Summary of the Findings
The Adirondack Museum, located in Blue Mountain Lake, New York,
commissioned a survey in 1990 to learn what New Yorkers, especially
those who call the Adirondacks their home, thought about recent proposed
safeguards for the region's environment and people. Two major goals of
the study were:
The data provide timely information on people's attitudes towards
contemporary Adirondack issues. The findings of this study, consistent
with the educational mission of the Adirondack Museum, serve a public
purpose by clarifying attitudes regarding issues of importance.
Holmes & Associates distributed 1,195 questionnaires at the Adirondack
Museum in Blue Mountain Lake, New York during July, August, and
September of 1990. The questionnaires were distributed on 19 randomly
selected days to approximately every third family group entering the
Museum. Seventy additional questionnaires were mailed to randomly
selected full-time residents of the Adirondacks in early October. The
return rate was 37 percent for a controlled sample of 475. All
respondents were divided into four groups: full-time residents,
part-time residents of the Adirondacks, New York residents who were
visiting the Adirondacks, and visitors to the Adirondacks from outside
the state. All analysis and discussion of the data in this report is in
terms of the four groups.
The methodology applied in this study provided an efficient,
cost-effective approach for achieving the goals. Random distribution
techniques at the Museum and in a direct mailing to a sample of
Adirondack residents prevented self-selection by respondents and
otherwise controlled for bias within the samples for each group. The
primary use of an intercept survey approach, the targeting of visitors
to the Adirondack Museum, precludes extrapolation of the findings to the
larger population in a statistically significant sense.
The most distinctive relationship between the four groups on their
ratings of the quality of life items was their relatively high level of
agreement. They all agreed that improving schools was a high priority,
and that improving health care was a relatively high priority in the
Adirondacks. State aid to help small communities create local land use
plans was favorably rated by all groups. Part-time residents were most
in support of the recommendation. On the issue of a Community
Development Corporation, full-time residents were divided on its merits
and there was moderate support among the other groups.
When asked how many additional tax dollars they would pay to fund
quality of life programs, full-time and part-time residents had very
different views. Thirty-five percent of full-time residents preferred
transferring funds from other programs over paying additional taxes.
Only 13 percent of part-time residents thought that transferring funds
was appropriate and the 76 percent who were willing to pay additional
taxes allocated an average amount of $43.59. The majority of
respondents in each group were willing to pay additional taxes for
quality of life programs, in itself indicating solid support for the
recommendations they viewed as priorities.
There was widespread agreement in strongly supporting the restoration of
native species to the Adirondacks. Establishing a free user-permit
system for controlling the number of campers in the High Peaks during
busy seasons also received solid support among the four groups.
Programs to improve canoe routes in the Adirondacks fell firmly on the
agree side of the scale. Over 60 percent of the full-time residents
agreed or strongly agreed with this, but more than any other group,
full-time residents wanted more information on the idea.
There was little disagreement with the recommendation to further develop
and improve the new Visitor Interpretive Centers in the Park. More than
50 percent of full-time residents agreed or strongly agreed. There was
a high level of disagreement with the idea that the state provide
greater access to all bodies of water, with nearly a majority of
full-time residents disagreeing and more than half the respondents in
each of the other groups disagreeing.
On the recommendation to require lakeshore homeowners to shield the view
of their homes from the lake, 39 percent or more in each group
disagreed. One interpretation is that residents and visitors alike did
not view lake aesthetic issues on the same level as lake pollution
problems.
There was strong agreement that the economy of the Park depends on
tourism. However, the idea put forth in the minority report by Robert
Flack, that wilderness areas can only be enjoyed by people with special
knowledge and in superior health, implying that there is little or no
economic benefit to Forest Preserve lands, met with strong
disagreement. Sixty-eight percent of full-time residents and over 79
percent of those in the other three groups disagreed or strongly
disagreed. Responses to this item demonstrate a broad-based support for
wilderness recreation. There was a healthy measure of support from all
groups that heavily used backcountry areas should be closed when
necessary to let them recover from recreation impacts. Support for this
was in the 70 to 80 percent range.
Respondents evaluated 12 recommendations for managing land use and
development in the Adirondacks. The idea with the strongest support was
the recommendation that all lakeshore and riverside homeowners have
their septic systems inspected and repaired. More than 60 percent of
respondents in all groups "strongly" agreed with this. Enforcement of
strict boating regulations received strong agreement from 41 percent of
full-time residents and more than 50 percent of respondents in the other
groups.
Support came from all four groups for the recommendation that open space
lands, most often located in the Resource Management and Rural Use
zones, should be used primarily for recreation, agriculture, and
forestry, and taxed accordingly, not for its development potential.
Sixty-six percent of full-time residents agreed with this, with
agreement even higher in the other groups.
A majority in each group agreed with the recommendation to allow
construction only to within 200 feet of shorelines, with New York
resident visitors to the Park having the highest agreement rating: 66
percent.
More than 50 percent of full-time residents agreed or strongly agreed
with the proposal to place a moratorium on newly proposed subdivisions
until the state enacts new development policies. Support increased
considerably among the other groups. Although it was clear from
responses that people need more information about conservation
easements, 48 percent of full-time residents agreed or strongly agreed
with the state purchasing conservation easements.
Full-time residents, more than any other group, support the idea of
providing tax incentives to timber companies for keeping their land in
timber production. However, they were much less supportive of other
land use recommendations, including state purchase of large tracts of
land, restricting development to hamlets, setting up a transition zone
around the Park, and withdrawing state aid from communities that fail to
adopt land use plans within three years.
Pollution of lakes and streams was consistently viewed as the most
serious problem among all four groups, with the largest percentages
selecting it over 10 other choices. "Changing the character of the
Adirondacks forever" was selected by the next largest percentage in each
group, although full-time residents selected "inflated real estate
prices" second most often as the most serious problem. Visitors saw the
"fragmentation of essential habitats and travel routes for animals and
birds" as a serious problem.
However, noteworthy is the virtual absence of "housing development in
lakeshore areas" as one of the most serious problems in the Adirondacks,
even though respondents were unanimous in most often selecting pollution
of lakes and streams as the most serious problem. Although they
recognized the importance of inspecting and repairing lakeside septic
systems, respondents sometimes missed the link between water pollution
and lakeshore development.
About 80 percent of Adirondack residents voted no to the 21st Century
Environmental Quality Bond Act in November 1990. However, this survey
showed that close to one-half of full-time residents were supportive of
state land purchases in the Park and expressed an interest in using
easements.
The most broad-based support came for the idea that environmental
education on natural and cultural history be a guiding principle of Park
management. The recommendation that would authorize the Adirondack Park
Agency (APA) to consider the cumulative impacts of a proposed project
was viewed as a "high" priority by approximately 60 percent of part-time
residents and visitors and by 30 percent of full-time residents.
The proposal to restructure the APA, consolidating permitting,
regulations and enforcement within that agency also received a high
priority rating from all groups. Similarly, the proposal that all state
agencies treat the Park as a single region was given a high or medium
priority by all groups.
A significant majority of full-time residents thought that two elected
officials from within the Adirondacks should be made decision-making
members of the APA. Full-time residents also overwhelmingly selected
the proposal for more local control over planning and zoning. Full and
part-time residents did disagree on the statement that the APA Act
adequately protects the state's interest in the Park. Full-time
residents were more likely to agree with the statement, indicating
marginal support for the status quo; part-time residents were more
likely to disagree.
Full and part-time residents had a similar knowledge level of the Commission report and similar percentages had attended public meetings. When asked to evaluate the success of the Commission in achieving its three objectives, there was general agreement that the Commission was successful in protecting the environment, but the Commission had been much less successful in treating landowners fairly. The Commission also received a low rating for its success in making recommendations that would improve the quality of life for residents.
A solid majority in all groups agreed that environmental conditions have
declined in the Adirondacks in the past ten years. In terms of a
general management philosophy for correcting the situation, those
closest to the issue favor the balanced approach. Full and part-time
residents were very similar in their views, with more than 55 percent
choosing the middle path: giving equal weight to human needs and
environmental protection. Visitors, on the other hand, tended towards
putting the environment first in most management decisions.
A majority of all groups supported the "forever wild" clause of the
State Constitution relating to the protection of the Park. Furthermore,
in allocating funds to the Park for various uses, "buying sensitive
lands" was allocated the largest proportion of funds, and "wildlife
management" funding allocations came next. Land use planning programs
were also high on each group's fund allocation list.
All groups viewed small towns as an important part of the character of
the Adirondacks. The favorable priority ratings on the quality of life
issues are supported by this overwhelming support for the small towns.
All groups strongly supported recommendations for improving the quality
of life for Adirondackers and were willing to accept an increased tax
burden to do so.