Blue Mountains City Council Community Survey 2016

Blue Mountains City Council

Community Survey 2016

Final Results

Prepared for

Prepared by

IRIS Research

May 2016

I n s i g h t f o r

B u s i n e s s & G o v e r n m e n t

IRIS Research ABN 16 002 278 793 The University of Wollongong Innovation Campus, Level 1, iC Cental, Squires Way, North Wollongong 2500

Postal address: Northfields Ave, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Telephone: (02) 4285 4446, Fax: (02)4285 4448

Net: http://www.iris.org.au Email: [email protected]

Blue Mountains City Council - Community Survey 2016 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................3

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................4

1.3 ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT ..........................................................................................................4

1.4 DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................5

1.5 COMPARING RESULTS ..............................................................................................................6

1.5.1 Previous Surveys ........................................................................................................ 6

1.6 MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCE ............................................................................7

1.7 SURVEY RESPONSE ...................................................................................................................8

1.8 IRIS' MEAN CLASSIFICATION SCORES ........................................................................................8

SURVEY RESULTS 10

2. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL SERVICES & FACILITIES 11

2.1 IMPORTANCE RATINGS ...........................................................................................................13

2.1.1 Overview of Key Direction Areas ........................................................................... 13

2.1.2 Looking After the Environment .............................................................................. 14

2.1.3 Using Land .............................................................................................................. 19

2.1.4 Moving Around ....................................................................................................... 22

2.1.5 Looking After People .............................................................................................. 25

2.1.6 Sustainable Economy ................................................................................................ 32

2.2 SATISFACTION RATINGS ..........................................................................................................35

2.2.1 Overview of Key Direction ..................................................................................... 35

2.2.2 Looking After the Environment .............................................................................. 36

2.2.3 Using Land .............................................................................................................. 40

2.2.4 Moving Around ....................................................................................................... 44

2.2.5 Looking After People .............................................................................................. 47

2.2.6 Sustainable Economy ............................................................................................. 54

3. PRIORITISING SERVICES & FACILITIES 57

3.1 QUADRANT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................57

3.2 GAP ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................61

3.3 PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................65

3.4 TRENDS IN QUADRANT AND GAP ANALYSIS ..............................................................................66


4. OVERALL SATISFACTION & VALUE 71

4.1 OVERALL SATISFACTION .........................................................................................................71

4.1.1 Satisfaction Rating .................................................................................................. 71

4.1.2 Reasons for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Council Performance ................... 76

4.1.3 Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction ......................................................................... 79

4.2 VALUE FOR MONEY ...............................................................................................................80

4.3 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION .................................................................................................82

5. STAFF PERFORMANCE 83

5.1 INTERACTION WITH COUNCIL STAFF .........................................................................................83

5.2 STAFF CUSTOMER SERVICE MEASURES ......................................................................................84

6. COUNCILLOR PERFORMANCE 85

6.1 DEALINGS WITH COUNCILLORS ...............................................................................................85

6.2 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COUNCILLORS ............................................................................86

7. PLANNING PRIORITIES FOR THE BLUE MOUNTAINS 88

8. COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS 98

9. RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS 100

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY METHODOLOGY 101

SAMPLE DESIGN .............................................................................................................................. 101

DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................................... 103

RESPONSE ...................................................................................................................................... 103

WEIGHTING ADJUSTMENT ................................................................................................................. 104

SURVEY ACCURACY ........................................................................................................................ 104

APPENDIX 2: IMPORTANCE, SATISFACTION AND GAP SCORES 105

APPENDIX 3: OVERALL SATISFACTION REGRESSION ANALYSIS 110


1. Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND

This study was commissioned by Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC) as the thirteenth in

a series of surveys aimed at monitoring community satisfaction with the quality and level

of services provided by Council. The broad goals of the study were to measure Council’s

performance against previous results and to provide up-to-date insights into satisfaction

with services and community issues of importance. The design used for this survey

represents the specific needs of BMCC management and permits examination of

movement in importance and satisfaction on a number of broad areas of Council

performance.

The study was designed to permit measurement of differences in resident attitudes

between each of the five Community Planning Areas (CPAs) used by Council, as shown

in Table 1.1.1.

Table 1.1.1 Blue Mountains City Council Community Planning Areas

CPA Localities

Area 1 Blackheath, Megalong Valley, the Mounts

Area 2 Medlow Bath, Katoomba, Leura, Wentworth Falls

Area 3 Bullaburra, Lawson, Hazelbrook, Woodford, Linden

Area 4 Faulconbridge, Springwood, Winmalee, Valley Heights

Area 5 Warrimoo, Blaxland, Mt Riverview, Glenbrook, Lapstone


1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives for the Community Survey were to:

� Measure the importance of and satisfaction with service activities and facilities

provided by Council;

� Measure perceived performance of Council staff;

� Where appropriate, measure performance against previous surveys in the series;

� Identify current major issues of concern at the local and citywide levels and identify

priorities for action and funding over the next 5-10 years.

1.3 ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT

The three separate attitude scales used in this survey are shown below: they are used by

survey respondents to rate importance, satisfaction and agreement. In the first section of

the survey, a series of 42 Council service activities and facilities were read out to

respondents. For each, respondents were asked to give both an importance and

satisfaction rating. Results from these ratings form the basis of much of the analysis in this

report.

Importance scale Satisfaction scale Agreement Scale

1 … Not at all important 1 … Very dissatisfied 1… Strongly disagree

2 … 2 … 2…

3 … 3 … 3…

4 … 4 … 4…

5 … Very important 5 … Very satisfied 5… Strongly agree

For all rating scales, those respondents who could not provide a rating, either because

the question did not apply to them or they had no opinion, were coded as a non-

response (i.e. 6 = ‘can’t say’). The ‘6’ scores are excluded in the calculation of mean

score ratings.


1.4 DATA ANALYSIS

Results have been presented in a standardised way in this report. Rating scale results

have generally been presented in two basic forms. Firstly, the numeric values recorded

for each attribute have been converted into an overall mean score out of five. To derive

the mean score for an attribute, all respondents' answers are 'averaged' to produce an

overall rating that conveniently expresses the result of scale items in a single numeric

figure. The mean score makes data interpretation considerably easier when comparing

multiple service activities and facilities.

On the whole, a mean score is a good measure of the overall agreement, importance or

satisfaction measured in the sample group. However, two services with the same mean

score could have vastly different dispersions of opinion, leading to a gap in any

interpretation of results. This potential problem can be avoided by considering the

collapsed frequency distribution tables presented in this report, which serve to highlight

possible differences between seemingly similar mean scores. Hence, in this report the

results have also been summarised into collapsed frequency distributions as shown in the

table below.

Table 1.4.1 Reporting collapsed frequency distributions – 5 point scale

Scale Type

Scale Values

1-2 3 4-5

Importance Low Medium High

Satisfaction Low Medium High

Agreement Disagree Neutral Agree


Analysis of the survey results was carried out by IRIS using SPSS statistical analysis software.

Frequency counts, cross tabulations and charts have been used to present basic

descriptive results in most sections of the report. Other statistical procedures were used to

conduct significance tests. Where proportions have been reported for groups of

respondents (e.g. males 65% vs. females 75%) Pearson’s Chi-Square was the test statistic

used to determine whether group results were indeed significantly different. When

comparing mean scores for interval data (e.g. Area A = 3.42, Area B = 3.50 & Area C =

3.80) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was the primary statistical test used to investigate

whether results were significantly different. Where more than two groups were being

compared, post-hoc tests were applied: Bonferroni (equal variance assumed) and

Games-Howell (equal variance not assumed). Post-hoc tests highlight exactly which

groups have differing results where more than two groups are being compared.

1.5 COMPARING RESULTS

1.5.1 Previous Surveys

In February 2010 IRIS Research and BMCC put in place a long term community research

program that incorporates the use of a telephone survey.

The comprehensive survey was designed to utilise a larger sample size of 1000 residents

to provide opportunities to accurately measure outcomes at the city-wide level and at a

planning district level and allows key statistical difference in Council’s perceived delivery

of services between planning districts to be determined. The questionnaire for the

comprehensive survey is longer in length at about 20 minutes and the results are overall

more accurate at the 95% confidence level (+/- 3.1%).

By comparison the questionnaire for the supplementary survey is shorter in length at

around 17 minutes and uses a smaller sample size of 500 individuals (95% confidence

level (+/- 4.9%). The results are analysed at the city-wide level only.

The 2016 BMCC Community survey is a comprehensive survey. Where possible, results

from the 2016 survey have been compared with previous survey results of both the

comprehensive and supplementary surveys.


1.6 MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF PERFORMANCE

To gain knowledge on how Council is performing relative to resident expectations, the

best approach is to use a ‘top down’ analytical approach. As Figure 1.6.1 illustrates, the

IRIS analytical framework is logical and sequential: first overall performance metrics (big

picture); then specific aspects of Council performance in delivering key services

(operational); and finally, advanced analytical techniques to uncover key drivers

(diagnostic).

Figure 1.6.1 Performance Measurement – the IRIS Analytical Framework

1. Overall Performance Overall Satisfaction with Council

Satisfaction Ratings for 46 Key

Service Activities & Facilities

Satisfaction Ratings for

Council Staff & Councillors

2. Performance in Key Service Areas

3. Key Driver Analysis - Identifying opportunities to improve specific services

- Modelling to predict service areas that have greatest impact on overall satisfaction.

- Qualitative analysis to understand reasons for dissatisfaction with Council.

Level 1:

The customer service

metric that matters most!

Level 2:

Drilling down to

individual facility &

service ratings

Level 3:

Advanced

analysis to

uncover

underlying

drivers of

resident

satisfaction


1.7 SURVEY RESPONSE

A total of 1001 completed surveys were collected from a random sample of residents

throughout the Blue Mountains Local Government Area. Strict sampling procedures

ensured that characteristics of selected respondents mirrored those of the overall adult

population of the area (based on 2011 Census data).

Table 1.7.1 Sample Respondent Characteristics

Please refer to Appendix 1 for a detailed description of the survey methodology.

1.8 IRIS' MEAN CLASSIFICATION SCORES

Given that IRIS undertakes many residents’ surveys such as this; we are able to

benchmark mean scores. As such, mean importance and satisfaction scores can be

further classified as being a low, medium or high score based on this experience. Table

1.8.1 highlights the mean classifications.

Table 1.8.1 Classification of mean scores

Mean importance scores

Mean satisfaction scores

0 – 2.99 Low 0 – 2.99 Low

3.00 – 3.99 Medium 3.00 – 3.74 Medium

4.00 – 5.00 High 3.75 – 5.00 High

Characteristic Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Overall

Sex

Male 39.5% 44.2% 40.2% 41.3% 44.6% 42.1%

Female 60.5% 55.8% 59.8% 58.7% 55.4% 57.9%

Age Group

16 to 24 years 3.4% 2.9% 9.8% 6.7% 3.9% 5.4%

25 to 34 years 2.3% 6.7% 6.4% 3.4% 3.9% 4.6%

35 to 49 years 13.0% 16.3% 25.0% 21.2% 19.1% 19.1%

50 to 64 years 35.0% 41.3% 35.3% 41.3% 44.1% 39.6%

65 plus years 46.3% 32.7% 23.5% 27.4% 28.9% 31.4%

Proportion by Area (%)


Note: When comparing mean scores in this report it is important to take into account the potential error rate

(see Appendix 1, Survey Accuracy for details) and the distribution of the responses. Where IRIS Research has

identified that two mean scores are statistically different, this error rate and the distribution of the results has

been taken into account. As a rough rule of thumb, two mean scores will need to vary by around 0.2 in order

for them to be considered significantly different.


SURVEY RESULTS


2. Individual Council Services & Facilities

This section presents the results for Section 1 (see questionnaire in Appendix 4), which

asked respondents to rate the importance of 42 Council service activities and facilities,

and then to rate their satisfaction with Council's provision of these service activities and

facilities.

Service activities and facilities were grouped under headings relating to the following Key

Directions as set out in the Community Strategic Plan: Sustainable Blue Mountains 2025.

Looking After Environment (eg. bush regeneration, garbage collection, etc)

Using Land (eg. residential development, parking, town centre, etc)

Moving Around (eg. roads, footpaths, lighting public areas, etc)

Looking After People (eg. daycare, bushfire protection, sportsgrounds, etc)

Sustainable Economy (eg. employment, tourism, arts, etc)

Ratings have been analysed at two levels: a) Key Direction level, as displayed above; &

b) Individual service activity or facility level. At Key Direction level, composite scores have

been derived for each area by calculating the mean score for all service activities and

facilities rated under that heading.

Due to the change in the overall groupings of the individual service activities and

facilities in 2010, trend comparisons at the Key Direction level are not possible prior to this

date.

Section 2.1 presents the results in terms of the importance placed on the service activities

and facilities by residents. Section 2.2 assesses Council performance in terms of resident

satisfaction with the provision of these service activities and facilities. Finally, Section 3.0

attempts to prioritise these service activities and facilities, giving Council actionable

information that can be used to allocate resources and make informed policy decisions.

It needs to be pointed out that between the 2014 and 2016 measures there were a

number of wording changes that may affect the ability to make comparisons to the

benchmark data. Results concerning these variables should be viewed with caution.


The following table highlights the variables that are affected by these wording changes.

2014 wording 2016 wording

The quality of new residential development Managing residential development

Visitor Information Centres Visitor Information Centres at Glenbrook

and Echo Point

Swimming pools Swimming pools and leisure centres


2.1 IMPORTANCE RATINGS

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each of the 42 Council service

activities and facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = ‘not important’ and 5 = ‘very

important’. Section 2.1.1 provides an overview of the Key Directions, whilst sections 2.1.2

to 2.1.6 give a more detailed account of importance ratings for individual service

activities and facilities. A summary of ratings for each service is provided in Appendix 2.

2.1.1 Overview of Key Direction Areas

Overall Analysis

Table 2.1.1.1 Importance Ratings for Key Directions

Service / facility (rank order)

Importance Rating

(%)

Mean

Score (out of 5)

N/R Low (1-2)

Medium (3)

High (4-5)

Looking After Environment 2.1 0.2 3.3 94.4 4.49

Looking After People 4.7 1.6 7.6 86.1 4.34

Using Land 2.4 0.5 5.8 91.2 4.33

Moving Around 3.5 1.1 11.0 84.4 4.19

Sustainable Economy 7.3 5.8 16.1 70.8 4.01

Key results:

• ‘Looking After Environment’ has been consistently rated as the most important

Key Direction. This trend has continued in 2016 with a score of 4.49 out of 5, on par

with the 2014 result of 4.5.

• 'Looking After People’ at 4.34 and ‘Using Land’ at 4.33 are statistically on par with

‘Looking After Environment’ and are statistically equivalent to their 2014 results.


2.1.2 Looking After Environment

The first Key Direction dealt with in the 2016 survey was ‘Looking After Environment’ The

following section of this report deals with the individual service activities and facilities

falling under this Key Direction.

Distribution of Results

Table 2.1.2.1 Importance Ratings for Looking After Environment (n=1001)

The Natural Environment

Importance Rating (%)

Service / facility (rank order) N/R Low

(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)

Clean creeks and waterways 0.5 1.5 4.3 93.7 4.67

Protection of natural bushland. 0.1 2.6 12.5 84.8 4.42

Weed control 0.7 5.1 11.3 82.9 4.32

Bush regeneration 0.7 5.9 15.1 78.3 4.18

Waste Management



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)

'Wheelie Bin' recycling service 0.5 0.3 3.3 95.9 4.77

'Wheelie Bin' garbage collection 0.3 0.1 4.5 95.1 4.72

Waste Management Facilities at Blaxland and

Katoomba 4.3 4.7 13.1 77.9 4.28

Water Management



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score (Out

of 5)

Management of stormwater and drainage 1.1 2.6 8.9 87.5 4.40


Key results:

• All the services falling within the ‘Looking After Environment’ Key Direction,

received ‘high’ mean importance scores of 4 or higher out of 5.

• Similarly to 2013 and 2014, 'Wheelie Bin garbage collection' (4.72), 'Wheelie Bin

recycling service' (4.77) and 'Clean creeks and waterways' (4.67) stood out with

regards to their 'high' levels of importance relative to the other service activities

and facilities within this Key Direction.


Trend Analysis

Figure 2.1.2.1 Trend in Importance Ratings for Looking After Environment

Key results:

• The trend data in figure 2.1.2.1 indicates that only ‘Weed control’ recorded a

statistically significant change from 2014, up from 4.08 to 4.32.

• The mean importance scores within this Key Direction of 'Looking After

Environment' are all considered to be of a 'High' nature.

• Looked at as a whole there has been little movement over successive waves for

the importance measures in this Key Direction. It started off at a fairly high base

and has continued at much the same level.


Figure 2.1.2.2 Planning Area Importance Ratings for Looking After Environment


Figure 2.1.2.3 Planning Area Importance Ratings for Looking After Environment

Key results:

• Residents in planning areas 1(4.20) and 3 (4.24) rated ‘Waste Management

Facilities’ as being less important than those in planning areas 4 (4.44) and 5

(4.44).


2.1.3 Using Land

The next Key Direction dealt with was ‘Using Land’. This section of the report looks into the

individual service activities and facilities within this Key Direction.


Table 2.1.3.1 Importance Ratings for Services that Relate to Towns and Villages (n=1001)


Service / facility (rank order) N/R Low (1&2)

Medium (3)

High (4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)

The atmosphere, look and feel of our towns and

villages 0.3 0.6 6.1 93.0 4.57

Litter Control 0.2 0.6 7.1 92.1 4.54

Public toilets in town centres 0.9 3.1 11.2 84.8 4.43

Protection of heritage values in our towns and

villages 0.3 2.7 9.0 88.0 4.41

Parking for shoppers 0.9 3.7 10.4 84.9 4.34

Managing residential development* 2.3 4.1 12.4 81.2 4.32

Street Cleaning 0.7 5.2 22.8 71.3 4.04

Cemeteries and ashes placement sites. 6.6 12.7 22.3 58.3 3.77

Key results:

• ‘The atmosphere, look and feel of our towns and villages’ and ‘Litter control’

were rated by Blue Mountains residents as the most important services within the

Key Direction of ‘Using Land’, recording ‘High’ mean score of 4.57 and 4.54 out of

5 with ‘Cemeteries and ashes placement sites’ being the low score at 3.77.

• All but 'Cemeteries and ashes placement sites' achieved 'High' importance scores

of 4 out of 5 or greater.


Trend Analysis

Figure 2.1.3.1 Trend in Importance Ratings for Using Land

Key results:

• All the services covered in this Key Direction have trended sideways with no

statistically significant changes since 2014. (Note: Managing residential

development has not been considered due to the wording change since 2014)


Planning Area

Figure 2.1.3.2 Planning Area Importance Ratings for Using Land

Key results:

• Residents in planning area 4 (4.20) rated ‘Managing residential development’

as being less important than those in planning area 5 (4.43).

• Residents in planning area 4 (4.24) rated ‘Protection of heritage values in our

towns and villages’ as being less important than those in planning areas 1

(4.58), 2 (4.44) and 5 (4.45).

• Residents in planning areas 3 (4.50), 4 (4.53) and 5 (4.5) rated ‘The

atmosphere, look and feel of our towns and villages’ as being less important

than those in planning area 1 (4.73).

• There was no statistically significant difference across the planning areas for

any other service under the ‘Using Land’ Key Direction.


2.1.4 Moving Around

Moving Around was the third Key Direction dealt with in this survey. Importance ratings

for items within this Key Direction are detailed below.


Table 2.1.4.1 Importance Ratings for Moving Around (n=1001)



(1&2)

Mediu

m (3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score (Out

of 5)

Traffic Safety for pedestrians and vehicles 1.1 4.4 93.8 0.7 4.65

Pedestrian access around shopping centres and

community facilities 2.5 7.7 89.0 0.7 4.43

Footpaths 3.0 10.5 86.0 0.5 4.38

Sealed roads 4.2 12.6 82.7 0.6 4.31

Carparks 6.1 17.2 75.2 1.5 4.12

Commuter parking 11.3 12.5 71.3 4.9 4.08

Bus shelters 16.2 22.7 53.9 7.1 3.62

Cycle ways 22.1 20.2 53.2 4.4 3.48

Key results:

• ‘Traffic safety for pedestrians and vehicles’ again garnered the highest

importance rating within this Key Direction, with a mean score of 4.65 out of 5. It

was given a high (4 or 5) importance score by 93.8% of residents.

• Only two ‘Transport & Public Access’ items are ranked with mean scores in the

‘medium’ range, those being bus shelters (3.62) and cycle ways (3.48).


Trend Analysis

Figure 2.1.4.1 Trend in Importance Ratings for Moving Around

Key results:

• All services / facilities in this Key Direction have continued to trend sideways with

no statistically significant changes since 2014.


Planning Area

Figure 2.1.4.2 Planning Area Importance Ratings for Moving Around

Key results:

• Residents in planning area 2 (4.20) rated ‘Sealed roads’ as being less important

than those in planning area 4 (4.40).

• Residents in planning areas 2(3.56), 4 (3.53) and 5 (3.52) rated ‘Bus shelters’ as

being less important than those in planning area 3 (3.79).

• Residents in planning area 5 (3.32) rated ‘Cycle ways’ as being less important

than those in planning areas 2 (3.62) and 3 (3.55).

• Residents in planning area 1 (3.97) rated ‘Commuter parking’ as being less

important than those in planning area 3 (4.17).


2.1.5 Looking After People

Respondents were next asked to rate the importance they place on service activities

and facilities that have to do with Looking After People.


Table 2.1.5.1 Importance Ratings for Looking After People (n=1001)

Emergency Services



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score (Out

of 5)

Managing the bushfire risk on Council land 1.1 1.0 3.8 94.1 4.72

Planning for and supporting emergency

management for the City 2.1 1.0 4.6 92.4 4.67

Bush Fire Survival Plan

‘Have you completed a Bush Fire Survival Plan?’

Bush Fire Survival Plan by Postcode

Postcode

Have

Survival

Plan

No Plan

Can’t Say

/ Don’t

Know

2786 79.7% 20.3% 0.0%

2784 78.9% 21.1% 0.0%

2778 78.0% 19.8% 2.2%

2782 73.1% 26.0% 0.9%

2779 67.7% 31.6% 0.6%

2785 65.7% 33.8% 0.6%

2773 64.5% 34.5% 1.0%

2774 64.4% 31.7% 3.9%

2776 58.6% 39.8% 1.7%

2777 57.2% 42.4% 0.4%

2780 55.5% 43.9% 0.6%

2783 50.0% 44.9% 5.1%


Community Services



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)

Services and facilities for people with a disability 3.6 6.4 5.8 84.2 4.40

Services and facilities for older people 3.8 7.6 6.0 82.5 4.33

Services and facilities for young people 6.2 11.1 6.9 75.9 4.10

Services that support the local Aboriginal

community 8.4 9.2 11.9 70.5 4.09

Services and facilities for children and families 6.2 13.1 8.9 71.8 4.04

Community centres & community halls 3.4 9.7 17.9 69.1 3.98

Sport and Recreation


(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)

Council lookouts and walking trails 1.7 2.9 10.8 84.6 4.37

Parks & playgrounds 2.0 4.8 8.6 84.6 4.35

Swimming pools and leisure centres 2.7 7.4 13.9 76.0 4.12

Ovals & sporting grounds 2.6 8.4 14.2 74.8 4.08

Environmental Health and Regulation


(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean Score (Out

of 5)

Clean, safe and healthy living environments 0.5 0.6 4.3 94.7 4.71

Library service


(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score (Out

of 5)

Library services 2.3 13.1 14.4 70.2 3.98

Key results:

• The surveyed residents of the Blue Mountains have predictably rated ‘Managing

bushfire risk on Council land’ (4.72), ‘Clean, safe and healthy living environments’

(4.71) and ‘Planning for and supporting emergency management for the City’

(4.67) at the top of their importance scale.

• All the services in this Key Direction have been rated as of ‘high’ importance.


Trend Analysis

Figure 2.1.5.1 Trend in Importance Ratings for Looking After People



Key results:

• No service has recorded a statistically significant change since 2014.


Planning Area Analysis

Figure 2.1.5.4 Planning Area Importance Ratings for Looking After People


Figure 2.1.5.5 Planning Area Importance Ratings for Looking After People

Key results:

• Residents in planning area 2 (4.59) rated ‘Managing the bushfire risk on Council

land’ as being less important than those in planning area 5 (4.81).

• Residents in planning areas 1 (3.94) and 2 (3.91) rated ‘Services and facilities for

children and families’ as being less important than those in planning area 3 (4.17).

• Residents in planning area 1 (3.94) rated ‘Services and facilities for young people’


• Residents in planning areas 2 (3.95), 3 (4.01), 4 (3.97) and 5 (3.71) rated

‘Community centres and community halls’ as being less important than those in

planning area 1 (4.33).

• Residents in planning areas 4 (4.08) and 5 (4.02) rated ‘Swimming pools and

leisure centres’ as being less important than those in planning area 3 (4.28).

• Residents in planning area 5 (4.25) rated ‘Council lookouts and walking trails’ as


• Residents in planning areas 1 (3.92), 4 (3.88) and 5 (3.79) rated ‘Library services’ as



2.1.6 Sustainable Economy

Sustainable Economy was the last of the Key Directions residents were asked about as

part of this survey. There were four service activities and facilities that residents were

asked to rate, as shown below.


Table 2.1.6.1 Importance Ratings for Sustainable Economy (n=1001)

Blue Mountains economy



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of

5)

Access to local employment opportunities 5.4 10.8 8.2 75.6 4.15

Visitor Information Centres at Glenbrook and Echo

Point 4.1 8.7 14.6 72.5 4.06

Caravan Parks at Katoomba and Blackheath 13.0 25.2 20.3 41.6 3.24

Cultural & Arts Facilities



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)

Cultural & Arts facilities 2.4 10.0 16.4 71.2 3.98

Key results:

• All but ‘Caravan Parks at Katoomba and Blackheath’ achieved a ‘high’

importance score of 4 out of 5 or greater. The lower perceived importance of

Caravan Parks may be due to the fact that they are primarily facilities for visitors,

while the survey respondents are residents of the Blue Mountains.


Trend Analysis

Figure 2.1.6.1 Trend in Importance Ratings for Sustainable Economy

Key results:

• There has been a significant decline in the importance that residents reported for

‘Access to local employment opportunities’ from 4.42 in 2014 to 4.15 in 2016.

• ‘Visitor Information Centres’ and ‘Cultural and Arts Facilities’ recorded results on

par with the 2014 results.

• ‘Caravan Parks at Katoomba and Blackheath’ was a new question in 2016.



Figure 2.1.6.2 Planning Area Importance Ratings for Sustainable Economy

Key results:

• Residents in planning area 5 (4.44) rated ‘Generating local employment

opportunities’ as being less important than those in planning areas 2 (4.78) and 3

(4.71).

• Residents in planning areas 4 (4.16) and 5 (4.15) rated ‘Tourism promotion’ as

being less important than those in planning areas 1 (4.37) and 2 (4.39).

• Residents in planning areas 4 (4.07) and 5 (4.07) rated ‘Visitor information centres’


• Residents in planning area 5 (3.84) rated ‘Cultural and arts facilities’ as being less

important than those in planning areas 1 (4.06), 2 (4.11) and 4 (4.04).


2.2 SATISFACTION RATINGS

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the delivery of each of the 42

Council service activities and facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = ‘very dissatisfied’

and 5 = ‘very satisfied’. Section 2.2.1 provides an overview of the Key Directions, whilst

sections 2.2.2 to 2.2.10 give a more detailed account of satisfaction ratings for individual

service activities and facilities. A summary of ratings for each service is provided in

Appendix 2.

2.2.1 Overview of Key Direction

Overall Analysis

Table 2.2.1.1 Satisfaction Ratings for Key Directions

Service / facility

Satisfaction Rating

(%) Mean

Score

(out of 5) N/R Low

(1-2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4-5)

Looking After Environment 12.6 20.2 31.5 35.7 3.60

Using Land 11.6 22.8 32.8 32.8 3.36

Moving Around 11.1 25.3 28.0 35.7 3.26

Looking After People 19.0 18.1 30.3 32.7 3.60

Sustainable Economy 22.8 13.1 27.9 36.1 3.60

Key results:

• ‘Looking After Environment’, ‘Looking After People’ and ‘Sustainable Economy’

all achieved mean scores of 3.60 out of 5 to rank equally as the Key Directions for

which residents are most satisfied.

• Each of the five Key Directions recorded overall satisfaction means within the

‘medium’ range, with ‘Moving Around’ again the lowest of the group with a 3.26

out of 5 mean score (similar finding to 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014).


2.2.2 Looking After Environment

As was the case with importance, residents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction

with the service activities and facilities within the Key Direction of Looking After

Environment.


Table 2.2.2.1 Satisfaction Ratings for Looking After Environment (n=1001)

The Natural Environment

Satisfaction Rating (%)


(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean Score

(Out of 5)




Weed control 8.0 28.2 35.1 28.6 2.99

Waste Management



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)




Katoomba 14.5 14.6 24.5 46.4 3.57

Water Management



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)


Key results:

• Similarly to 2012, 2013 and 2014, two services ‘Wheelie Bin garbage collection’

(4.17) and ‘Wheelie Bin recycling service’ (4.21) achieved ‘high’ mean

satisfaction scores.

• ‘Protection of natural bushland’ continues to be the highest scoring of the

‘Natural Environment’ items, with a satisfaction mean of 3.53. ‘Weed control’

continues to have the lowest satisfaction levels in this Key Direction and with a

score of 2.99 out of 5.


Trend Analysis

Figure 2.2.2.1 Trend in Satisfaction Ratings for Looking After Environment

Key results:

• Wheelie Bin garbage collection’ (4.17) and ‘Wheelie Bin recycling service’ (4.21)

have reversed the gains made in 2014 to return to their 2013 levels.

• All other services / facilities in this Key Direction have tracked sideways since 2014.



Figure 2.2.2.2 Planning Area Satisfaction Ratings for Looking After Environment


Figure 2.2.2.3 Planning Area Satisfaction Ratings for Looking After Environment

Key results:

• Residents in planning areas 2 (3.42), 3 (3.39) and 4 (3.28) indicated that they were

less satisfied with ‘Clean creeks and waterways’ than those in planning area 5

(3.66).

• Residents in planning area 4 (3.34) indicated that they were less satisfied with

‘Bush regeneration’ than those in planning area 5 (3.59).


‘Weed control’ than those in planning areas 1 (3.04), 2 (3.02) and 5 (3.08).

• Residents in planning areas 3 (4.13) and 4 (4.11) indicated that they were less

satisfied with ‘Wheelie bin recycling service’ than those in planning area 1 (4.37).


‘Waste management facilities at Blaxland and Katoomba’ than those in planning

areas 2 (3.69), 3 (3.70) and 5 (3.56).


satisfied with ‘Management of stormwater and drainage’ than those in planning

area 5 (3.42).


2.2.3 Using Land

The second Key Direction that residents were asked to address was Using Land. The

satisfaction ratings that were given to these items are explored below.


Table 2.2.3.1 Satisfaction Ratings for Using Land (n=1001)



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of

5)



villages 0.5 14.2 32.1 53.2 3.53

Litter Control 1.2 14.6 33.4 50.7 3.45


villages 3.7 14.4 33.5 48.4 3.45

Street Cleaning 3.3 14.2 34.2 48.4 3.43


Managing residential development 7.2 22.7 39.5 30.6 3.08


Key results:

• ‘Cemeteries and ashes placement sites’ again achieved the highest ranking of

the 'Using Land' items, with a mean satisfaction score of 3.71 out of 5. There was

also a higher non-response for this measure, with 23.3% of respondents indicating

they couldn’t say how satisfied they were with ‘Cemeteries and ashes placement

sites’.

• Satisfaction levels for 'Public toilets in town centres' at 3.03 recorded the lowest

satisfaction score but moved up into the ‘medium’ satisfaction range to join the

rest of the services/facilities in this Key Direction.


Trend Analysis

Figure 2.2.3.1 Trend in Satisfaction Ratings for Using Land

* denotes wording change

Key results:

• Across the board, satisfaction scores for the services / facilities in this Key Direction

tracked sideways from 2014 levels.

• Note: the upward trend in satisfaction rating for ‘Public toilets in town centres’

should be interpreted with caution due to a wording change in 2013 and

consequently a break in the time series.



Figure 2.2.3.2 Planning Area Satisfaction Ratings for Using Land

Key results:


satisfied with ‘Managing residential development’ than those in planning areas 4

(3.18) and 5 (3.24).


‘Protection of heritage values in our towns and villages’ than those in planning

areas 1 (3.43), 3 (3.43), 4 (3.55) and 5 (3.65).


‘Public toilets in town centres’ than those in planning areas 1 (3.11), 3 (3.11) and

5(3.12).


‘The atmosphere, look and feel of our towns and villages’ than those in planning

areas 1 (3.51), 4 (3.66) and 5 (3.74).


• Residents in planning areas 1 (3.00), 2 (3.23) and 4 (3.22) indicated that they

were less satisfied with ‘Parking for shoppers’ than those in planning area 5 (3.43).


satisfied with ‘Cemeteries and ashes placement sites’ than those in planning

areas 2 (3.85) and 5 (3.77).


2.2.4 Moving Around

Residents were next given the opportunity to consider their satisfaction with service

activities and facilities falling under the Key Direction of Moving Around.


Table 2.2.4.1 Satisfaction Ratings for Moving Around (n=1001)



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)




Bus shelters 21.3 12.3 34.7 31.7 3.31

Sealed roads 1.4 19.7 37.9 41.0 3.27

Carparks 3.0 17.0 42.1 37.9 3.24


Footpaths 1.3 30.6 34.4 33.7 3.04

Cycle ways 19.0 28.0 33.6 19.3 2.85

Key results:

• All but one of the service activities and facilities measured within the Key

Direction of ‘Moving Around’ attained mean satisfaction scores in the ‘medium’

range. The exception was 'Cycle ways' which with a score of 2.85 out of 5 stays in

the ‘low’ range.

• 'Pedestrian access around shopping centres and community facilities' again

recorded the highest level of satisfaction within this Key Direction at 3.60 out of 5.


Trend Analysis

Figure 2.2.4.1 Trend in Satisfaction Ratings for Moving Around

Key results:

• Across the board, service activities and facilities in this Key Direction held their

satisfaction scores from 2014.

• Cycle ways are however on an upward trend and have recorded a significant

increase in satisfaction when compared with the 2013 results.



Figure 2.2.4.2 Planning Area Satisfaction Ratings for Moving Around

Key results:


less satisfied with ‘Sealed roads’ than those in planning area 5 (3.44).


less satisfied with ‘Pedestrian access around shopping centres and community

facilities’ than those in planning area 5 (3.76).

• Residents in planning areas 3 (2.86) indicated that they were less satisfied with

‘Footpaths’ than those in planning areas 4 (3.19) and 5 (3.15).


‘Car parks’ than those in planning areas 2 (3.24), 3 (3.33), 4 (3.23) and 5 (3.38).


‘Commuter parking’ than those in planning areas 2 (3.28) and 4 (3.48).


‘Traffic safety’ than those in planning areas 3 (3.52), 4 (3.52) and 5 (3.56).


2.2.5 Looking After People

Residents were next asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the delivery of service

activities and facilities within the Key Direction of ‘Looking After People’.


Table 2.2.5.1 Satisfaction Ratings for Looking After People (n=1001)

Emergency Services



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)




Community Services



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)





community 37.4 9.5 29.4 23.7 3.28



Sport and Recreation



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)

Council lookouts and walking trails. 5.5 5.9 26.5 62.1 3.83

Swimming pools and leisure centres * 8.7 7.0 24.2 60.1 3.78

Ovals & sporting grounds. 8.8 7.5 30.4 53.4 3.67

Parks & playgrounds. 6.8 13.1 27.5 52.7 3.57

Environmental Health and Regulation



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)



Library services



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)


Key results:

• 'Library services' (3.96), ‘Clean, safe and healthy living environments’ (3.86),

‘Council lookouts and walking trails’ (3.83), ‘Swimming pools and leisure centres’

(3.78) and ‘Planning for and supporting emergency management for the City’ all

achieved satisfaction scores in the 'High' range.

• ‘Services and facilities for young people’ was given the lowest satisfaction score

at 2.94 out of 5 placing it in the ‘low’ satisfaction range. One in four residents

(25.2%) chose not to give the service a satisfaction rating indicating that they felt

they didn’t know enough about the service to give an informed opinion. Also,

given that the service is such that it will only be used by a relatively small subset of

the population, Council might be better served in future surveys, just asking the

question of users of the service. This might give a better understanding of how

Council is performing in the delivery of this service.

• All other services / facilities achieved mean scores comfortably in the 'Medium'

range.


Trend Analysis

Figure 2.2.5.1 Trend in Satisfaction Ratings for Looking After People

Key results:

• The level of satisfaction with ‘Managing the bushfire risk on Council land’ is higher

at 3.52, up from its 2014 score of 3.31 and back to its 2013 level, which

corresponds with when the question was first worded this way.

• ‘Planning for & supporting emergency management for the City’ has continued

its upward trend since its first measure in 2013 and is now in the ‘High’ satisfaction

category.



Key results:

• Satisfaction with ‘Community centres & community halls’ has recorded a jump

from 2014 and now sits on the cusp of a ‘High’ satisfaction score.

• ‘Services and facilities for young people’ has recorded the lowest score in the

group at 2.94 to continue in the ‘Low’ satisfaction category.

• All other services / facilities in this group have trended sideways and sit

comfortably in the ‘Medium’ satisfaction range.



Key results:

• All services / facilities in this group have recorded satisfaction scores statistically

equivalent to the 2014 results but with the exception of ‘Library services’ are

continuing to trend upward from the 2013 results.

• All services/facilities in this group with the exception of ‘Parks & playgrounds’ and

‘Ovals and sporting grounds’ have recorded ‘High’ range satisfaction scores (3.75

or above).

• ‘Parks & playgrounds’ and ‘Ovals and sporting grounds’ have recorded ‘Medium’

range satisfaction scores (3.00 to 3.74).



Figure 2.2.5.4 Planning Area Satisfaction Ratings for Looking After People

Figure 2.2.5.5 Planning Area Satisfaction Ratings for Looking After People


Key results:


‘Managing bushfire risk on Council land’ than those in planning areas 3 (3.57) and

5 (3.71).


‘Planning for and supporting emergency management’ than those in planning

area 5 (3.90).


‘Services and facilities for children and families’ than those in planning areas 1

(3.52), 3 (3.52) and 5 (3.60).


‘Services and facilities for young people’ than those in planning areas 3 (2.99), 4

(2.96) and 5 (3.12).


less satisfied with ‘Community centres and community halls’ than those in

planning area 1 (3.92).


less satisfied with ‘Swimming pools and leisure centres’ than those in planning

area 5 (3.94).


‘Parks and playgrounds’ than those in planning areas 1 (3.74), 3 (3.61) and 5

(3.65).

• Residents in planning areas 1 (3.88), 4 (3.85), 5 (3.76) indicated that they were less

satisfied with ‘Library services’ than those in planning area 2 (4.22).


2.2.6 Sustainable Economy

Lastly, residents indicated how satisfied they were with service activities and facilities that

promote a Sustainable Economy. The responses to these questions are explored below.


Table 2.2.6.1 Satisfaction Ratings for Sustainable Economy (n=1001)

Blue Mountains economy



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)


Point 14.1 3.4 17.8 64.7 4.00



Cultural & Arts Facilities



(1&2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4&5)

Mean

Score

(Out of 5)


Key results:

• There were four services that were measured within the Key Direction of

'Sustainable Economy', with results showing resident satisfaction levels were

highest for 'Visitor information centres at Glenbrook and Echo Point'. The mean

score of 4.0 was enough to place the performance of this facility in the 'High'

satisfaction range. ‘Cultural and Arts facilities’ also came within the ‘High’

satisfaction range with a mean score of 3.8.

• Resident satisfaction levels with 'Access to local employment opportunities'

recorded the lowest mean satisfaction score of 2.90 out of 5, to leave it in the

‘Low’ satisfaction range.


Trend Analysis

Figure 2.2.6.1 Trend in Satisfaction Ratings for Sustainable Economy

Key results:

• There are no significant changes in satisfaction in any of the services in this

category since the 2014 measure.

• ‘Visitor information centres’ and ‘Cultural and arts facilities’ sit firmly in the ‘High’

satisfaction range.

• ‘Access to local employment opportunities’ has a ‘Low’ satisfaction score of 2.90.



Figure 2.2.6.2 Planning Area Satisfaction Ratings for Sustainable Economy

Key results:


‘Caravan Parks at Katoomba and Blackheath’ than those in planning area 2

(3.63).

• Residents in planning areas 1 (3.84), 2 (3.97), 3 (3.93) and 4 (3.98) indicated that

they were less satisfied with ‘Visitor information centres at Glenbrook and Echo

Point’ than those in planning area 5 (4.25).


‘Cultural and arts facilities’ than those in planning areas 2 (3.86) and 3 (3.88).


3. Prioritising Services & Facilities

Given the range of service activities and facilities Council has to manage, it can often be

a difficult task to prioritise. The sheer number of service activities and facilities under

management can diffuse focus and distract attention away from the areas of critical

importance to improving resident satisfaction. This section of the report aims to identify

the key drivers of resident satisfaction via a deeper analysis of the importance and

satisfaction scores presented in the previous section.

3.1 QUADRANT ANALYSIS

Quadrant analysis is a useful way of simultaneously analysing the stated importance a

service holds for residents against their satisfaction with the provision of that service. To

do this, mean satisfaction scores are plotted against mean importance scores for each

Council service or facility. In order to form the quadrants (or opportunity matrix) that

separate higher and lower level priority services combined mean importance and

satisfaction scores were calculated for the entire set of 42 Council service activities and

facilities.

Table 3.1.1 Quadrant Analysis Mean Scores

Mean score (out of 5) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016

Importance score 4.24 4.18 4.25 4.28 4.29 4.22 4.26

Satisfaction score 3.36 3.09 3.41 3.45 3.37 3.47 3.48

Thus, for example, services or facilities found to have a mean importance score that is

significantly less than the overall mean of 4.26 were classified as having ‘lower’

importance. Conversely, services or facilities found to have a mean importance score

that is significantly greater than 4.26 were classified as having ‘higher’ importance.

It should be pointed out that both average importance and average satisfaction have

remained statistically unchanged from 2014.


The results of the quadrant analysis are displayed in Figure 3.1.1. Each quadrant has a

specific interpretation:

1. The upper right quadrant (high importance and high satisfaction) represents current

Council service strengths.

2. The upper left quadrant (high importance but relatively lower satisfaction) denotes

services where satisfaction should be improved.

3. The lower left quadrant (relatively lower importance and relatively lower satisfaction)

represents lower priority services.

4. The lower right quadrant (relatively lower importance and high satisfaction) is often

interpreted as representing ‘overkill’ services where effort exceeds expectations.

The attributes in the upper left quadrant are all candidates for immediate attention.

Residents placed a high importance on these attributes but also reported relatively lower

satisfaction.


Figure 3.1.1 Quadrant Analysis

Importance Rating

Satisfaction Rating

Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2

Quadrant 3 Quadrant 4


Key results:

Service areas where Council is performing well (high importance/high satisfaction) are:

'Wheelie Bin' recycling service

'Wheelie Bin' garbage collection

Managing the bushfire risk on Council land

Clean, safe and healthy living environments

Planning for and supporting emergency management for the City

The atmosphere, look and feel of our towns and villages

Pedestrian access around shopping centres and community facilities

Protection of natural bushland

Council lookouts and walking trails

Parks & playgrounds

Waste Management Facilities at Blaxland and Katoomba

Priority service areas for improvement (high importance/low satisfaction) are

Public toilets in town centres

Management of stormwater and drainage

Services and facilities for people with a disability

Footpaths

Parking for shoppers

Services and facilities for older people

Weed control

Managing residential development

Sealed roads

Clean creeks and waterways

Traffic Safety for pedestrians and vehicles

Litter Control

Protection of heritage values in our towns and villages


3.2 GAP ANALYSIS

Despite its usefulness, quadrant analysis is not a complete priority assessment tool. For

example, it does not explicitly identify the gaps between importance and satisfaction. It is

possible that a large gap could exist between importance and satisfaction, even though a

service or facility appeared in the ‘high importance and high satisfaction’ quadrant.

Consequently, gap analysis was used as the second component in analysing the results. Gap

measures were calculated by subtracting the mean satisfaction score from the mean

importance score for each attribute. Only those responses where both individual importance

and satisfaction scores are given are included. Usually, the larger the gap between

importance and satisfaction, the larger the gap between Council’s performance in provision of

a service and residents’ expectations.

Gap scores are presented in Table 3.2.1. The table ranks service activities and facilities from

highest gaps to lowest gaps. Statistical testing was used to help categorise services as high,

medium and lower priority for improvement. Those services with a gap score that was found to

be significantly above the overall mean gap score (µ=0.8840) were given top priority (i.e. a

rating of 1). Services with a gap score statistically equal to the overall mean gap score were

given second priority (rating of 2). Services with a gap score that was found to be significantly

below the overall mean gap score were given third priority (rating of 3).


Table 3.2.1 Gap Analysis

Service

Mean

Gap

2016

Priority

Rank

2014

Priority

Rank

2013

Priority

Rank

2012

Change

2014-

2016

Access to local employment opportunities 1.54 1 1 1 -

Public toilets in town centres 1.44 1 1 1 -

Services and facilities for young people 1.42 1 1 1 -

Footpaths 1.37 1 1 1 -

Weed control 1.36 1 1 1 -

Services and facilities for people with a disability 1.35 1 1 1 -

Managing residential development * 1.27 1 2 1 -

Clean creeks and waterways 1.24 1 1 1 -

Traffic Safety for pedestrians and vehicles 1.22 1 1 1 -

Managing the bushfire risk on Council land 1.20 1 1 1 -

Management of stormwater and drainage 1.19 1 1 1 -

Parking for shoppers 1.11 1 - - -

Litter Control 1.09 1 1 1 -

Services and facilities for older people 1.09 1 1 1 -

Sealed roads 1.04 1 1 1 -

The atmosphere, look and feel of our towns and villages 1.04 1 - - -

Protection of heritage values in our towns and villages 0.99 2 2 2 Worsened

Commuter parking 0.97 2 2 2 Worsened

Cycle ways 0.94 2 2 1 Worsened

Car parks 0.91 2 2 1 -

Planning for and supporting emergency management for

the City 0.91 1 1 - Improved

Services and facilities for children and families 0.91 2 1 1 -

Services that support the local Aboriginal community 0.89 2 2 - -

Protection of natural bushland. 0.89 2 3 3 -

Clean, safe and healthy living environments 0.86 1 2 1 Improved

Parks & playgrounds. 0.86 2 2 2 -


community facilities 0.86 3 2 2 Worsened

Waste Management Facilities at Blaxland and Katoomba 0.81 2 3 3 Improved

Bush regeneration 0.74 2 3 3 Improved

Street Cleaning 0.64 3 3 3 -

Council lookouts and walking trails. 0.57 3 3 3 -

'Wheelie Bin' recycling service 0.56 3 3 3 -

Bus shelters 0.54 3 3 3 -

'Wheelie Bin' garbage collection 0.54 3 3 3 -


Service

Mean

Gap

2016

Priority

Rank

2014

Priority

Rank

2013

Priority

Rank

2012

Change

2014-

2016

Ovals & sporting grounds. 0.51 3 3 3 -

Swimming pools and leisure centres * 0.45 3 3 3 -

Community centres & community halls 0.39 3 3 3 -

Cultural & Arts facilities 0.32 3 3 3 -

Library services 0.22 3 3 3 -

Cemeteries and ashes placement sites. 0.19 3 3 3 -

Visitor Information Centres at Glenbrook and Echo Point 0.16 3 3 3 -

Caravan Parks at Katoomba and Blackheath 0.08 - - - -

Key results:

The gap analysis indicated that resident expectations are furthest from being met in the

following areas:

Access to local employment opportunities

Public toilets in town centres

Services and facilities for young people

Footpaths

Weed control

Services and facilities for people with a disability

Managing residential development

Clean creeks and waterways

Traffic Safety for pedestrians and vehicles

Managing the bushfire risk on Council land

Management of stormwater and drainage

Parking for shoppers

Litter Control

Services and facilities for older people

Sealed roads

The atmosphere, look and feel of our towns and villages


Commuter parking

Cycle ways


The following services moved into a higher category following a marginal increase in their gap

scores:


Commuter parking

Cycle ways

Pedestrian access around shopping centres and community facilities

Measurable gains were made in:

Planning for and supporting emergency management for the City

Clean, safe and healthy living environments

Waste Management Facilities at Blaxland and Katoomba

Bush regeneration


3.3 PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Table 3.3.1 outlines the service activities and facilities that were identified as not meeting

resident expectations in either quadrant analysis or gap analysis. If a service or facility has a

cross in both the quadrant analysis box and the gap analysis box, it is a good confirmation that

this area should be given priority.

Table 3.3.1 Priorities for Improvement

Identified as not meeting

resident expectations in …

Quadrant Analysis

(Higher

importance /

lower satisfaction)

Gap Analysis

(Above average

gap between

importance &

satisfaction)

Clean creeks and waterways � �

Traffic Safety for pedestrians and vehicles � �

Litter Control � �

Public toilets in town centres � �

Protection of heritage values in our towns and villages � �

Management of stormwater and drainage � �

Services and facilities for people with a disability � �

Footpaths � �

Parking for shoppers � �

Services and facilities for older people � �

Weed control � �

Managing residential development � �

Sealed roads � �

Access to local employment opportunities �

Services and facilities for young people �

Managing the bushfire risk on Council land �

The atmosphere, look and feel of our towns and villages �

Commuter parking �

Cycle ways �


3.4 Trends in Quadrant and Gap Analysis

While sections 3.1 to 3.3 outlined the performance of each service activity and facility in 2016

with regards to quadrant and gap analysis, section 3.4 looks at the movements of the service

activities and facilities within each analysis across the Council term. In other words it brings

together the performance of each service activity and facility and shows the change from

previous years. The coloured dots outline whether the service or facility improved from the

previous measure, worsened, stayed the same or moved to a 'lower importance' quadrant.

Service activities and facilities have been grouped according to their Key Direction.

Table 3.4.1 Trends for Looking After Environment

Natural Environment Quadrant Number Performance Gap – Priority Level

2012 2013 2014 2016 2012 2013 2014 2016

Environmental management

Protection of natural bushland 4 •1 •1 •1 3 •3 •2 •2 Clean creeks &waterways 2 •2 •1 •1 1 •1 •2 •1 Bush regeneration 3 •3 •3 •4 3 •3 •2 •3 Weed control 3 •3 •3 •2 1 •1 •1

Waste resource management

Wheelie Bin garbage collection 1 •1 •1 •1 3 •3 •3 •3 Wheelie Bin recycling service 1 •1 •1 •1 3 •3 •3 •3 Council’s waste management facilities 4 •1 •1 •1 3 •3 •2 •3

Water resource management

Stormwater infrastructure 2 •1 •2 •2 1 •1 •1 •1

• Positive movement/improvement of service or facility from previous year

• Negative movement/deterioration of service or facility from previous year

• No change in status from previous year

• Service activities or facilities has reduced in importance


Table 3.4.2 Trends for Using Land

Built Environment – Using Land Quadrant Number Performance Gap – Priority Level

2012 2013 2014 2016 2012 2013 2014 2016

Land use management

Managing residential development* 2 •3 •3 •2 1 •2 •1 •1 Protection of heritage values &

buildings 1 •3 •1 •2 2 •2 •2 •1

Public toilets in town centres 2 •2 •2 •2 1 •1 •1 •1 Litter control 1 •2 •2 •2 1 •1 •1 •2 Street cleaning 4 •4 •3 •3 3 •3 •3 •3 Parking for shoppers 2 •2 •2 •2 1 •1 •1 •1

Burial & ashes placement

Cemeteries & ashes placement sites 4 •4 •4 •4 3 •3 •3 •3




• Service activities or facilities reduced in importance


Table 3.4.3 Trends for Moving Around

Built Environment – Moving Around Quadrant Number Performance Gap – Priority Level

2012 2013 2014 2016 2012 2013 2014 2016

Transport and public access

Sealed roads 2 •2 •2 •2 1 •1 •1 •1 Unsealed roads 3 •3 •3 3 •3 •3

Bus shelters 3 •3 •3 •3 3 •3 •3 •3 Pedestrian access generally around

shopping centres & community

facilities

1 •1 •1 •1 2 •2 •3 •2

Lighting of public areas 2 •2 •2 1 •1 •2 Footpaths 2 •2 •2 •2 1 •1 •1 •1 Cycle ways 3 •3 •3 •3 1 •2 •2 •1 Car parks 3 •3 •3 •3 1 •2 •2 •2 Commuter parking 3 •3 •3 •3 2 •2 •2 •1 Traffic safety for pedestrians &vehicles 2 •2 •3 •2 1 •1 •1 •1






Table 3.4.4 Trends for Looking After People

Social – Looking after people Quadrant Number Performance Gap – Priority Level

2012 2013 2014 2016 2012 2013 2014 2016

Emergency services

Managing the bushfire risk on Council

land 1 •2 •1 1 •1 •1

Planning for and supporting

emergency management 1 •1 •1 1 •1 •2

Community development

Services & facilities for children &

families 2 •2 •4 •3 1 •1 •2 •2

Services that support the local

Aboriginal community 3 •3 •3 2 •2 •2

Services & facilities for young people 2 •2 •3 •3 1 •1 •1 •1 Services & facilities for older people 2 •2 •2 •2 1 •1 •1 •1 Facilities & services for people with a

disability 2 •2 •2 •2 1 •1 •1 •1

Community centres & community halls 4 •3 •3 •4 3 •3 •3 •3 Sport and recreation

Ovals & sporting grounds 1 •4 •4 •4 3 •3 •3 •3 Swimming pools and leisure centres* 4 •4 •4 •4 3 •3 •3 •3 Parks & playgrounds 1 •1 •2 •1 2 •2 •2 •2 Council lookouts & walking trails 1 •1 •1 •1 3 •3 •3 •3

Environmental health and regulation

Clean, safe & healthy living

environments 1 •1 •1 •1 1 •2 •1 •2

Library and information

Library services 4 •4 •4 •4 3 •3 •3 •3 Hours of operation of the library

service 4 •4 •4 3 •3 •3

Library buildings •4 •4 •3 •3






Table 3.4.5 Trends for Sustainable Economy

Sustainable Economy Quadrant Number Performance Gap – Priority Level

2012 2013 2014 2016 2012 2013 2014 2016

Economic development

Access to local employment

opportunities 2 •2 •2 •3 1 •1 •1 •1

Tourism

Caravan parks at Katoomba &

Blackheath 4 3

Visitor information centres 4 •4 •4 •4 3 •3 •3 •3

Cultural development

Cultural & arts facilities 3 •4 •4 •4 3 •3 •3 •3






4. Overall Satisfaction & Value

4.1 OVERALL SATISFACTION

4.1.1 Satisfaction Rating

At the end of the first section of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the overall

performance of Blue Mountains City Council. The results are provided in the following figures

and tables.

Figure 4.1.1.1 Overall Satisfaction with Council Performance 2016 (n=1001)

Figure 4.1.1.2 Overall Satisfaction with Council Performance – Mean Scores (n=1001)

Mean = 3.53


Figure 4.1.1.3 Overall Satisfaction with Council Performance 2000-2016 (n=1001)


Table 4.1.1.1 Overall Satisfaction by Sex – 2002 to 2016

Survey

Year Dissatisfied (1-2) Neutral (3) Satisfied (4-5)

Mean

(out of 5)

Overall

2002 19% 38% 42% 3.2

2003 19% 43% 38% 3.2

2004 20% 45% 35% 3.1

2006 17% 44% 39% 3.2

2007 20% 42% 38% 3.2

2009 14% 36% 50% 3.4

2010 18% 44% 39% 3.2

2011 17% 46% 37% 3.2

2012 14% 34% 52% 3.4

2013 11% 38% 51% 3.4

2014 6% 34% 60% 3.6

2016 11% 32% 58% 3.5

Sex

Male

2002 23% 36% 41% 3.2

2003 21% 39% 40% 3.1

2004 23% 44% 34% 3.1

2006 17% 44% 39% 3.2

2007 23% 39% 38% 3.1

2009 16% 31% 53% 3.4

2010 20% 41% 39% 3.2

2011 20% 47% 34% 3.1

2012 14% 31% 55% 3.5

2013 9% 35% 57% 3.5

2014 7% 34% 59% 3.6

2016 14% 28% 58% 3.5

Female

2002 16% 41% 43% 3.3

2003 17% 46% 37% 3.2

2004 18% 46% 36% 3.2

2006 18% 44% 39% 3.2

2007 19% 44% 38% 3.2

2009 12% 41% 47% 3.4

2010 17% 45% 38% 3.3

2011 14% 45% 41% 3.3

2012 14% 37% 49% 3.4

2013 12% 42% 46% 3.3

2014 6% 33% 6100% 3.6

2016 8% 34% 57% 3.6


Table 4.1.1.2 Overall Satisfaction by Age – 2002 to 2016

Survey

Year

Dissatisfied (1-2)

Neutral (3) Satisfied (4-

5) Mean

(out of 5)

Ag

e

16-24

years

2002 6% 43% 51% 3.5

2003 12% 35% 52% 3.4

2004 15% 53% 32% 3.2

2006 6% 40% 54% 3.5

2007 16% 40% 45% 3.3

2009 2% 25% 73% 3.8

2010 9% 49% 42% 3.4

2011 3% 42% 55% 3.6

2012 5% 24% 71% 3.7

2013 15% 29% 57% 3.4

2014 0% 14% 86% 3.9

2016 8% 17% 75% 3.8

25-34

years

2002 14% 43% 43% 3.3

2003 19% 46% 35% 3.1

2004 26% 45% 29% 3.0

2006 20% 44% 35% 3.1

2007 16% 44% 40% 3.2

2009 16% 36% 47% 3.3

2010 18% 43% 39% 3.3

2011 21% 44% 35% 3.2

2012 16% 30% 55% 3.5

2013 18% 45% 37% 3.2

2014 12% 47% 41% 3.3

2016 4% 32% 64% 3.7

35-49

years

2002 26% 30% 45% 3.2

2003 22% 45% 33% 3.1

2004 20% 48% 32% 3.1

2006 22% 44% 34% 3.1

2007 24% 41% 35% 3.1

2009 14% 38% 48% 3.3

2010 18% 45% 37% 3.2

2011 18% 51% 31% 3.1

2012 18% 39% 44% 3.3

2013 12% 40% 49% 3.4

2014 6% 32% 62% 3.6

2016 16% 37% 47% 3.4

50-64

years

2002 22% 49% 29% 3.1

2003 25% 46% 30% 3.0

2004 21% 39% 40% 3.1

2006 17% 46% 37% 3.2

2007 22% 43% 34% 3.1

2009 19% 41% 40% 3.2

2010 24% 46% 31% 3.1


Survey

Year

Dissatisfied (1-2)

Neutral (3) Satisfied (4-

5) Mean

(out of 5)

2011 25% 40% 34% 3.0

2012 18% 41% 41% 3.2

2013 5% 42% 53% 3.5

2014 9% 37% 54% 3.5

2016 11% 33% 56% 3.5

65+ years

2002 18% 33% 49% 3.3

2003 9% 38% 54% 3.5

2004 17% 41% 42% 3.2

2006 13% 43% 43% 3.4

2007 21% 40% 39% 3.2

2009 18% 37% 46% 3.3

2010 19% 34% 47% 3.3

2011 10% 52% 38% 3.3

2012 10% 29% 61% 3.6

2013 10% 33% 57% 3.5

2014 4% 36% 60% 3.7

2016 10% 30% 60% 3.6

Key results:

• Overall, 57.6% of residents were satisfied with the performance of Blue Mountains

Council. This is down slightly from the 60.0% recorded in 2014.

• A mean satisfaction score of 3.53 was achieved for Council’s overall performance,

which is statistically equivalent to the 3.60 recorded in 2014.

• Those residents aged 25 to 34 have indicated that they are more satisfied in 2016 (3.7)

than they were in 2014 (3.3).


4.1.2 Reasons for Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Council Performance

In an attempt to uncover the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with Council

performance, an open-ended question was asked of all respondents. Residents were asked to

briefly explain the main reason behind the rating they gave Council for its overall

performance. These were subsequently classified into common themes where possible, and

are displayed below under the groupings of low, medium and high satisfaction.

Figure 4.1.2.1 Reasons for High Satisfaction with Council Performance (n= 468)

0 20 40 60 80%

Council does reasonable job

Issues with dealing with Council

Roads/Signage/Traffic/Parking

Services/Facilities upgrade/maintain

Improve waste collection

Good environmental management

Need better environmentalmanagement

Graffiti/Vandalism

Good fire response

Rates

Animal control

Good waste service

80.1%

6.2%

3.2%

2.8%

1.3%

1.1%

.9%

.9%

.4%

.4%

.4%

.4%


Figure 4.1.2.2 Reasons for Medium Satisfaction with Council Performance (n=248)

Figure 4.1.2.3 Reasons for Low Satisfaction with Council Performance (n= 78)


Figure 4.1.2.4 Word Cloud – Most Mentioned Words


4.1.3 Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction

In order to help understand the factors that are contributing to the Council’s overall

satisfaction rating (mean score of 3.53), a ‘Shapley’ multivariate regression analysis was run on

‘Overall Satisfaction’ against the satisfaction with the 42 services and facilities measured and

the satisfaction with staff and Councillor performance. The model suggests that 46.2% of

overall satisfaction with Council can be explained by these 42 services and facilities and by

the level of satisfaction with staff and Councillors. Figure 4.1.3.1 shows the relative contribution

of the most significant contributors to this result.

Figure 4.1.3.1 Contributors to Overall Satisfaction with Council (% contribution to 46.2% explained by model)

Key results:

• The analysis suggests that resident satisfaction with ‘staff performance’ is having the

biggest single positive impact on overall satisfaction with Council and that lifting

resident satisfaction with ‘sealed roads’ will have the biggest impact on lifting overall

satisfaction with Council (see appendix 3 for a full ranked list).


4.2 VALUE FOR MONEY

2016 marked the ninth year that residents were asked about their perceptions of the overall

value they receive for their rate dollar.

Figure 4.2.1 Value for Rates 2016 (n=1001)

Figure 4.2.2 Value for Rates – Mean Scores (n=1001)

Mean = 3.34


Figure 4.2.3 Value for Rates 2006-2016 (n=1001)

Key results:

• In 2016 residents have rated their perception of ‘Value for Money’ with a mean

satisfaction score of 3.34 out of 5, a result statistically equivalent to 2014. This result is a

'medium' level satisfaction result.


4.3 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

Residents were asked about their satisfaction with the level of information provided,

community consultation and advocacy undertaken by Council. The results are presented

below.

Figure 4.3.1 Satisfaction with Consultation (n=1001)

Figure 4.3.2 Satisfaction with Consultation by Planning Area

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5

3.28 3.43 3.29 3.29 3.53

Key results:

• Residents have rated their satisfaction with ‘Community Consultation’ as a mean

satisfaction score of 3.36 out of 5, a 'Medium' level satisfaction result.

• 45.5% of residents have indicated that they are satisfied (4 or 5) against 15.2% who

have indicated that they are dissatisfied (1 or 2).

• Residents in planning area 5 (mean 3.53) are statistically more satisfied with

‘Community Consultation’ than residents in the other four planning areas.

Mean = 3.36


5. Staff Performance

The survey also sought to measure resident satisfaction with Council staff performance. It

should be noted that this year’s survey only sought to measure satisfaction with the

Council staff by residents that have had recent interaction.

5.1 INTERACTION WITH COUNCIL STAFF

Respondents were first asked whether or not they had an interaction with Council staff at

any time during the past 12 months. Table 5.1.1 shows the result for this question.

Table 5.1.1 Recent Interaction with Council Staff

Survey Year Base Yes No

2000 1032 60% 40%

2002 515 64% 36%

2003 508 64% 36%

2004 504 57% 43%

2006 505 62% 38%

2007 1012 57% 43%

2009 757 57% 43%

2010 1008 57% 43%

2011 502 55% 45%

2012 1030 56% 44%

2013 504 55% 45%

2014 505 58% 42%

2016 1001 61% 39%

Key results:

• 61% of residents surveyed indicated that they have interacted with Council staff

in the last twelve months, which is a similar result to previous years.


5.2 STAFF CUSTOMER SERVICE MEASURES

Residents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the overall performance of

Council’s staff. Table 5.2.1 shows the result for this question, for those residents who had

interacted with Council staff during the last twelve months.

Table 5.2.1 Summary of Satisfaction Ratings for Council Staff, 2000-2016

Year

Satisfaction Rating

(%) Mean

Score

(out of 5)

Low

(1-2)

Medium

(3)

High

(4-5)

Overall Satisfaction with Staff

Performance

2000 17% 28% 55% 3.53

2002 14% 27% 59% 3.61

2003 13% 25% 61% 3.67

2004 15% 26% 58% 3.64

2006 11% 26% 63% 3.70

2007 12% 23% 63% 3.74

2009 12% 20% 67% 3.70

2010 15% 16% 70% 3.81

2011 13% 13% 74% 3.93

2012 12% 19% 69% 3.87

2013 9% 24% 66% 3.89

2014 7% 22% 71% 3.91

2016 17% 17% 67% 3.77

Key results:

• Resident satisfaction with Council staff has continued at much the same level set

in 2010, achieving a mean satisfaction score of 3.77 out of 5. It should be noted

that this score is classified as a ‘high’ satisfaction score.

• 67% of residents who have had recent contact with council staff provided a

‘high’ satisfaction rating.


6. Councillor Performance

2016 marks the tenth wave of the project in which respondents were asked to rate their

satisfaction with the performance of Councillors.

6.1 DEALINGS WITH COUNCILLORS

Respondents were first asked whether or not they had any dealings with elected

Councillors at any time during the past 12 months. Table 6.1.1 shows the result for this

question.

Table 6.1.1 Dealings with Elected Councillors

Survey Year Base Yes No

2004 504 16% 84%

2006 505 13% 87%

2007 1012 11% 89%

2009 757 10% 90%

2010 1008 12% 87%

2011 502 14% 86%

2012 1030 14% 86%

2013 504 16% 84%

2014 505 14% 86%

2016 1001 16% 84%

Key results:

• In this wave of the survey, 16% of residents indicated that they have had dealings

with at least one of their elected Councillors in the last twelve months. This

proportion is consistent over many years.


6.2 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COUNCILLORS

Respondents were then asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the overall

performance of Councillors. Table 6.2.1 below shows the overall satisfaction with

councillor performance for those respondents who have had dealings with their elected

representatives during the past 12 months.

Table 6.2.1 Summary of Satisfaction Ratings for Councillors, 2004-2016

Year

Satisfaction Rating

(%)

Mean

Score (out of 5)

N/R Low

(1-2)

Mediu

m (3)

High

(4-5)

Overall Satisfaction with Councillor

Performance

2004 3% 26% 49% 22% 2.94

2006 3% 23% 48% 26% 3.01

2007 8% 19% 45% 28% 3.08

2009 11% 14% 44% 31% 3.21

2010 5% 37% 27% 31% 2.88

2011 1% 22% 33% 45% 3.34

2012 20% 18% 35% 27% 3.09

2013 12% 15% 40% 33% 3.23

2014 24% 9% 31% 36% 3.45

2016 2% 16% 17% 65% 3.74

Key results:

• Satisfaction with the performance by Councillors has increased to a new high of

3.74 out of 5. This places it right on the cusp of a ‘High’ satisfaction rating. The

result continues a strong upward trend since 2004. This result is statistically

significantly higher than the 2014 result of 3.45.


Table 6.2.2 Satisfaction Ratings for Councillors – No Recent Contact

Year

Satisfaction Rating

(%) Mean

Score (out of 5)

N/R Low (1-2)

Medium (3)

High (4-5)

Overall Satisfaction with Councillors

Performance – No Contact in

Previous 12 months

2016 37% 9% 26% 28% 3.33

Key results:

• Amongst those residents who had not had recent contact with an elected

representative, more than one in three (37%) did not feel sufficiently well informed

to rate the overall performance of Councillors. Those that did, gave Councillors a

mean score rating 3.33 out of 5. This is a ‘Medium’ level satisfaction rating and is

significantly lower than the 3.74 mean score given by those residents who had

made recent contact.


7. Planning Priorities for the Blue Mountains

Greatest Concern - Immediate Local Neighbourhood

‘Thinking about your immediate local neighbourhood, what is the issue of greatest concern to you

at the moment?’

0 2 4 6 8 %

Roads - Poor maintenance

Roads - Safety

Footpaths - Dont have any

Bushfires - Back burning/prevention/safety

Airport

Development - Reasonable/Not Over

Roads - Traffic congestion

Environment - Maintenance/weed control

Parks & Sports grounds -Lack of facilities/maintenance/services

Environment - Waste disposal/adequateservice

Parking

Youth - Lack of facilities/activities/employment/schools

More transport/access to transport

Footpaths

Environment - Bushcare/regeneration

Safety/Security/Police/Lighting

Bushfires

Cost of rates/poor Council performance/support

Roads - Highway

Footpaths - Maintenance

Bushfires - Response/emergency services/management

Stormwater drainage/sewerage

9.0%

8.0%

6.8%

6.5%

6.3%

5.6%

5.0%

4.3%

4.0%

3.8%

3.6%

3.2%

2.8%

2.6%

2.6%

2.6%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.7%

1.7%

1.5%


Greatest Concern - Immediate Local Neighbourhood (Continued)

00.51 %

Animal control/barking dogs

More business/employment/shops

Happy as is

Mobile services

Roads

Building community spirit/maintain villageatmosphere

Roads - Access problems

Noise

Heritage - Buildings/maintain them

Environment - Global warming/carbonfootprint

Walking tracks

Too many tourists

More aged carehousing/services/access

Heritage - Environment

Increasing population

No response

1.3%

1.3%

1.2%

1.2%

1.0%

1.0%

.9%

.9%

.7%

.6%

.4%

.4%

.3%

.2%

.1%

1.5%


Greatest Concern – Blue Mountains Overall

‘Now thinking about the Blue Mountains overall - stretching as it does from Lapstone to Mount Irvine

- what is the issue currently of greatest concern to you?’


Greatest Concern – Blue Mountains Overall (Continued)

0 1 2%

Roads - Access

Increasing population

Roads

Youth - Activities/services/opportunities

More development

Crime/safety/police

Aged care/disability services/healthcare

Parking

Reasonable rates/Cost of services

Council amalgamation

Airport - In favour

Footpaths - Lack of

Noise pollution

Footpaths

Phone/internet service

Lack of infrastructure

No response

1.2%

1.2%

1.0%

1.0%

.9%

.9%

.9%

.9%

.7%

.6%

.5%

.4%

.4%

.2%

.2%

.1%

2.1%


Top Priorities – Looking After Environment

‘When thinking about making the Blue Mountains a better place, what do you see as the top

priority action areas related to Looking After Environment over the next 5-10 years?’


Top Priorities – Using Land


priority action areas related to Land Use, development and the liveability of our towns and villages

over the next 5-10 years’?

0 10 20 30 40 %

No high rise/Over development/Over population

Community/Sporting facilities

Environment/Climate change/Sustainability

Allow subdivision/Appropriate development

Footpath/Road infrastructure

Accessability/Affordable rents/Liveability

Public transport

Tourism/ Cultural development

Employment/Business development

No second airport

Community consultation/Goverance

Internet Access/Mobile reception

No Issues

43.4%

11.2%

11.0%

8.3%

6.3%

4.8%

3.7%

3.5%

3.0%

1.8%

1.4%

.4%

.8%


Adequate Housing Mix

‘Do you think there is an adequate mix of housing in the Blue Mountains to meet the needs of

people at different stages of their lives, now and into the future?’

Why do you feel that way?:

Adequate (n=499 ) Inadequate (n=433 )


Top Priorities – Moving Around


priority action areas related to how we Move Around within the Blue Mountains over the next 5-10

years?’

0 5 10 15 20 25 %

Public Transport

Improve train service

Improve local road network

Improve bus service

Better Footpaths/Walkways/Cycle ways

Improve Highway

Traffic management

Better emergency access to towns

Improve Commuter/Shopping/Disabilityparking

Safety/Speed limits

Alternate access to area

Community transport

Transport

Environmental sustainability

No airport

Underground power

No Issues

28.9%

22.8%

12.7%

8.5%

7.1%

6.1%

3.8%

1.7%

1.6%

1.1%

1.1%

.7%

.6%

.5%

.2%

.1%

2.3%


Top Priorities – Looking After People


priority action areas for Looking After People over the next 5-10 years?’


Top Priorities – Economic Development


priority action areas related to Economic Development over the next 5-10 years?’


8. Community Perceptions

Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements about their

perceptions of their neighbourhood and of the Blue Mountains as a place to live. They

were asked to rate their level of agreement on a five point scale, where 1 means

‘Strongly disagree’ and 5 means ‘Strongly agree’.

Table 8.1 Agreement with Statements about Blue Mountains

Table 8.2 Agreement with Statements about Blue Mountains – Mean Scores by Area

Statement N/ADisagre

e (1&2)

Neutral

(3)

Agree

(4&5)Average

I feel that I am generally safe in my

neighbourhood0.0% 0.7% 4.9% 94.4% 4.61

I have someone in my area outside my

immediate family to turn to in a time of crisis0.4% 7.2% 7.8% 84.6% 4.39

I feel that I belong to the community I live in 0.3% 3.3% 11.5% 84.9% 4.37

I am satisfied with Council's response and

support to natural disasters, such as

bushfires and windstorms

1.4% 4.9% 14.8% 78.9% 4.15

I feel that the quality of life and well-being

in the Blue Mountains is improving2.4% 7.0% 25.2% 65.5% 3.88

Statement Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5

I feel that I am generally safe in my

neighbourhood4.66 4.63 4.55 4.62 4.61

I have someone in my area outside my

immediate family to turn to in a time of crisis4.39 4.45 4.35 4.38 4.39

I feel that I belong to the community I live in 4.41 4.34 4.22 4.43 4.48

I am satisfied with Council's response and

support to natural disasters, such as bushfires

and windstorms

4.03 4.18 4.14 4.05 4.33

I feel that the quality of life and well-being in

the Blue Mountains is improving3.83 3.84 3.91 3.91 3.91


Key results:

• The statement, ‘I feel that I am generally safe in my neighbourhood’ resonates

strongly with residents with 94.4 per cent agreeing with the statement, giving it an

extremely high mean score of 4.61 out of 5.

• The other statements with the exception of ‘I feel that the quality of life and well-

being in the Blue Mountains is improving’, attracted mean scores in the ‘High’

agreement range (4.0 or greater).

• Further analysis of response to the statement ‘I feel that I am generally safe in my

neighbourhood’ revealed that there is no significant difference in responses

between male and females, that there was no significant difference across age

groups and that there is no significant difference in agreement across the 5

planning areas.

• Further analysis of response to the statement ‘I have someone in my area outside

my immediate family to turn to in a time of crisis’ revealed that there is no

significant difference in responses between male and females, that those aged

35 to 49 agreed more strongly than other age groups and that there is no

significant difference in agreement across the 5 planning areas.

• Further analysis of response to the statement ‘I feel I belong to the community I

live in’ revealed that there is no significant difference in responses between male

and females, that those aged 16 to 34 agreed less strongly than other age groups

and that there is no significant difference in agreement across the 5 planning

areas.

• Further analysis of response to the statement ‘I am satisfied with Council’s

response and support to natural disasters such as bushfires and windstorms’

revealed that there is no significant difference in responses between male and

females, that those aged 16 to 24 agreed more strongly than other age groups

and that there is no significant difference in agreement across the 5 planning

areas.

• Further analysis of response to the statement ‘I feel that the quality of life and

well-being in the Blue Mountains is improving’ revealed that there is no significant

difference in responses between male and females, that those aged 16 to 24

agreed more strongly than other age groups and that there is no significant

difference in agreement across the 5 planning areas.


9. Respondent Characteristics

In addition to the normal age and sex demographic questions, which are summarised in

Section 1.7, residents were asked for their postcode and if they were rate payers.

Table 9.1 Pay Council Rates

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Overall

Pay Council rates

ourselves 86.1% 88.9% 92.8% 94.2% 94.2% 91.5%

Landlord pays Council

rates 13.9% 11.1% 7.2% 5.8% 5.8% 8.5%

Table 9.2 Respondent Postcodes

Key results:

• 91.5% of all residents surveyed said they paid Council rates themselves.


APPENDIX 1: Survey Methodology

Sample Design

A telephone-based survey aiming to secure a response from approximately 1000

residents from throughout the Blue Mountains LGA was used. The survey unit was

permanent residents of the Blue Mountains who had lived in the area for more than six

months. Respondents also had to be aged 16 years or older to qualify for an interview

and could not be a current employee or elected representative of Blue Mountains City

Council. The 2011 Census was used to establish quotas to ensure a good distribution of

response by age and sex.

The sample base for the survey was the electronic White Pages. This sample is known to

be sub-optimal, as the churn of telephone numbers due to people moving and new

numbers being added as dwellings are occupied affects about 12% to 15% of possible

numbers. Furthermore, from previous research we know that the proportion of silent

numbers is increasing and can be as high as 25-30% in some areas. To deal with these

issues, IRIS uses a technique that starts with the population of numbers listed in the

telephone book and adds new and unlisted numbers using the ‘half open’ method. In

this method, all numbers were incremented by five to create new numbers in the ‘gaps’

between the listed numbers. The resultant universe of numbers was then de-duplicated

to remove any numbers that may be repeated. This process was replicated five times to

create a new theoretical universe of telephone numbers. This provided the opportunity

for all potential landline numbers to be selected in the sample. This equal and known

opportunity for selection is the first criterion of good random sampling.

Once the potential universe of numbers had been generated, a computer program was

used to randomise the database. Following this, a sequential sample (eg. every 110th

number) was extracted from the database. The sample was geographically stratified

and evenly distributed within strata. This process gave a very even distribution of

potential numbers across the whole survey area and within the five survey sub-areas.

Every household therefore had an equal and known chance of selection and every part

of the survey area received a fair proportional representation in the final sample drawn.


Mobile phone numbers are a special case. Given the uptake of mobile phones and the

number of households that no longer have fixed lines in the household, mobile phone

numbers are oversampled in an attempt to redress this imbalance. These mobile

numbers are sourced from those listed in the white pages. 646 mobile numbers were rung

during the survey and these contacts yielded 83 of the 1001 collected surveys. To help

ensure that the oversampling of these mobile numbers is not affecting the integrity of the

sample overall, the results for key questions in the survey for those contacted by mobile

phone were compared against those contacted by fixed line. No significant differences

were found leaving us satisfied that the integrity of the sample has not been

compromised by the addition of these extra mobile numbers.


Data Collection

During the survey process, the person from the selected household who had the most

recent birthday was interviewed. This method aims to eliminate respondent self-selection

bias and is considered an important step in random sample surveys. If the selected

person was not at home, call-backs were scheduled for a later time or day. Unanswered

numbers were retried five times throughout the period of the survey. These procedures

ensure a good sampling process from the sample frame used. Interviews were

conducted on weekday evenings between 4.30 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. and on 2 Saturdays

between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.

Following the close of the main survey period, additional interviews were conducted,

according to need, in those age groups that were under represented. During this part of

the sampling process, a quota sampling procedure was employed to ensure that

adequate numbers in all age groups were selected for interview. This eliminated the

need for heavily weighting the survey data. Non-private numbers and faxes reached

during the selection process were excluded from the sample. The survey was

implemented under IQCA quality guidelines. Interviews were conducted using our

computer-aided telephone interviewing (CATI) system. Continuous interviewer

monitoring was used and post interview validations were conducted within five days of

the close of the survey.

Response

At the end of the survey period, 1001 completed interviews had been collected.

Table 0-1 shows that a completion rate of 56.7% was achieved. This is considered a good

response rate for a survey of this kind.

Table 0-1 Survey Response Outcomes

Response sequence Outcome

Completed Interviews 1001

Refusals & terminated interviews 763

Valid contacts (Excludes disqualified – businesses, out of area, under 16yrs etc) 1764

Completion rate 56.7%


Given the level of response to the survey and the fact that it represents a very good

random cross-section of the area the findings presented in this report provide a good

basis for gauging community opinion.

WEIGHTING ADJUSTMENT

The final results have been weighted by the age and area distribution of the population

at the time of the 2011 Census, as this provides the most accurate reflection of overall

resident opinions. The proportions and frequency counts in this report are based on a

combination of an area weighting and an age weighting. Using weighted results means

that, whilst large enough sub-samples have been achieved to make statistically valid

comparisons between sub-groups (i.e. n~200 for each area), all sub-groups will

contribute to the total sample result in proportion to their characteristics.

SURVEY ACCURACY

When analysing results for the entire sample, the maximum error rate will be about ±3.1%

at the 95% confidence level, assuming a proportional response of 50%. Put another way,

we can be confident that if the survey were to be repeated there would be a 95%

chance that the new result would lie within ±3.1% of the result achieved in this survey.

As this wave of the survey is comprehensive survey (Sample size of 1000 to allow for the

collection of 200 surveys in each of the five planning areas), further analysis has been

conducted at planning area level. As the sample size for each of these areas is 200 the

maximum error rate will be of the order of ±6.9%. Given this potential error rate, caution

should be exercised when drawing conclusions about differences in mean scores across

planning areas.


APPENDIX 2: Importance, Satisfaction and Gap Scores

BMCC Overall

Service / facility (rank order) Import. Sat. Gap

Access to local employment opportunities 4.15 2.90 1.54

Public toilets in town centres 4.43 3.03 1.44

Services and facilities for young people 4.10 2.94 1.42

Footpaths 4.38 3.04 1.37

Weed control 4.32 2.99 1.36

Services and facilities for people with a disability 4.40 3.17 1.35

Managing residential development 4.32 3.08 1.27

Clean creeks and waterways 4.67 3.44 1.24

Traffic Safety for pedestrians and vehicles 4.65 3.44 1.22

Managing the bushfire risk on Council land 4.72 3.52 1.20

Management of stormwater and drainage 4.40 3.23 1.19

Parking for shoppers 4.34 3.24 1.11

Litter Control 4.54 3.45 1.09

Services and facilities for older people 4.33 3.36 1.09

Sealed roads 4.31 3.27 1.04

The atmosphere, look and feel of our towns and villages 4.57 3.53 1.04

Protection of heritage values in our towns and villages 4.41 3.45 0.99

Commuter parking 4.08 3.24 0.97

Cycle ways 3.48 2.85 0.94

Car parks 4.12 3.24 0.91

Planning for and supporting emergency management 4.67 3.77 0.91

Services and facilities for children and families 4.04 3.44 0.91

Services that support the local Aboriginal community 4.09 3.28 0.89

Protection of natural bushland. 4.42 3.53 0.89

Clean, safe and healthy living environments 4.71 3.86 0.86

Parks & playgrounds. 4.35 3.57 0.86

Pedestrian access around shopping centres etc. 4.43 3.60 0.86

Waste Management Facilities at Blaxland and Katoomba 4.28 3.57 0.81

Bush regeneration 4.18 3.46 0.74

Street Cleaning 4.04 3.43 0.64

Council lookouts and walking trails. 4.37 3.83 0.57

'Wheelie Bin' recycling service 4.77 4.21 0.56

Bus shelters 3.62 3.31 0.54

'Wheelie Bin' garbage collection 4.72 4.17 0.54

Ovals & sporting grounds. 4.08 3.67 0.51

Swimming pools and leisure centres. 4.12 3.78 0.45

Community centres & community halls 3.98 3.70 0.39

Cultural & Arts facilities 3.98 3.80 0.32

Library services 3.98 3.96 0.22

Cemeteries and ashes placement sites. 3.77 3.71 0.19

Visitor Information Centres at Glenbrook and Echo Point 4.06 4.00 0.16

Caravan Parks at Katoomba and Blackheath 3.24 3.53 0.08


BMCC Importance by Area

Service / Facility Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5


Bus shelters 3.70 3.56 3.79 3.53 3.52



Carparks 4.10 4.07 4.04 4.22 4.17








Cycle ways 3.47 3.62 3.55 3.45 3.32

Footpaths 4.35 4.51 4.34 4.36 4.36


Litter Control 4.64 4.54 4.53 4.46 4.55


Managing residential development * 4.35 4.36 4.28 4.20 4.43










villages 4.58 4.44 4.39 4.24 4.45



Sealed roads 4.38 4.20 4.27 4.40 4.31






Community 4.06 4.23 4.13 4.10 3.90


Service / Facility Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5

Street Cleaning 4.11 4.08 4.08 3.97 3.97

Swimming pools and leisure centres. 4.11 4.10 4.28 4.08 4.02


villages 4.73 4.64 4.50 4.53 4.50



Point 4.12 3.96 4.03 4.10 4.13


Katoomba 4.20 4.31 4.24 4.22 4.44

Weed control 4.37 4.40 4.23 4.25 4.39




BMCC Satisfaction by Area

Service / Facility Area1 Area2 Area3 Area4 Area5


Bus shelters 3.31 3.33 3.29 3.29 3.32



Carparks 2.94 3.24 3.33 3.23 3.38







Cultural and Arts Facilities 3.74 3.86 3.88 3.64 3.82

Cycle ways 2.84 2.94 2.89 2.78 2.82

Footpaths 3.00 3.03 2.86 3.19 3.15


Litter Control 3.35 3.44 3.46 3.51 3.47


Managing residential development * 2.90 2.94 3.10 3.18 3.24










villages 3.43 3.17 3.43 3.55 3.65



Sealed roads 3.20 3.34 3.19 3.18 3.44






community 3.24 3.33 3.27 3.28 3.26


Service / Facility Area1 Area2 Area3 Area4 Area5

Street Cleaning 3.38 3.43 3.49 3.48 3.33

Swimming pools and leisure centres. 3.62 3.73 3.74 3.84 3.94


villages 3.51 3.29 3.46 3.66 3.74

Traffic safety for pedestrians and vehicles 3.19 3.30 3.52 3.52 3.56


Point 3.84 3.97 3.93 3.98 4.25


Katoomba 3.51 3.69 3.70 3.34 3.56

Weed control 3.04 3.02 2.99 2.82 3.08




Appendix 3: Overall Satisfaction Regression Analysis

Contributing Factors to Overall Satisfaction

Shapley

Importance

(%)

Staff performance 8.2

Sealed roads 7.2

Wheelie Bin garbage collection 7.1

Wheelie Bin recycling service 6.7

Managing the bushfire risk on Council land 6.5

The atmosphere, look and feel of our towns and villages 6.2

Clean, safe and healthy living environments 3.9

Parks & playgrounds. 3.4

Litter Control 3.1

Car parks 2.7

Planning for and supporting emergency management for the City 2.7

Management of stormwater and drainage 2.6

Street Cleaning 2.6

Waste Management Facilities at Blaxland and Katoomba 2.4

Managing residential development 2.4

Public toilets in town centres 2.3

Clean creeks and waterways 2.2

Traffic Safety for pedestrians and vehicles 2.2

Protection of natural bushland. 2.1

Councillor performance 2.1

Visitor Information Centres at Glenbrook and Echo Point 1.9

Council lookouts and walking trails. 1.6

Parking for shoppers 1.5

Weed control 1.3

Cultural & Arts facilities 1.3

Bush regeneration 1.3

Footpaths 1.2

Pedestrian access around shopping centres and community facilities 1.1

Commuter parking 1.1

Protection of heritage values in our towns and villages 1.1

Services and facilities for people with a disability 1.1

Access to local employment opportunities 1.0

Services and facilities for children and families 0.9

Services and facilities for older people 0.9

Community centres & community halls 0.7


Contributing Factors to Overall Satisfaction

Shapley

Importance

(%)

Ovals & sporting grounds. 0.6

Swimming pools and leisure centres. 0.6

Bus shelters 0.6

Services and facilities for young people 0.5

Library services 0.3

Services that support the local Aboriginal community 0.3

Cycle ways 0.3

Cemeteries and ashes placement sites. 0.3

Caravan Parks at Katoomba and Blackheath 0.1

Appendix 4: 2016 COMMUNITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

INTRODUCTION

Hello, my name is ... and I am calling on behalf of Blue Mountains City Council. We are conducting a survey about services provided by Council. May I please speak to the person – aged 16 or over – who had the most recent birthday, is that you? (IF NOT TARGET ANOTHER RESPONDENT – EXPLAIN IF NECESSARY)

The survey will cover overall performance of Council, your satisfaction with the delivery of particular services and what you see as the major priorities for the City in the future. The survey will take about 20 minutes, can we do it now? (IF NOT ARRANGE A CALLBACK)

Just to give you some background, the information provided by respondents is completely confidential and will help Council to better understand and meet the diverse needs of its residents.

SCREENING

Before we start, I just have to make sure you qualify for an interview.

Firstly, can you tell me what town or suburb you live in? [IF NOT IN LIST TERMINATE]

And, have you lived in the Blue Mountains for longer than 6 months? [IF NOT TERMINATE]

Are you currently an employee or elected representative of Blue Mountains City Council? [IF YES TERMINATE]

I also have to inform you that my supervisor may monitor this call for quality control and training purposes.


SECTION 1 – COUNCIL SERVICES AND FACILITIES (IMPORTANCE AND SATISFACTION)

Question 1 In this section of the survey I will read out a list of services and facilities your Council provides to those who live, work or visit the Blue Mountains.

For each service or facility I will ask how important it is to you personally on a scale of 1 to 5. A score of 1 means it is not at all important and a score of 5 means it is very important.

I will then ask how satisfied you are with the service that is delivered. This will also involve a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means you are very dissatisfied and 5 means you are very satisfied.

The first few questions relate to services that look after the environment and manage waste and water resources:

1. Protection of natural bushland

2. Bush regeneration

3. Weed control

4. Clean creeks and waterways

5. Management of stormwater and drainage

6. ‘Wheelie Bin’ garbage collection

7. ‘Wheelie Bin’ recycling service

8. Waste Management Facilities at Blaxland and Katoomba

We will now focus on services that relate to our towns and villages:

9. The atmosphere, look and feel of our towns and villages

10. Managing residential development

11. Protection of heritage values in our towns and villages

12. Public toilets in town centres

13. Litter control

14. Street cleaning

15. Parking for shoppers

16. Cemeteries and ashes placement sites

We will now focus on services related to moving around the Blue Mountains: - noting that Council is not responsible for managing the Great Western Highway.

17. Sealed roads

18. Carparks

19. Commuter parking

20. Bus shelters

21. Pedestrian access around shopping centres and community facilities

22. Footpaths


23. Cycle ways

24. Traffic safety for pedestrians and vehicles

We will now focus on Council’s role in emergency management and preparedness:

25. Planning for and supporting emergency management for the City

26. Managing the bushfire risk on Council land

27. And by the way, have you completed a Bush Fire Survival Plan?

1 Yes2 No3 Can’t Say / Don’t Know

We will now focus on Council services that look after people:

28. Library services

29. Community centres and community halls

In regards to services for specific groups within the community (e.g. children and youth), Council’s main role is in advocating to other levels of government for access to services, and providing a range of community buildings for these services to operate from (including childcare centres, preschools, neighbourhood centres etc.). With this in mind…

30. Services and facilities for children and families

31. Services and facilities for young people

32. Services and facilities for older people

33. Services and facilities for people with a disability

34. Services that support the local Aboriginal community

We will now focus on sport and recreation services:

35. Ovals and sporting grounds

36. Parks and playgrounds

37. Council lookouts and walking trails

38. Swimming pools and leisure centres

The next question is about Environmental Health and Regulation service provision:

Council staff ensure restaurants are clean and hygienic, pools have fences, animals are appropriately managed and buildings comply with fire safety etc.

39. Clean, safe and healthy living environments

The next focus is on Council services that support the local economy:

Council invests significantly in supporting the local economy and job creation, through annual expenditure on town centres, major projects, community, cultural and recreational services and facilities.


40. Access to local employment opportunities

41. Visitor Information Centres at Glenbrook and Echo Point

42. Caravan parks at Katoomba and Blackheath

The following question is about Cultural and Arts facilities provided by Council:

- such as the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre in Katoomba, Wentworth Falls School of Arts and Blue Mountains Theatre and Community Hub in Springwood.

43. Cultural and arts facilities

SECTION 2 – OVERALL SATISFACTION

Question 2A Given the answers you have just provided, how would you rate your satisfaction with the OVERALL PERFORMANCE of your Council in providing services to the community?

Again, we will use a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=very dissatisfied and 5=very satisfied.

1 Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 Very satisfied 6 CAN’T SAY / DECLINED

Question 2B [for all respondents to 2A] In just a few words, what is your main reason for feeling that way?

[80 CHARACTER TEXT BOX]

Question 2C Council uses a variety of funding sources, including rates paid by residents which account for about 50% of funding, to provide the services we have just covered.

Please tell me whether you think the services provided by Council generally represent good value for money?

Use a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 means very poor value and 5 means very good value. 1 Very poor value 2345 Very good value 6 CAN’T SAY / DECLINED

Question 2D How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the level of information provided, community consultation and advocacy undertaken by the Council?


Again, we will use a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=very dissatisfied and 5=very satisfied.

1 Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 Very satisfied 6 CAN’T SAY / DECLINED

SECTION 3 – STAFF PERFORMANCE

Question 3A In the past 12 months, have you had any contact with Council staff?

1 Yes 2 No 3 CAN’T RECALL

Question 3B [for all respondents to 3A] How satisfied are you with the overall performance of Council staff, again on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=very dissatisfied and 5=very satisfied.

1 Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 Very satisfied 6 CAN’T SAY / DON’T KNOW

SECTION 4 – COUNCILLOR PERFORMANCE

Question 4A Have you had any dealings with your elected Councillors over the last year?

1 Yes 2 No 3 CAN’T RECALL

Question 4B [for all respondents to 4A] How satisfied are you with the overall performance of Councillors?

1 Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 Very satisfied 6 CAN’T SAY / DON’T KNOW


SECTION 5 – PLANNING PRIORITIES FOR THE BLUE MOUNTAINS

I now want to ask about your views more generally on current issues and future priorities for the Blue Mountains. These might relate to Council directly, or might be the responsibility of a different level of government.

Question 5A Thinking about your immediate local neighbourhood, what is the issue of greatest concern to you at the moment?


Question 5B Now thinking about the Blue Mountains overall - stretching as it does from Lapstone to Mount Irvine – what is the issue currently of greatest concern to you?


Question 5C When thinking about making the Blue Mountains a better place, what do you see as the top priority action areas related to Looking After Environment over the next 5-10 years?


Question 5D When thinking about making the Blue Mountains a better place, what do you see as the top priority action areas related to Land Use, development and the liveability of our towns and villages over the next 5-10 years?


Question 5E Do you think there is an adequate mix of housing in the Blue Mountains to meet the needs of people at different stages of their lives, now and into the future?

1 Yes 2 No 3 CAN’T SAY

Question 5F [if response to 5E is 1 or 2] Tell me why you feel that way.


Question 5G When thinking about making the Blue Mountains a better place, what do you see as the top priority action areas related to how we Move Around within the Blue Mountains over the next 5-10 years?



Question 5H When thinking about making the Blue Mountains a better place, what do you see as the top priority action areas for Looking After People over the next 5-10 years?


Question 5I When thinking about making the Blue Mountains a better place, what do you see as the top priority action areas related to Economic Development over the next 5-10 years?


SECTION 6 – COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS

Now I want to ask about your perceptions of your neighbourhood and the Blue Mountains as a place to live. I am going to read out some statements and I want you to rate them on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means you “strongly disagree” with the statement and 5 means you “strongly agree”.

Question 6 a) “I feel that I am generally safe in my neighbourhood”b) “I feel that I belong to the community I live in”c) “I have someone in my area outside my immediate family to turn to in a time of crisis”d) “I am satisfied with Council’s response and support to natural disasters, such as

bushfires and windstorms”e) “I feel that the quality of life and well-being in the Blue Mountains is improving”

SECTION 7 - RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Finally, I just have a few brief questions relating to household data to help classify your answers.

Variable (sex) Can you please confirm your gender?

1 Male 2 Female 3 Other

Variable (age) Please stop me when I read out the age group you are in ...

1 16-24 years

2 25-34 years

3 35-49 years

4 50-64 years

5 65+ years

6 REFUSED


Variable (ratepayer) Do you or your family pay Council rates or do you leave this to the landlord if your rent?

1. Pay Council rates ourselves2 Land lord pays Council rates

SECTION 8 – INVITATION to attend a Community Workshop

Question 8A Council is conducting workshops during August with interested residents to confirm priorities and aspirations for the future of the Blue Mountains and how we can best work together to achieve them.

Would you like to attend one of these and contribute to the discussion?

1 Yes 2 No

[If yes…]

Great, I just need to get your details so that Council can contact you about these workshops.

[IF NECESSARY] Please be assured that none of your personal information will be linked to your answers in this interview, nor will they be used for any purpose other than to contact you about further opportunities to have your say on priorities for the future of the Blue Mountains.

Name Phone Email address Mailing address

CONCLUSION

That completes our interview. As this is market research, you can be assured that it is carried out in full compliance with the Privacy Act and the information you provided is only used for research purposes.

Again, my name is ….and my supervisors name is Judy. If you have any questions about this survey, or would like further information about IRIS Research, you can call our office between 9am and 5pm weekdays on 4229-4777. Thank you for your time.

END.


Blue Mountains City Council Community Survey 2016

Documents

Transcript of Blue Mountains City Council Community Survey 2016