1993 Canaan Community Survey, analysis of Results

This is a statistical and, in some cases qualitative, analysis of the results of a public opinion survey administered in 1993 by the Canaan Planning Board. The accuracy of the analysis is reduced by two factors: first, several of the questions are not worded so as to provide an accurate response, and others are not easily quantified; second, the return rate is below that considered necessary (20%) for accurate interpretation. Below is a question-by-question analysis. Some questions are passed over because they do not lend to analysis or the results speak for themselves.

Length of Residence: The number of responses are insufficient for a statistically valid answer. However, comparison with census data and our experience with other surveys indicates that your response does not represent newcomers (under 10 years) accurately.

What types of development should the community encourage? All that can be gathered from the results is that people like single-family homes and agriculture, and dislike mobile homes, but you probably knew that already.

Growth Rate: This question should have been prefaced with enough information for respondents to make a decision, e.g. what constitutes slow, moderate, rapid, and remaining the same. Clearly no one wants a rapid growth rate, with the consensus being slow-to-moderate, but 20 percent marked "remain the same", which, in Canaan's case, is the most rapid growth rate in Central Maine!

What do you like about Canaan? A narrative response does not lend itself to interpretation. About all we can do is lump some of the answers together into general categories. Answers that related to "character of the community" totalled 19, while those mentioning the "environment" numbered 14, and those mentioning location also totalled 14.

What do you dislike about Canaan? Ten respondents objected to local government, eight to the lack of public facilities, 12 cited people (neighbors, kids, etc.), eight objected to some aspect of development (six of those were specific to mobile homes), and five commented on the messiness of the town.

"Good Ideas" series: I call these the "good ideas questions, because they ask the respondent about what seems to be a good idea without framing the question (pros and cons, etc.). The natural result is always a pretty strong Yes vote. In this event, the only No votes you got were for establishing a camping area and doing something about residential/commercial mixing. Only the strongest Yes votes should be considered significant: endorsement of a recycling program, developing a comprehensive plan, and preserving undeveloped land.

Need for recreation facilities: Most-mentioned were water-related facilities (6 times), followed by a community center (5), playground (5), hiking, hunting (5), and biking (4). The only significant item in this list is the higher-than-expected mention of biking needs.

Issue ranking: The weighted average put education well in front, with the others, in order: local planning, housing community services, recreation, transportation, community information, and utilities.

Utilities: The average scores put recycling well in first. followed in order by street lighting expansion, lighting improvements, and telephone.

Transportation: Most important, on average, was road improvements, followed by paving standards, formal paving program, expansion of sidewalks, improvement of sidewalks, improving signage, improving traffic control, and expanding parking (well down the list).

Recreation: Top of this list was water access, followed closely by gravel standards and removal of dilapidated buildings. Further down, in order, were removing litter, improving structures, recreation center, junks cars, establishing a park, landscaping in the village, shade trees, sign ordinance.

Housing: Top of this list was establishing a building code, followed by elderly housing, standards for substandard housing, occupancy codes, expanding rental housing, and expanding low income housing. The housing issues, by the way, were not ranked very highly compared to issues in the other categories.

Community Services: Improving trash collection is viewed as being most important, followed by improving tax assessment and access to community services.

Education: Improving library facilities was most highly-ranked, followed by cirriculum, vocational training and pre-school. This order may seem surprising until you recall that the survey response is short on newer residents, who are more likely to be young families.

Planning: On average, the top issue was coordination with neighboring communities, though "revitalizing the village center" received most "most important" votes. The rest, in a close group, fell out as land use/zoning plan, financial planning, air-water-noise control, community land, and areas for commercial development.

State/national issues: The environment, job opportunities, and drug abuse were in a very close group at the top. Further down the list, in order, were inflation, state income tax, civil rights, off-shore oil, minimum wage, and oil refineries.

Most important issue: 13 respondents had a problem with government (of which assessment(3), and welfare(3) were most-mentioned), 11 with some aspect of development (four mentioned lack of planning, four mentioned mobile home parks), and five with some public facility.

Contribution of the Planning Board: Mentioned 11 times was development of ordinances (gravel, zoning, health), 8 times was a comprehensive plan, and five times was general leadership issues.

Attractive location for new industry? This question was probably a little vague, as it was skipped over by nine respondents. Another seven answered "no." Of the others, six mentioned some form of light industry -- obviously, something regulated and "environmentally kind." Two mentioned farming or logging and three mentioned tourism or recreation. The latter responses are significant, because they indicated a form of development not usually thought of as "new industry."

Participating with neighbors: Nine respondents identified some form of solid waste cooperation, seven mentioned environmental issues, another seven mentioned recreation, and four mentioned cooperation on emergency services.