To gain a more accurate objective analysis of the perception of neighborhoods and sustainability, we surveyed members of the Boulder County Healthy Communities Initiative (BCHCI) at a group meeting on Thursday, April 25th, 1996. We chose this group for several reasons. First, the members are familiar with sustainability issues, challenges, and the interconnectedness of factors influencing sustainability. Exhibiting a wide range of interests, lifestyles, and professions, we assumed that this group is a representative sample of Boulder County residents that are concerned about neighborhood issues related to sustainability.
The survey was designed to give us more insight as to how Boulder County residents perceive various physical and social elements which influence neighborhood sustainability. A majority of the questions were closed-ended, allowing the individual to choose among roughly four possibilities. An "other" category was included as a fifth choice which allowed for creative responses and comments which were outside of the listed options. BCHCI members often chose one of the listed options then yielded comments to further explain their personal situation.
BCHCI member responses were similar, indicating a consistent set of fundamental ideals among the stakeholders. By using the mode response for each question, we were able to characterize the BCHCI group collectively and define its attitudes toward sustainability of neighborhoods.
Roughly half of the survey addressed social elements which influence sustainability. One large section categorized the level of safety that residents perceive in their neighborhood. 90% of those surveyed lived in a middle or middle to upper class neighborhood with a high perception of safety. This perception is primarily due to neighborliness or the home being located in a rural or isolated setting, in addition to an adequate quantity of streetlights. Respondents felt comfortable walking their neighborhood streets during most of the day. 100% of those surveyed stated that they felt very safe walking their street during the day and the afternoon, 80% felt very safe in the evening, and 48% indicated that they felt very comfortable walking at night.
Another social issue affecting sustainability which this survey addressed was neighborhood sociability. More specifically, formal involvement in neighborhood programs and activities and informal social interaction. Respondents stated that they and their neighbors are not very active in neighborhood programs and claimed that there is not a focus to their neighborhood. But as a group, respondents were social with their neighbors on less formal grounds.
The other half of the survey addressed physical elements which influence sustainability. 48% of the responses to the first survey question indicated that land use diversity was the most important characteristic of a sustainable neighborhood. In addition, 15 out of 31 stakeholders added creative responses to this question. 26% of these responses discussed other forms of diversity such as economic and age diversity as the most important components that influence sustainability.
The safety perception issue also has a physical component as well as social components listed above. Here, the high level of perceived safety was mostly achieved through an adequate quantity of streetlights. The final physical element that this survey addressed was transportation. 71% of respondents' neighborhoods supported some form of bussing such as the RTD or the HOP, and 67% of these neighborhoods supported bicycle and pedestrian paths. Even with these provisions, 48% used public transit less than once per month and 19% used it 1-2 times per month. Although most respondents' neighborhood support some level of public and alternative modes of transit, most of the group members did not take advantage of these provisions.
Several conclusions may be drawn through this survey. A clear majority of those surveyed live in reasonably nice, safe neighborhoods. These areas fostered some level of social activity, even though residents were not very active in community programs. This sociability encouraged a high perception of safety in conjunction with an adequate number of streetlights. Overall, the most important social element that influenced neighborhood sustainability was a high level of social interaction which most commonly occurred through congenial neighborliness.
Given the nature and volume of creative responses and the distribution of answers to survey questions, this group felt that it was more important to focus on social elements than on physical elements when attempting to make neighborhoods more sustainable. Even though components of sustainability were important to each member, the focus of action was through constructing a dialogue with policy makers and educating the community rather than making moderate changes in their daily lives.
On the following 3 pages is the survey that was administered to BCHCI members. The graph to the right of each question illustrates the number of responses that were indicated for each option. Roughly 50 surveys were distributed and 31 were returned.
