1. Voice of the People Preference Ranking Survey Results

2. Outline Review The Survey Summary Statistics Consolidated Outcomes Outcome Comparisons Forthcoming analysis

3. Purpose of the Survey Support active community involvement and participation in the decision making process Elicit County resident preferences for values related to land use policy Provide an indication of the preferred policy direction

4. Why we used this Preference Ranking Method 1. ‘Natural’ extension to the PIF deliberation process 2. Helped us incorporate subjective considerations

5. Why we used this Preference Ranking Method 4. Provides a theoretical basis for consistent decision making 3. Can be used to help evaluate policies

6. What was inconsistency again? Inconsistent judgments meant the person was contradicting himself. Also know as: intransitivity

7. Why did we care about it? The more inconsistency, the more likely that the same results could have been obtained by randomly generating numbers with which to fill out the survey. This would decrease the confidence that the results are reflecting the participant’s values

8. What was allowable? To be included in the final analysis, overall inconsistency needed to be at or below 20%

9. What did we do when we found it? When a person had even one section of the survey with inconsistency over 20% the survey was returned to them with: a cover letter tailored example of consistency a return postage-paid envelope Participants were asked to re- evaluate the inconsistent sections

10. What do the results tell us? Priority weights tell us what values are considered important – and which are less important Indicates the preferred general policy direction The inconsistent sections indicate where there might be a need for more information or education

11. What don’t the results tell us? Not a random sample – can’t extrapolate results to the entire population Survey participants are self-selected, much like when people choose to vote or not. Doesn’t give specific recommendations for policy

12. The Survey – Values Private Property Rights: Property owners should be allowed to use their land for any purpose. Their neighbors should be allowed to do the same. 'Neighborhood' Property Values: Property owners should have the right to be free of spillover effects resulting from how their neighbors use their land.

13. The Survey – Values Local Ownership: Farming and industry should be owned by local residents rather than non-local residents.

14. The Survey – Values Environmental Considerations Water quality: High quality water enhances the social, economic and environmental health of the County. Air quality: High quality air, free from objectionable odors, enhances the social, economic and environmental health of the County. Natural areas: There are areas that should be kept in (or allowed to revert to) their natural state to protect native flora and fauna and unusual land features.

15. The Survey – Values Cultural and Historical Considerations: Cultural and historical places should be protected as they enhance the social and economic health of the County. Economic Considerations Jobs and income Local tax base

16. The Survey – Policy Options Regulation or Deregulation Market-oriented Solution Subsidy or Tax

17. ‘Response Rate’ 150 Total Surveys 111 Usable Surveys (74% useable) 28 Non-Usable Surveys due to high inconsistency 11 Non-Usable Surveys due to blanks, >1 mark per line

18. Results of All Useable Surveys Values

19. Results of All Useable Surveys Environment

20. Results of All Useable Surveys Economic

21. Results of All Useable Surveys Policies RegulationMarket Tax or Subsidies Weight44.525.829.6

22. Most Preferred Policy Legislation Neigh. Prop. Values Local Owner- ship Water Quality Clean Air Jobs & Income Tax Base Wght6.88.45.13.56.82.0

23. Most Preferred Policy Market Oriented Private Property Rights Natural Areas Cultural and Historical Weight7.11.35.2

24. AllLIFEPIF Weight19.617.820.3 Outcomes Private Property Rights

25. Outcomes Neighborhood Property Values AllLIFEPIF Weight18.217.618.3

26. Outcomes Local Ownership AllLIFEPIF Weight14.89.819.3

27. Outcomes Environmental Considerations AllLIFEPIF Weight20.225.017.1

28. Outcomes Cultural & Historical AllLIFEPIF Weight11.513.310.9

29. Outcomes Economic Considerations AllLIFEPIF Weight15.616.814.1

30. Outcomes Water Quality AllLIFEPIF Weight9.612.77.8

31. Outcomes Air Quality AllLIFEPIF Weight7.38.76.2

32. Outcomes Natural Areas AllLIFEPIF Weight3.43.63.1

33. Outcomes Jobs & Income AllLIFEPIF Weight10.612.29.0

34. Outcomes Tax Base AllLIFEPIF Weight5.04.55.1

35. Forthcoming Analysis Determine where inconsistencies tended to occur more Variance of outcomes Correlations of outcomes with respect to: age, gender, where they live, length of time in the county, education, LIFE or Town Meeting, etc. What are you interested in finding out?