City and County of San Francisco Urban Forest Council voter survey: summary of quantitative research with cross-tabulation tables

2005·5.2 MB·English

by  San Francisco (Calif.). Urban Forest Council

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 1223 07257 2606
City and County of San Francisco:
Urban Forest Council
DOCUMENTS
Voter Survey DEPT.
MAY - 4 2006
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Df Quantitative Research
oss-tabulation Tables
WranciscoPublicLibrary
{Government Information Center
pan Francisco Public Library
lOOLarkin Street, 5th Floor
JanFrancisco, CA 94102 February 2005
[FERENCE BOOK
h be taken from the Library
db
1
David Binder Research
44 Page Street, Suite 404 • Son Francisco, California 94102
800-905-7330 -415^21-7655 • F: 415-621-7663 « aWsearch.com
REF
635 977
.
C4984

City and County of San Francisco:
Urban Forest Council
documents
Voter Survey dept.
MAY ~ 4 2006
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Summary of Quantitative Research
with Cross-tabulation Tables
February 2005
db
1
David Binder Research
44 Page Street, Suite 404 • San Francisco, California 94102
800-905-7330 * 415-621-7655 « F: 415-621-7663 • db-research.com
CityofSan Francisco-UrbanForest Council
February2005
FINAL RESULTS: SAN FRANCISCO VOTER SURVEY
Sample size: 1100, Margin of Error=3.0%
Interview dates: February 14-17, 2005
Respondents: 1,100 registered voters living in San Francisco, who have working telephone numbers and
votedin November2004. (100respondentsperSan Francisco Supervisorial District)
Hello. This is from (Call center), an independent public opinion research
firm. May please speakwith (NAME ON SAMPLE SHEET)? We are conducting a study of local issues in
yourareaIand would like to ask you some questions. (IF ASKED HOW LONG ITWILL TAKE, RESPOND:
Aboutfive minutes.) (IF NECESSARY, SAY, "We are only interested in youropinions and are definitely
not selling anything.")
SECTION 1: MOOD & ISSUES
First, I'd liketo read you a list of locations. Foreach place I read, pleasetell me how satisfied you are with
the quantity and the quality ofthetrees in this location. Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied, orvery dissatisfied? (DO NOT ROTATE.)
DISSATISFIED No SUMMARY
i I Opinion/
oumewnai Very rVin'f Dissatis-
fied
1. The City ofSan Francisco 21 54 18 5 2 75 23
2. Parks in San Francisco 44 43 8 3 2 87 11
3. The streetwhere you live 29 32 21 16 2 61 37
4. Which ofthe following should—be most responsible forthe planting and maintenance oftrees on
the streets ofSan Francisco (ROTATE ORDER) city government, property owners, non-profit
groups, orprivate businesses?
CITY GOVERNMENT 62
PROPERTY OWNERS 19
NON-PROFIT GROUPS 8
PRIVATE BUSINESSES 3
DON'T KNOW 7
REFUSE
1
Have you everconsidered planting a tree outside ofyour home orapartment?
YES 48 -*go to Q6.
NO 51 ->skiptoQ7.
DON'T KNOW 1 -*skip to Q7.
REFUSE -*skip to Q8.
Page 1
UFC, 011105Final Results
3
6. Did you plant a tree outside ofyour home or apartment?
YES 54 ->skip to Q8.
NO 46 ->go to Q7.
DON'T KNOW <1 ->skip to Q8
REFUSE ->skip to Q8
7 What is your main reason for choosing not to plant a tree outside ofyour home orapartment?
(OPEN ENDED. ACCEPT UP TO THREE RESPONSES. TRY TO FIT INTO CATEGORIES
BELOW)
Not enough space/room 15
Need landlord's permission 13
Already have enough trees 1
Don't live at a permanent residence 9
Cement/Concrete/ Not enough dirt/good soil 9
Don'twantto maintain the tree 7
didn't know could plant a tree outside my
I I 7
home/apartment
Don't havethetime 5
Liability 3
Lack ofexperience planting trees 3
Location not suitable 3
Too expensive 2
Will block city views 2
City restrictions 2
Neverthought about 2
it
Will make a mess/Destroy area 1
Disabled/Not physically able to 1
Planning on planting tree 1
OTHER (SPECIFY: 2
)
DON'T KNOW 3
REFUSE 2
Do you support oroppose legislation that would protect rare orvery old trees from being removed
even ifthe land wherethey are located is private property? (FOLLOW UP: Do you strongly
support/oppose orjust somewhat?).
SUPPORT, STRONGLY 39
^66%
SUPPORT, SOMEWHAT 27
OPPOSE, SOMEWHAT 14
-»26%
OPPOSE, STRONGLY 12
DON'T KNOW 8
REFUSE <1
Page2
UFC, 011105Final Results
eintiwfte4srtwJ»
I
(ROTATE QUESTIONS 9 AND 10.)
9. Do you support oroppose increasing the parcel tax paid by property owners in orderto plant and
maintain moretrees on local streets with the understanding that the City would have responsibility
and liabilityforthose trees? (FOLLOW UP: Do you strongly support/oppose orjust somewhat?).
SUPPORT, STRONGLY 24
^54%
SUPPORT, SOMEWHAT 30
OPPOSE, SOMEWHAT 14 ^39%
OPPOSE, STRONGLY 25
DON'T KNOW 6
REFUSE
1
10. Do you support oroppose increasing the local sales tax paid by consumers in orderto plant and
maintain moretrees on local streetswith the understanding that the City would have responsibility
and liabilityforthose trees? (FOLLOW UP: Do you strongly support/oppose orjust somewhat?).
SUPPORT, STRONGLY 21 ^47%
SUPPORT, SOMEWHAT 26
OPPOSE, SOMEWHAT 19 ^49%
OPPOSE, STRONGLY 30
DON'T KNOW 4
REFUSE <1
Page3
UFC, 011105Final Results
SECTION DEMOGRAPHICS
2:
Lastly, I'd like to ask you a few questions forstatistical purposes only.
1 1. Which ofthe following ethnic groups describes you? You can stop me when I've read yourgroup.
(READ LIST)
White orCaucasian 63
Black orAfrican-American 5
Latino, Hispanic, or Mexican 7
Chinese 6
OtherAsian or Pacific Islander 9
NativeAmerican <1
Mixed Race 3
Other (SPECIFY: ( ) 1
REFUSE 6
12. Do you currently own or rent your home or apartment?
OWN 46
RENT 50
OTHER 2
REFUSE 2
That's all the questions I have. Thank you for yourtime.
13. RECORD GENDER:
FEMALE 50
MALE 50
14. RECORD PARTY:
DEMOCRAT
56
REPUBLICAN 12
DECLINE TO STATE 25
GREEN 4
OTHER MINOR PARTY 3
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT:
District 1 (McGoldrick) 9
District 2 (Alioto-Pier) 11
District3 (Peskin) 8
District4 (Ma) 8
District 5 (Mirkarimi) 11
District 6 (Daly) 8
District 7 (Elsbernd) 10
District8 (Dufty) 13
District 9 (Ammiano) 8
District 10 (Maxwell) 7
District 11 (Sandoval) 7
Page4
UFC, 011105Final Results
1
Ql. QUALITY/QUANTITY OF TREES: City of San Francisco.
Number Question 1 Summary Net
Satisfied
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very No Satisfied Dissatis-
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatis- Dissatis- Opinion fied
fied fied
Total 1100 20 8% 53 6% 17 8% 5 2% 2 6% 74 5% 23 0% 51
Gender of Respondent
Female 550 20 1% 53 5% 17 8% 5 6% 3 0% 73 6% 23 4% 50
Male 550 21 6% 53 7% 17 8% 4 7% 2 1% 75 3% 22 5% 53
Age From File
Under 30 153 23 1% 55 5% 17 7% 1 7% 1 9% 78 6% 19 4% 59
30-39 249 18 4% 57 0% 19 5% 4 4% 8% 75 3% 23 9% 51
40-49 218 18 6% 52 9% 22 5% 4 6% 1 4% 71 5% 27 1% 44
50-64 . 264 20 1% 52 3% 16 1% 7 8% 3 8% 72 4% 23 9% 49
65+ 202 23 2% 54 0% 12 7% 5 0% 5 1% 77 2% 17 7% 59
Age-Combined
Under 50 621 19 6% 55 2% 20 1% 3 8% 1 3% 74 8% 23 9% 51
50+ 466 21 4% 53 1% 14 6% 6 6% 4 3% 74 5% 21 2% 53
Party Registration
Democrat 620 19 3% 55 5% 18 7% 4 1% 2 3% 74 8% 22 9% 52
Republican 134 28 7% 44 5% 13 7% 7 4% 5 6% 73 2% 21 2% 52
Decline to State 278 21 1% 54 7% 17 4% 4 9% 1 9% 75 8% 22 3% 54
Minor Party 68 18 3% 50 1% 19 0% 11 3% 1 3% 68 4% 30 3% 38
Qll. Ethnicity
White 687 17 4% 54 6% 20 3% 5 8% 1 9% 72 0% 26 1% 46
Black 53 30 2% 54 5% 5 2% 8 7% 1 5% 84 7% 13 8% 71
Latino 79 24 7% 55 7% 11 8% 4 7% 3 1% 80 5% 16 5% 64
Chinese 65 22 7% 57 7% 14 0% 2 8% 2 8% 80 4% 16 9% 64
Other Asian 99 31 9% 55 0% 12 2% 0% 1 0% 86 9% 12 2% 75
Mixed/Other 48 23 0% 41 3% 21 5% 9 6% 4 6% 64 3% 31 1% 33
Supervisorial District
1 McGoldrick 96 19 0% 50 0% 19 0% 6 0% 6 0% 69 0% 25 0% 44
2 Alioto-Pier 125 16 0% 51 0% 26 0% 4 0% 3 0% 67 0% 30 0% 37
3 Peskin 89 18 6% 50 0% 18 6% 5 9% 6 9% 68 6% 24 5% 44
4 Ma 92 29 0°6 47 0% 14 0% 6 0% 4 0% 76 0% 20 0% 56
5 Mirkarimi 124 19 0% 58 0% 19 0% 2 0% 2 0% 77 0% 21 0% 56
6 Daly 85 25 01 50 0% 17 0% 7 0% 1 0% 75 0% 24 0% 51
7 Elsbernd 109 26 0% 56 0% 12 0% 5 0% 1 0% 82 0% 17 0% 65
89 ADmumfitayno 1483 2125 00%1 5578 00%%- 2121 00%% 59 00%% 1 00%% .7820 001% 2270 00%% 4650
10 Maxwell 78 27 0% 54 0% 15 0% 4 0% 0% 81 0% 19 0% 62
11 Sandoval 77 18 0% 57 0% 16 0% 5 0% 4 0% 75 0% 21 0% 54
Districts-Combined
Dists 1/3/10/11 341 20 51 52 5% 17 3% 5 3% 4 4% 73 0% 22 6% 50
Dists 2/4/7 326 23 0% 51 5% i,7 9% 4 9% 2 6% 74 6% 22 8% 52
Dists 5/6/8/9 433 19 4% 56 1% 18 1% 5 3% 1 1% 75 5% 23 4% 52
State Assembly District
AD 12 (Yee) 477 23 3% 53 2% 15 6% 5 0% 2 9% 76 5% 20 6% 56
AD 13 (Leno) 623 18 9% 54 0% 19 4% 5 3% 2 3% 72 9% 24 8% 48
State Senate District
SD 3 (Migden) 621 20 0% 54 5% 17 5% 5 6% 2 5% 74 5% 23 0% 51
SD 8 (Speier) 479 21 9% 52 5% 18 2% 4 6% 2 7% 74 5% 22 9% 52
1
Congressional District
CD 8 (Pelosi) 887 19 6% 53 7% 19 0% 5 1% 2 6% 73 3% 24 0% 49
CD 12 (Lantos) 213 26 0% 53 2% 13 0% 5 6% 2 2% 79 2% 18 6% 61
Elections Voted (of 12)
12 of 12 137 21 5% 54 5% 14 2% 7 1% 2 6% 76 0% 21 4% 55
10-11 of 12 193 16 6% 55 0% 19 8% 6 0% 2 6% 71 6% 25 8% 46
7-9 of 12 ' 197 23 5% 50 8% 20 6% 2 2% 2 7% 74 4% 22 9% 52
41--63 ooff 1122 \ 235176 2146 20%% 5571 95%% 1177 00%% 55 44%% 31 78%% 7735 89%% 2222 35%% 5523
Ever Voted Absentee?
Yes 559 20 1% 54 4% 17 4% 5 3% 2 8% 74 5% 22 7% 52
No 541 21 5% 52 9% 18 2% 5 1% 2 3% 74 4% 23 3% 51
Perm Absentee Voter
Yes 369 20 0% 57 4% 14 6% 5 3% 2 7% 77 4% 19 9% 57
No 731 21 3% 51 7% 19 4% 1% 2 5% 73 0% 24 5% 48
(continued)
85
Ql. QUALITY/QUANTITY OF TREES: City of San Francisco.
Number Question 1 Summary Net
Satisfied
Very Somewhat Somewhat No Satisfied Dissatis-
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatis- Dissatis- Opinion fied
fied fied
Year of Voter Reg.
1985 or earlier 142 25 0% 53 5% 11 1% 5.9% 4 6% 78 5% 17 04 62
1986 to 1994 139 13 9% 63 4% 12 04 8.6% 2 0% 77 3% 20 74 57
1995 to 1999 228 19 1°6 54 3% 1 84 4.1% 3 8% 73 4% 22 8% 51
2000 to 2002 165 20 4% 53 4% 19 24 5.8% 1 3% 73 74 25 0% 49
2003 to 2004 426 22 8% 50 34 20 94 4.2% 1 9% 73 1% 25 04 48
Household Party Type
Single Dem 408 18 3% 55 3% 20 54 4.44 1 6% 73 6% 24 84 49
Pure Dem 145 21 W0%m 56 1% 15 84 4.8% 2 3% 77 1% 20 64 57
Dem in mixed 67 21 55 4% 14 54 1.2% 7 0% 77 3% 15 7% 62
Single Rep 66 24 8% 45 0% 10 54 11.1% 8 6% 69 8% 21 6% 48
Other Rep 68 32 5% 44 1% 16 8% 3.9% 2 7% 76 5% 20 8% 56
Single DTS 188 20 4% 53 2% 20 84 3.44 2 2% 73 6% 24 14 49
Pure DTS 52 32 6% 51 4% 10 94 3.44 1 74 84 0% . 14 3% 70
DTS in mixed 57 12 8% 61 8% 12 44 10.9% 2 24 74 6% 23 2% 51
Other 49 17 1% 49 4% 19 64 14.0% 04 66 54 33 5% 33
Q12. Home ownership
Own 504 19 8% 53 4% 17 8% 6.2% 2 74 73 2% 24 0% 49
Rent 553 21 1% 54 6% 18 0% 4.2% 2 1% 75 74 22 2% 53
Gender by Age
Women <50 301 18 4% 55 5% 19 64 4.84 1 7% 73 94 24 4% 50
Women 50+ 243 21 3% 52 0% 15 54 6.5% 4 7% 73 3% 22 0% 51
Men <50 320 20 8% 54 8% 20 64 2.9% 9% 75 6% 23 5% 52
Men 50+ 222 21 54 54 2% 13 6% 6.74 3 9% 75 74 20 34 55
Party by Gender
Dem Women 323 18 3% 57 3% 16 8% 5.0% 2 5% 75 7% 21 8% 54
Dem Men 297 20 3% 53 6% 20 8% 3.2% 2 1% 73 9% 24 0% 50
Rep Women 63 31 4% 34 4% 20 9% 7;1% 6 2% 65 8% 28 0% 38
Rep Men 72 26 4% 53 3% 7 5% 7.74 5 14 79 7% 15 2% 64
DTS/Minor Women 19 2% 53 4% 18 5% 6.3% 2 7% 72 5% 24 7% 48
DTS/Minor Men 181 21 74 54 2% 17 0% 6.0% 1 0% 76 0% 23 0% 53
Party by Age
Dem <50 332 16 1% 58 0% 21 3% 3.14 9% 74 7% 24 4% 50
Dem 50+ 280 ' 21 3% 53 8% 15 9% 4.9% 4 14 75 1% 20 8% 54
Rep <50 56 37 1% 41 0% 11 2% 6.8% 3 9% 78 1% 18 0% 60
Rep 50+ 75 22 5% 48 9% 14 64 7.0% 7 1% 71 3% 21 5% 50
DTS/Minor <50 232 19 6% 54 4% 20 5% 4.1% 1 3% 74 1% 24 6% 49
DTS/Minor 50+ 111 21 1% 54 0% 11 54 10.5% 2 9% 75 0% 22 0% 53
Party by Gender and Age
Dem Women <50 171 15 3% 59 9% 19 04 4.8% 1 0% 75 2% 23 8% 51
Dem Women 50+ 148 20 ppl 55 4% 14 74 4.8% 4 4% 76 1% 19 5% 57
Dem Men <50 162 18 1% 56 1% 23 84 1.,3% 8% 74 2% 25 0% 49
Dem Men 50+ 131 21 9% 52 1% 17 24 5.0% 3 8% 73 94 22 2% 52
Rep Women <50 23 49 8% 20 8% 23 9% .0% 5 5% 70 6% 23 94 47
Rep Women 50+ 4 20 9% 42 1% 19 2% 11.1% 6 6% 63 0% 30 3% 33
Rep Men <50 33 28 5% 54 74 2 6% 11.4% 2 8% 83 2% 14 0% 69
Rep Men 50+ 35 24 2% 56 5% 9 34 2.3% 7 74 80 84 11 6% 69
DTS/Minor Women <50 108 16 7% 55 9% 19 74 5.74 2 04 72 6% 25 44 47
DTS/Minor Women 50+ 55 23 04 50 1% 15 04 7.74 4 24 73 2% 22 6% 51
DTS/Minor Men <50 124 22 2% 53 1% 21 24 2.74 7% 75 34 24 0% 51
DTS/Minor Men 50+ 56 19 1% 57 7% 8 14 13.4% 1 7% 76 94 21 4% 55
Party by Ethnicity
Dem White 403 14 6% 58 5% 21 3% 3.8% 1 8% 73 0% 25 2% 48
DDeemm ALsaitainno 4758 2295 29%% . 5525 07%% 111 394% 5..80%4 21 46%% 8811 27%% 1175 29%% 6664
RReepp AWshiitaen 9159 2380 53%% 4620 22%% 17 034% 74..784% 44 27%% 7900 75%% 254 17%% 4866
DDDTTTSSS///MMMiiinnnooorrr AWLshaiittaienno 1927050 113706 591%%% 556254 257%%% 111539 53344% 81...0934%% 31 140%4% 788015 244%%% 211845 536%%% 746126
Party by Home Ownership
Dem Own 298 17 2% 55 0% 19 64 5.3% 2 9% 72 2% 24 9% 47
Dem Rent 301 20 44 56 1% 18 64 3.34 1 6% 76 5% 21 9% 55
Rep Own 76 27 2% 43 1% 19 74 6.4% 3 7% 70 3% 26 1% 44
Rep Rent 54 30 1% 47 1% 6 44 9.5% 7 04 77 2% 15 8% 61
DTS/Minor Own 130 21 4% 55 9% 12 84 8.1% 1 8% 77 3% 20 9% 56
DTS/Minor Rent 198 19 6% 54 44 20 34 4.2% 1 5% 74 0% 24 4% 50
continued)
(