2012 HRM Citizen Survey Results
The Citizen Survey is conducted to gather feedback from residents, measure performance and help guide strategic policy and planning decisions. Survey results help Council and HRM understand and address the issues that are important to all residents.
Conducted over a five-week period in January and February, 2012, the results of this survey are based on 1241 interviews with HRM residents (age 18+) that chose to participate from approximately 12,700 randomly selected mailing addresses.
The research completed with a response rate of 9.7%. The chosen modes of completion were distributed into 1102 online (89%), 60 telephone (5%), and 79 paper (6%). Sampling error based on this sample size is a maximum of ±2.78 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The final collected data were weighted by age, gender, income, and district to ensure the final sample was representative of the HRM population. This ensured a statistically reliable sample size, large enough to identify key issues and trends.
Respondent Demographics
Key Findings
Document Links
Quality of Life
 94% of residents believe that the quality of life in HRM is good or very good. 53% said that the quality of life has stayed the same over the past 5 years, and 19% say it has improved. These figures closely mirror 2010 results.
When it comes to municipal decision-making, 57% of residents say they have too few opportunities to have their voice heard, compared to 41% who feel they have sufficient opportunities. More frequent surveys (15%) and community and Town Hall meetings (13%) were suggested as ways HRM could help residents become more involved.
Overall Priorities
When asked about prioritizing resources, 44% of respondents named transportation as their top priority, followed by economic development (31%), the environment (13%), and community development (11%).
Residents were surveyed about what they thought were the top three issues facing HRM over the next five years that should receive the greatest attention from Municipal leaders. The top issues are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Top 3 Issues facing HRM over the next five years
|
|
2012
|
2010
|
Transit Service (frequency / coverage / availability) |
26% |
24% |
Public Safety |
22% |
20% |
Environment |
19% |
6% |
Transportation (traffic flow / ease of getting around) |
18% |
14% |
Economy / employment / jobs |
18% |
7% |
Downtown (redevelop / revitalize / densification) |
17% |
8% |
Taxation (lower / fairer / do not increase) |
15% |
23% |
Roads and streets |
12% |
15% |
Infrastructure (deterioration) |
11% |
13% |
Residents were asked what their top three priorities would be for where to focus spending over the next 5 years to improve economic prosperity in the HRM. The ranking of top priorities and the sum of the score of the choice if it was ranked in the top 3 choices (total mentions) is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Spending on priorities to improve economic prosperity (First Priority / Total Mentions)
|
|
2012
|
2010
|
Increased efforts to attract and retain young workers / professionals |
20% / 48% |
17% / 51% |
Investments in the transit system |
14% / 39% |
13% / 40% |
Improvements to HRM’s roadway system / road conditions |
13% / 35% |
8% / 27% |
Public safety |
10% / 28% |
12% / 29% |
Changes in tax structure |
10% / 21% |
18% / 29% |
Increased marketing of HRM as a destination of choice for business |
8% / 28% |
5% / 17% |
Emphasis on downtown growth |
7% / 17% |
5% / 13% |
Investments in environmental protection and sustainability |
5% / 21% |
N/A |
Taxation
72% of residents believe that they receive good or very good value for their money.
56% of respondents would prefer the Municipality not increase property taxes when creating a budget, with 44% saying it is more important to keep municipal service levels the same or higher, even if this meant an increase in property taxes.
Residents were asked to consider possible changes in tax and service levels and indicate which ones would be acceptable to them (Table 3).
Table 3: Tax Levels vs. Service Levels
|
|
2012
|
2010
|
Same taxes but shift funds between services |
53% |
32% |
Small increase in taxes for a small improvement / increase in service levels |
30% |
11% |
Same taxes with same level of Municipal services |
23% |
13% |
Moderate increase in taxes for a moderate improvement / increase in service levels |
13% |
7% |
Small decrease in taxes for a small decrease in service levels |
11% |
5% |
Moderate decrease in taxes for a moderate decrease in service levels |
6% |
3% |
Residents were asked whether they would like to see the Municipality increase the level of service, maintain the level of service, reduce the level of service, or eliminate the service for a wide range of municipal services. In the majority of cases, the greatest proportion of respondents suggested maintaining the service level. However, there were a number of services where residents indicated a strong opinion that the Municipality may wish to focus additional resources, or shift spending between services, as outlined in Table 4, which shows services where more than 25% of respondents suggested either an increase or reduction in service levels.
Table 4: Spending on Services
|
Increase Service
|
Increase
|
Maintain
|
Reduce
|
Eliminate
|
Public Transit |
58% |
37% |
4% |
1% |
Police protection and patrols |
38% |
59% |
3% |
- |
Ongoing regular street maintenance |
34% |
62% |
3% |
- |
Recycling programs |
33% |
61% |
5% |
1% |
Economic development |
31% |
55% |
11% |
1% |
Major street improvements |
28% |
62% |
9% |
1% |
Snow and ice removal |
28% |
67% |
5% |
- |
Environmental protection and management |
26% |
62% |
10% |
1% |
Cleanliness and litter control |
25% |
65% |
9% |
- |
Reduce Service |
Increase |
Maintain |
Reduce |
Eliminate |
Publicly supervised beaches |
6% |
64% |
25% |
5% |
Arts and cultural programming |
16% |
54% |
25% |
4% |
Festivals and community events |
13% |
58% |
25% |
3% |
Graffiti removal |
13% |
56% |
25% |
6% |
Community beautification |
14% |
58% |
25% |
3% |
Community grants |
14% |
54% |
26% |
6% |
Communication and public affairs |
8% |
58% |
28% |
4% |
By-law enforcement |
11% |
57% |
29% |
3% |
Animal control services |
7% |
60% |
29% |
3% |
Parking enforcement |
5% |
49% |
40% |
6% |
Public Safety
Respondents were overwhelmingly satisfied with the level of safety in the community, with scores averaging in the mid-80s for feeling of safety in their community and where they go for work, shopping, or recreation, and with the quality and responsiveness of policing services. Public safety still shows up as a priority for residents however, so as much as they appear satisfied with HRM’s performance, and their overall safety, they would like the Municipality to keep a focus on it.
Infrastructure
68% of residents would prefer to see HRM invest a greater proportion of capital funds toward fixing and maintaining existing assets, facilities, and infrastructure than toward investing in new assets (32%).
Residents were asked to rate their top 3 most important infrastructure projects in three categories: Transportation, Community, and Environmental projects. Scores are shown in Table 5 for both first priority and the sum of the mentions as first/second/third priority (total mentions).
Table 5: Capital Project Priorities by Category (First Priority / Total Mentions)
|
Transportation Infrastructure Projects
|
First Priority
|
Total Mentions
|
Maintaining existing roads and streets |
21% |
55% |
Upgrading major roadways to provide increased capacity |
16% |
42% |
Active transportation improvements |
15% |
47% |
Improved / additional transit facilities |
14% |
42% |
More buses so that service can be extended to new areas |
14% |
40% |
Community Infrastructure Projects |
First Priority |
Total Mentions |
Improve existing recreation facilities |
20% |
54% |
New stadium |
16% |
27% |
Beaches and waterfront areas |
11% |
40% |
New outdoor recreation facilities |
11% |
40% |
Environmental Infrastructure Projects |
First Priority |
Total Mentions |
Renewable energy projects |
35% |
73% |
Capability within the waste program to reduce demand for additional land fill cells |
28% |
67% |
Investments in expanding recycling infrastructure |
17% |
64% |
When asked to select their top 3 priorities across all three of the infrastructure areas combined, the highest priority projects are shown in Table 6, along with comparable results from 2010.
Table 6: Capital Project Priorities - Combined (First Priority / Total Mentions)
|
Transportation Infrastructure Projects
|
2012
|
2010
|
Maintaining existing roads and streets |
12% / 24% |
27% / 53% |
Upgrading major roadways to provide increased capacity |
11% / 23% |
13% / 31% |
Renewable energy projects |
10% / 30% |
N/A |
Active transportation improvements |
9% / 21% |
10% / 26% |
Improved / additional public transit facilities |
7% / 18% |
|
More buses so that services can be expanded to new areas |
7% / 16% |
|
More buses on existing routes |
7% / 14% |
|
Capability within the waste program to reduce demand for additional land fill cells |
6% / 23% |
N/A |
While Transit (bus) services (frequency of buses, additional routes, improved facilities) did not show up as the priorities within the Transportation category, it still rated higher than most options from other categories when factoring in second and third priority mentions.
As suggested by the Priorities and Top Issues questions elsewhere in the Survey, community infrastructure does not rank as a top priority for most respondents, but when 2nd and 3rd priorities are considered, its priority tends to increase.
For example: Improvements to existing recreational facilities scored 1% for 1st priority, but 15% when factoring in 2nd and 3rd priority mentions.
Planning and Growth
Suggestions for what the Municipality could do to make the downtown more attractive for residents and businesses included more/free parking (20%), beautification (14%), tax incentives for businesses to locate downtown (12%), and better transit service (8%).
When asked about priorities to help mitigate traffic congestion issues facing the Municipality, respondents rated an improved public transit system, commuter rail, encouraging people to consider sustainable options, and improved bike lane network as their top preferences.
Tolls into the downtown, high occupancy vehicle lanes, and doing nothing were considered low priorities.
Residents were asked to rate the importance of a set of quality of place indicators that would impact their decision if moving to a new neighbourhood, and their satisfaction with these indicators in the neighbourhood in which they currently live. Top indicators of quality of place included safety, affordability of housing, look and feel of the street, traffic, and the presence of trees and greenery.
Factors such the proximity of the home to key locations (work, schools, and recreation facilities) are less important than other neighbourhood considerations.
Lifestyle Opportunities
Respondents indicated that, over the past 12 months, the main lifestyle activities they had participated in were using HRM’s trails, walkways, or paths for leisure, going for a walk or run in a major park, and visiting a playground. Residents also indicated that swimming at one of the local beaches was an attractive option.
Less favoured lifestyle opportunities included using a bike/skate park, skating at the oval or on a lake or pond, visiting an outdoor gym, or participating in a community garden.
Factors influencing their choice included distance to nearest facilities, concerns about safety, and the activity generally not being of interest.
Communication
Residents primarily get their information about the Municipality from the radio, television, or the newspaper, with a smaller percentage using online means to gain information.
55% of respondents indicated that they would like to receive email updates across a variety of topics from the Municipality.
|
