Purpose

The Department of Research and Development initiated the Laulima Survey to create the first data collection effort of its kind on Hawaiʻi Island.

• The Laulima Survey is intended to provide an unfiltered reflection of resident sentiment about life in Hawaiʻi County.
• Results can be used by anyone for a variety of reasons. The goal is to create a clear baseline followed by trendlines of Hawaiʻi Island residents’ needs and preferences that will inform investment, policymaking, and research, by community organizations, students, philanthropic organization, Legislators and other elected officials.
• The survey is designed to be repeated every four years to provide a clear trend analysis.

What the Survey is not:

• Not intended to support any current initiative.
• Not a satisfaction survey related to County services.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Survey Administration and Data Collection

The Laulima community survey was conducted from June 1, 2025. through August 31, 2025, using SurveyMonkey, an online survey platform.

Survey Design and Distribution Strategy

The questionnaire consisted of 17 questions utilizing multiple response formats including multiple choice, and open-ended text responses. Survey questions were based on the National Community Survey adopted by municipalities across the country.

All responses were anonymous, to both engender trust, and also to allow responsible use of Artificial Intelligence, if needed, to keep costs at a minimum.

R&D’s Laulima Webpage contained a link to the survey. The Outreach Team distributed flyers and cards with QRC codes in government offices, community gathering places, and nonprofit and service organizations.

Mayor Alameda provided crucial promotional support by creating messaging for the cards, and by promoting the survey through a press release and social media.

Methodological Strengths

Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency: Online survey administration significantly reduced costs compared to traditional mail or phone surveys.

Privacy and Anonymity Protections: The anonymous format encouraged candid responses on potentially sensitive topics, with participants assured that individual responses could not be traced back to specific residents.

Community-Centered Approach: The survey prioritized local knowledge and resident expertise, recognizing that community members possess valuable insights about neighborhood conditions, service needs, and policy priorities that may not be captured through traditional data sources.

Accessibility and Convenience: Residents could participate at their convenience.

Acknowledged Limitations

Sampling and Representation Challenges: As a voluntary response survey, results reflect the views of self-selected participants rather than a scientifically representative sample of all residents. Response patterns may overrepresent certain demographic groups, particularly those with higher digital literacy, internet access, and civic engagement levels.

Digital Divide Considerations: Online-only distribution may underrepresent residents lacking reliable internet access, digital devices, or technological comfort levels. This particularly affects elderly residents, lower-income households, and some immigrant communities.

Response Bias Potential: Residents with stronger opinions about survey topics may be more likely to participate, potentially skewing results toward more polarized viewpoints rather than capturing the full spectrum of community sentiment.

Limited Demographic Verification: Anonymous online surveys cannot verify respondent characteristics or prevent multiple submissions from the same individual. R&D’s approach is to trust our communities and honor their time and input.

Data Analysis and Interpretation Framework

Results should be interpreted as valuable community input reflecting the perspectives of engaged residents rather than statistically projectable findings for the entire population. The survey serves as one important data source alongside other community engagement methods, demographic analyses, and service delivery metrics.

Application of Results

Survey findings will inform policy discussions, budget priority setting, and program development while recognizing the methodological limitations described above. Results will be combined with other data sources including census information, service usage statistics, and input from additional public engagement activities to ensure comprehensive community representation in decision-making processes.

This methodology reflects our commitment to accessible, cost-effective community engagement while maintaining transparency about both the valuable insights gained and the inherent limitations of any single data collection approach.

Data Quality

Skipped Surveys

A total of 329 respondents skipped the entire survey after responding to the first three required questions: ZCTA, Council District, and Age. In addition, not all surveys were completed in full. Survey results from partially completed surveys are included in this data report.

Tell us what you appreciate most about your community.

Question 16 of the 2025 Laulima Community Survey asked residents to lsit what they appreciate most about their community.

The 2,790 narrative responses reveal that residents most often appreciate the people and relationships in their communities, especially friendly neighbors, multigenerational families, and a strong sense of ʻohana where people know each other, look out for one another, and help in times of need.

Community relationships and mutual support

• Many comments emphasize tight‑knit, small‑town bonds, where neighbors watch each other’s homes, share food, and treat one another like family.
• Residents value that people step up during crises and “fill the gaps” when government support is limited, showing resilience, kuleana, and mutual care.

Aloha spirit and local culture

• The Aloha spirit is repeatedly cited as what makes the community special, including kindness, respect, generosity, and treating everyone as ʻohana.
• Residents appreciate living in a place that still upholds Hawaiian and local culture, language, and traditions, with strong cultural events and community organizations.

Natural beauty and environment

• Respondents frequently mention the beauty of the ʻāina: ocean, mountains, forests, clean air and water, open space, and rural landscapes as core reasons they value their community.
• Many tie this to a simpler, slower‑paced lifestyle, outdoor recreation, and access to parks, beaches, trails, and farmers markets.

Safety, quiet, and quality of life

• People appreciate feeling safe, with relatively low crime in many neighborhoods, quiet streets, and a calm, rural or small‑town atmosphere.
• Proximity to essential services (schools, markets, clinics, libraries, parks) combined with low traffic and walkability are seen as enhancing daily quality of life.

Civic engagement and local leadership

• Numerous comments highlight pride in community associations, volunteers, nonprofits, and grassroots groups that improve parks, support keiki and kupuna, and protect access to ʻāina and ocean.
• Some residents specifically appreciate responsive councilmembers and the mayor’s efforts, while still seeing community action—not government—as the backbone of local wellbeing.

Survey Question 17: Please share what you believe are the most urgent issues facing your community.

Among the 3,094 narrative responses, a few clear themes emerge: safety and crime, housing and cost of living, economic opportunity, health and social services, and community infrastructure and cohesion.

Ranked by frequency of mention

1. Housing and cost of living
2. Safety and crime
3. Economy and jobs
4. Health and mental health services
5. Basic needs and social services
6. Transportation and infrastructure
7. Community cohesion and youth opportunities

Core urgent issues

• Safety and low crime, including concerns about the growing homeless population, violence, drugs, and feeling safe in public spaces and parks.
• Housing affordability and stability, such as high rents, lack of affordable options, long waitlists, and risk of homelessness.
• Economic security, including access to living‑wage jobs, job training, and help with financial stress and basic expenses.

Services and health needs

• Access to healthcare, especially affordable, nearby, and culturally appropriate medical and mental health services.
• Availability of childcare and support services for families, which affects the ability to work and stay in the community.
• Food security and access to healthy food, including concerns about the cost and availability of nutritious options.

Infrastructure and environment

• Transportation gaps, including limited public transit, difficulty reaching jobs and services, and need for better connections.
• Physical infrastructure such as road conditions, sidewalks, bike facilities, and broadband or digital access.
• Environmental quality and cleanliness, including parks, open space protection, and a clean, well‑maintained neighborhood.

Social fabric and cohesion

• Weak community cohesion, including a desire for more unity, communication, and collaboration among residents and leaders.
• Lack of youth opportunities and worries about young people leaving, along with limited activities and gathering spaces.
• Trust in local leadership and frustration with slow action, personal agendas, and infighting around change efforts.

Who is being left out

• Barriers faced by residents with lower incomes and the Native Hawaiian community, including unequal access to housing, food, and services.
• Gaps in support for people who do not fit into existing assistance categories (for example, single adults without diagnosed issues).

Because of the significant regional differences between communities across Hawaiʻi Island, Research and Development wanted to ensure Geographic Equity. Our outreach efforts focused on reaching every community, and to track the results of our efforts we needed official population data for each region. The most logical option for geographies that respondents can identify with is the ZCTA, for which the U.S. Census provides population data. Please refer to the section below containing survey responses by ZCTA.

ZIP Code Tabulation Areas, or ZCTAs, are a geographic product of the U.S. Census Bureau Created to allow mapping, display, and geographic analyses of the United States Postal Service (USPS) Zone Improvement plan (ZIP) Codes dataset.

ZIP Codes versus ZCTAs
First introduced in 1963, ZIP Code is a trademark of the USPS created to coordinate mail handling and delivery. The USPS assigns ZIP Code ranges to regional post offices, which in turn assign ZIP Codes to delivery routes. Each delivery route is composed of street networks, and/or individual units with high mail volumes, such as high-rise buildings or individual business locations.

Within the Census Bureau's MAF/TIGER System, ZIP Codes are stored as one component of discrete addresses tied to delivery points, including specific housing unit locations. The result is a point-based dataset unsuitable for mapping and many analysis applications.

ZCTAs are generalized areal representations of the geographic extent and distribution of the point-based ZIP Codes built using 2020 Census tabulation blocks. The Census Bureau is restricted by Title 13 from releasing individual housing unit addresses or location information to the public, so point-based ZIP Code data are unsuitable for distribution and publication. However, by aggregating the points and extrapolating them to a polygonal-based unit (census tabulation blocks), disclosure concerns can be addressed and "geographic subtraction*" is prevented.

* “Geographic subtraction” is the comparison of data for overlapping geographic areas to identify the location and characteristics of individual respondents and housing units. This can inadvertently result in data disclosure and is a major concern for geography representing a relatively small area (below county level) or geography with low counts of population or housing units.