% Very Poor 3.9%
Don’t know
5.2%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Respectful dialogue and cooperation
among community
leaders
Very Important 70.7%
Very Good 6.2%
Somewhat Important
26.6%
Good 32.0%
Somewhat Unimportant
1.2% Fair 37.9%
Very Unimportant 0.5% Poor 12.8%
Don’t know 1.0% Very Poor 3.7%
Don’t know
7.4%
Eighty-eight percent of respondents feel that air and water quality are ‘Very important’, followed by eleven percent who feel that it is ‘Somewhat important’. Eighty-nine percent of respondents believe that greater CDA is ‘Very good’ or ‘Good’ for this quality. This is followed by nine percent who believe that it is fair. A little less than three quarters of residents ranked the quality of local government leadership as ‘Very important’. Twenty-four percent ranked it as ‘Somewhat important’. When rating this quality thirty-seven percent of residents feel that the greater CDA area is ‘Fair’. Thirty-four percent of residents feel that greater CDA is ‘Good’ and fourteen percent feel that it is ‘Poor’. Seventy-one percent of respondents
feel that respectful dialogue and
cooperation among community
leaders is ‘Very important’. This is
followed by twenty-seven percent
that feel it is ‘Somewhat important’.
For this quality thirty-eight percent of
respondents rated greater CDA as
‘Fair’, thirty-two percent rated it as
‘Good’ and thirteen percent rate it as
that it ‘Poor’.
Table 21: Air and water quality
Table 23: Quality of local government leadership
Table 22: Respectful dialogue and cooperation among community leaders
24 | P a g e
Quality Importance % Rating %
Community involvement in
local government and decision-
making
Very Important 70.7% Very Good 8.4%
Somewhat Important
25.6% Good 29.6%
Somewhat Unimportant
1.7% Fair 34.5%
Very Unimportant 0.7% Poor 17.0%
Don’t know 1.2% Very Poor 4.2%
Don’t know 6.4%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Well-planned city
Very Important 66.3% Very Good 10.1%
Somewhat Important
29.3% Good 40.8%
Somewhat Unimportant
3.7% Fair 35.9%
Very Unimportant 0.5% Poor 9.4%
Don’t know 0.2% Very Poor 1.7%
Don’t know 2.0%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Being friendly to tourists
Very Important 55.7% Very Good 35.1%
Somewhat Important
36.2% Good 53.3%
Somewhat Unimportant
6.1% Fair 8.1%
Very Unimportant 1.5% Poor 1.0%
Don’t know 0.5% Very Poor 1.0%
Don’t know 1.5%
Seventy-one percent of
respondents feel that community
involvement is ‘Very important’
while twenty six percent feel that
it is ‘Somewhat important’. Thirty-
five percent of respondents rated
the greater CDA area as ‘Fair’,
thirty percent feel that it is ‘Good’
and seventeen percent feel that it
is ‘Poor’. Those whose primary
residence is in greater CDA were
significantly more likely to rate
this quality as ‘Good’ or ‘Very
good’ (p-value .0169).
Sixty-six percent of respondents
think a well-planned city is ‘Very
important’, while twenty-nine
percent feel that it is ‘Somewhat
important’. Forty-percent of
respondents feel that greater CDA
is ‘Good’, thirty-six feel that it is
‘Fair’.
Fifty-six percent of respondents
feel that being friendly to tourists
is ‘Very important’, thirty-six
percent feel that it is ‘Somewhat
important’. A little over half (fifty-
three percent) of respondents
rated the greater CDA is ‘Good’ at
being friendly to tourists,
followed by thirty-five percent
who feel that the greater CDA
area is ‘Very good’.
Table 24: Community involvement in local government and decision-making
Table 26: Well-planned city
Table 25: Being friendly to tourists
25 | P a g e
Quality Importance % Rating %
Assessing service taxes on tourists (e.g. bed
tax)
Very Important 16.2% Very Good 5.0%
Somewhat Important
46.2% Good 24.5%
Somewhat Unimportant
22.6% Fair 26.3%
Very Unimportant 8.8% Poor 8.5%
Don’t know 6.1% Very Poor 2.3%
Don’t know 33.5%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Lack of traffic congestion
Very Important 60.9% Very Good 10.1%
Somewhat Important
34.7% Good 29.8%
Somewhat Unimportant
3.4% Fair 35.5%
Very Unimportant 0.5% Poor 19.5%
Don’t know 0.5% Very Poor 4.7%
Don’t know 0.5%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Availability of bike paths and
trails
Very Important 53.2% Very Good 39.0%
Somewhat Important
36.8% Good 51.1%
Somewhat Unimportant
7.4% Fair 6.9%
Very Unimportant 2.2% Poor 1.5%
Don’t know 0.5% Very Poor 0.2%
Don’t know 1.2%
When asked about assessing service taxes on tourists forty-six percent of respondents believe it is ‘Somewhat important’. Twenty-three percent of respondents believe that it is ‘Somewhat unimportant’. One third of respondents selected ‘Don’t know’ when rating the greater CDA area. Twenty-six percent selected ‘Fair’. Respondents who identified as ‘Very conservative’ or ‘Conservative’ were more likely to rate this quality as unimportant. Sixty-one percent of respondents feel that lack of traffic congestion is ‘Very important’ and thirty-five percent feel that it is ‘Somewhat important’. Thirty-six percent rated greater CDA as ‘Fair’, (forty-percent) feel it is ‘good’ or ‘Very good’. Twenty-four percent feel that it is ‘Poor’ or ‘Very poor’. A little over half of respondents stated that availability of bike paths and trails is ‘Very important’ (fifty-three percent). Thirty-seven percent stated that it is ‘Somewhat important’. Ninety percent of respondents feel that the greater CDA area’s availability of bike paths and trails is ‘Very good’ or ‘Good’. Respondents whose secondary residence is in greater CDA were more likely to rate this quality as unimportant.
Table 27: Assessing service taxes on tourists
Table 28: Lack of traffic congestion
Table 29: Availability of bike paths
26 | P a g e
Quality Importance % Rating %
Availability of public
transportation, such as buses or
car pools
Very Important 45.2% Very Good 10.6%
Somewhat Important
40.6% Good 33.9%
Somewhat Unimportant
8.8% Fair 30.7%
Very Unimportant 3.9% Poor 16.1%
Don’t know 1.5% Very Poor 1.5%
Don’t know 7.2%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Proximity to major airport
Very Important 28.4% Very Good 17.3%
Somewhat Important
49.9% Good 52.7%
Somewhat Unimportant
17.6% Fair 23.3%
Very Unimportant 3.7% Poor 5.4%
Don’t know 0.5% Very Poor 0.5%
Don’t know 0.7%
Quality Importance % Rating %
Access to high speed Internet
Very Important 57.5% Very Good 26.6%
Somewhat Important
31.8% Good 45.6%
Somewhat Unimportant
7.1% Fair 15.0%
Very Unimportant 2.9% Poor 6.4%
Don’t know 0.7% Very Poor 1.5%
Don’t know 4.9%
Eighty-six percent of respondents feel that availability of public transportation, such as buses or car pools is ‘Very important’ or ‘Somewhat important’. Thirty-four percent believe that greater CDA is ‘Good’, thirty-one percent believe that it is ‘Fair’, followed by sixteen percent who believe that it is ‘Poor’. The respondents that identified the greater CDA as their primary residence were significantly more likely to rate this quality as poor or very poor. Half of respondents (fifty-percent) ranked proximity to major airport as ‘Somewhat important’. Twenty-eight percent of respondents ranked it as ‘Very important’. Half of respondents ranked the greater CDA as ‘Good’ (fifty-three percent). Respondents whose secondary residence is in greater CDA were more likely to rate this quality as unimportant. Fifty-eight percent of respondents feel that access to high speed internet is ‘Very important’ while thirty-two percent feel that it is ‘Somewhat important’. When rating the greater CDA forty-six percent of respondents believe that greater CDA is ‘Good’. Twenty-seven percent feel that it is ‘Very good’.
Table 30: Availability of public transportation
Table 31: Proximity to major airport
Table 32: Access to high speed internet
27 | P a g e
Section 6:
Past and Future Respondents were asked whether they believe the greater Coeur d’Alene area has gotten better or worse in the time they have lived there. Forty-five percent feel that it has become better, thirty-six percent feel that it has stayed the same, and twenty percent feel that it has become worse. When asked if Coeur d’Alene will become worse, the same, better the in the future. Fifty percent of respondents felt it would get better, thirty percent felt it would stay the same and twenty percent feel that it would get worse. Three in four people who felt that the greater Coeur d’Alene area has gotten better also feel that it will become better in the future. Respondents whose primary residence is in greater CDA were more likely to say that in the time they have lived here things have become worse (p-value 0.0384). Residents who identified accountability of leaders as the one thing that greater Coeur d’Alene could do to meet their expectation were more likely to believe things will get better (p-value .0255). Those who feel the one thing greater Coeur d’Alene could do is manage growth were more likely to believe thing will get worse (p-value 0.0325). When asked to explain why greater Coeur d’Alene has become a worse place to live the most frequent responses were population growth (twenty eight percent), and development (eleven percent). When asked to explain why greater Coeur d’Alene has become better, twenty-two percent of respondents felt it was due to an increase in business and variety of industry, twenty-one percent felt it was due to population growth. Twenty percent of residents reported population growth as the reason greater Coeur d’Alene will become worse, followed by thirteen percent who believe that it will be due to local leadership. When asked why they feel the greater Coeur d’Alene area will become better, seventeen percent cited population increase, followed by eleven percent who believe it will be due to development.
Figure 9: Comparing views of the past and future
Figure 10: Relationship between views of the past and future
28 | P a g e
Conclusion
The residents of the greater Coeur d’Alene area have a variety of opinions and viewpoints on the many topics covered in the survey. The strengths of the greater Coeur d’Alene are recognized more frequently than the weaknesses and issues. More than half of respondents agree that the scenic beauty and environment is its greatest strength but only sixteen percent of residents agree lack of jobs is its greatest weakness. In the same respect, only twenty percent of residents agree that the greatest issue facing greater Coeur d’Alene today is population growth. Residents believe that most community qualities discussed in the survey were ‘Somewhat’ or ‘Very important’. Greater Coeur d’Alene was rated as ‘Good’ or ‘Very good’ in nearly all of these qualities. The qualities that were rated lowest were ‘diversity of jobs and professional opportunities’ and ‘availability of living wage jobs’. Diversity of jobs is the only category to have the highest proportions of respondents rate ‘Fair’, and living wage jobs was the only quality to have the highest proportion of respondents select ‘Poor’ or ‘Very poor’. When thinking about the past and future of greater Coeur d’Alene, most residents feel that it has and will continue to become a better place to live. Population growth and development were the most frequently mentioned topics in resident’s explanations. Similar proportions of respondents credited ‘population growth’ as the reason the greater Coeur d’Alene area has become a worse and better place in the time they have lived there. Similar proportions of residents feel that ‘development’ is the reason that the area has become a worse place to live and feel it will be the reason the area will become a better place to live in the future.