The cleanliness and appearance of public areas was assessed by a set of five questions. The respondents were first asked about the Town’s success at keeping Cary clean and forever green. This was followed by a series of four questions examining the cleanliness and appearance of several public areas including streets, median/roadsides, parks, and greenways. Again, the same 9-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (9) was used.
The respondents were very positive concerning the Town’s success at keeping Cary clean and forever green which relates to Cary’s litter reduction and beautification efforts. This is the first year for this question in the survey. Table 8 indicates the respondents felt the Town was very effective in keeping Cary clean and forever green giving the Town a mean was 8.12 and the grade was an A-. Note that 40.4% of the respondents answered “excellent” to the question.
Year |
Mean |
Very Poor 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
Excellent9 |
Grade |
|
10 |
8.12 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
13.3 |
41.1 |
40.4 |
A- |
The cleanliness and appearance of several public areas also received high marks. The results shown in Tables 9-12 (placed in descending order by ratings) indicated the respondents were very satisfied with the cleanliness and appearance of parks, greenways, median/roadsides, and streets. The means increased for all the public areas and the grades improved for three of them. The cleanliness and appearance of parks and greenways earned the highest marks of A-. The grade for greenways improved from a B+ to A- this year and the grade for parks now borders on moving to an A. The grade for median/roadsides and streets both improved from a B to B+ this year. The mean increase for all the public areas was relatively large this year.
Overall, the cleanliness and appearance of public areas earned very high marks that continue to improve. The public areas of parks, greenways, median/roadside, and streets have been examined in the survey since 1998 and the latest ratings were the highest earned to date for these areas. In addition, the respondents approved of the Town’s litter reduction and beautification or clean and forever green efforts giving the Town an initial grade of A-.
Year |
Mean |
Very Poor 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
Excellent9 |
Grade |
| 10 | 8.41 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 8.3 | 31.0 | 57.4 |
A- |
| 08 | 8.14 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 15.7 | 38.7 | 41.3 |
A- |
| 06 | 7.88 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 15.9 | 34.9 | 38.2 |
B+ |
|
04 |
8.03 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
14.1 |
34.7 |
42.9 |
B+ |
|
02 |
7.99 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
4.0 |
2.1 |
15.7 |
40.7 |
36.4 |
B+ |
|
00 |
7.86 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.6 |
2.5 |
5.4 |
21.1 |
40.8 |
29.3 |
B+ |
|
98 |
7.42 |
3.9 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
2.6 |
5.4 |
26.6 |
39.0 |
20.9 |
B- |
Year |
Mean |
Very Poor 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
Excellent9 |
Grade |
| 10 | 8.34 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 9.0 | 33.8 | 53.3 |
A- |
| 08 | 8.05 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 15.2 | 41.0 | 37.7 |
B+ |
| 06 | 7.78 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 4.9 | 4.3 | 17.3 | 37.9 | 32.9 |
B |
|
04 |
7.86 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
3.0 |
6.3 |
17.1 |
36.8 |
35.0 |
B+ |
|
02 |
7.70 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
1.4 |
6.9 |
4.6 |
19.0 |
37.4 |
29.9 |
B |
|
00 |
7.64 |
0.6 |
1.2 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
4.0 |
7.4 |
21.9 |
36.7 |
27.5 |
B |
|
98 |
7.32 |
4.5 |
0.3 |
1.1 |
0.8 |
3.7 |
6.3 |
25.1 |
36.4 |
21.9 |
B- |
Year |
Mean |
Very Poor 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
Excellent9 |
Grade |
| 10 | 7.87 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 2.8 | 6.5 | 19.6 | 39.8 | 30.7 |
B+ |
| 08 | 7.61 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 4.2 | 5.9 | 24.9 | 36.0 | 25.7 |
B |
| 06 | 7.31 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 7.3 | 7.0 | 23.6 | 36.1 | 20.3 |
B- |
|
04 |
7.48 |
1.0 |
0.3 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
6.3 |
7.3 |
25.6 |
30.3 |
26.8 |
B- |
|
02 |
7.16 |
1.0 |
0.3 |
2.3 |
2.5 |
8.3 |
9.3 |
28.0 |
31.3 |
17.3 |
B- |
|
00 |
7.30 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
5.0 |
11.0 |
29.6 |
34.8 |
16.0 |
B- |
|
98 |
7.16 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
0.2 |
2.0 |
7.7 |
13.2 |
31.3 |
28.6 |
15.4 |
B- |
Year |
Mean |
Very Poor 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
Excellent9 |
Grade |
| 10 | 7.79 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 18.6 | 39.9 | 29.9 |
B+ |
| 08 | 7.66 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 5.2 | 4.4 | 27.4 | 37.3 | 24.2 |
B |
| 06 | 7.35 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 9.7 | 6.5 | 22.6 | 37.1 | 20.1 |
B- |
|
04 |
7.44 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
1.7 |
1.0 |
6.5 |
9.5 |
21.9 |
30.9 |
26.9 |
B- |
|
02 |
7.28 |
1.5 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
2.0 |
6.5 |
7.7 |
30.8 |
33.3 |
17.2 |
B- |
|
00 |
7.43 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
4.8 |
8.8 |
30.5 |
39.8 |
14.5 |
B- |
|
98 |
7.45 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
4.7 |
10.9 |
29.4 |
34.6 |
18.7 |
B- |
Public Areas Needing Attention
The respondents who gave ratings below 5 were asked to give specific examples of public areas needing more attention. There were only 7 responses and the primary issue was potholes on Cary Parkway, Maynard Road, and Kildaire Farm Road (Appendix E).
Public Areas Crosstabulations
Crosstabulations were conducted on age, gender, housing type, income, race, and years in Cary for the cleanliness and appearance of public areas. The grades were high and consistent for clean and forever green (Tables B48-B53), parks (Tables B54-B59), greenways (Tables B60-B65), median/ roadsides (Tables B66-B71), and streets (Tables B72-B77) with no grades falling into the C range.