A recent survey of 2,000 Hawai'i residents showed a majority care about the environment so much that they're willing to pay more to protect it.

They'd also be willing to have their use of public roads restricted and pay tolls or higher gas prices to help solve traffic problems.

On top of that, survey respondents placed a higher priority on preserving agricultural and conservation land than building more affordable housing, and a near majority said they would pay more for housing if necessary to limit growth.

The results of the statewide public opinion poll match what community members have been telling the Hawai'i 2050 Task Force in a series of public meetings, a fact that surprised James Dannemiller, president of research for SMS Research & Marketing Services Inc., which conducted the survey on behalf of the task force.

"I went to the meetings and sat with those people and felt surely that they were people with very strong opinions only (attending the meetings) and that if we did a population survey, there's no way that we'd get that kind of fervor out of it," he said.

That was part of the impetus behind the survey.

State Sen. Russell Kokubun, D-2nd (S. Hilo, Puna, Ka'u), chairman of the task force, said there was always a concern that the general population wasn't being represented at the task force meetings. He was glad to see that the outcomes of the survey matched up with the findings of a community engagement report.

"It really confirms that a very, very broad cross-section of the community is concerned about the future of Hawai'i, and they want to engage," he said.

For the most part, the survey of 2,000 people (500 from each county), indicated that people want it all and are willing to pay for it.

"People have much stronger opinions in favor of this sort of balanced approach, not just the economy — you have to give them the environmental and the cultural and the social pieces, as well," Dannemiller said.

Jim Tollefson, president and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of Hawai'i, said a balanced approach is important, and economic impacts need to be considered along with environmental and social ones.

"Without economic sustainability, we will not have social or environmental sustainability," he said. "Someone has to pay for it, and that's business."

About 84 percent of respondents said they did not want tourism to outpace the rest of the economy, while 82 percent said the military presence should stay about the same.

By contrast, a solid majority said they would like to see the agricultural sector grow faster than the rest of the economy.

"It's important to remember that tourism and the military have, and do, and will continue to play an important role in the economy," Tollefson said. "We need to find a way to work together to make this a place where our children and grandchildren are able to live and want to live."

To Connie Mitchell, executive director of the Institute for Human Services, a sustainable Hawai'i needs to be somewhere people can afford to live.

"Those who say that they're willing to pay more and more may be the only ones that can afford to live here," she said.

She doesn't disagree with those who say that agricultural and conservation lands should keep their designations, however. "I think the (survey) response probably represents how people value keeping Hawai'i's natural beauty and natural resources intact and they don't want to sacrifice that for uncontrolled population growth," she said.

At the same time, she thinks there's still strong support for affordable housing and an economic mix in Hawai'i. "If you don't, that won't be sustainable, either," she said.

The survey responses show that these days "sustainability" isn't just another way to talk about protecting the environment. The term has expanded to include improved education, a thriving economy, protection of cultural resources, and other quality of life measures.

"People don't want just one thing. They want their cake and to eat it, too," Dannemiller said.

The survey pushed respondents to consider just how much they'd be willing to give to improve the state. For example, when it comes to the environment, most respondents said that they wanted to protect natural and cultural resources and develop energy independence, even if it comes at the cost of a slowdown in the economy.

Asked if they would be willing to pay more taxes to protect the environment, enthusiasm slowed, but still about 61 percent said they would accept that trade-off.

"It (support for environmental and cultural protections) slows down by a long shot, but they're still willing to do that," Dannemiller said.

The deal breaker was when respondents were asked if they would move out of the state to protect the environment.

"We got them to slow down a lot. Fifty-three percent of people said 'no,' " Dannemiller said. "That's way too much (sacrifice), and they won't go there, but they'll go pretty far."

But 19 percent said they'd be willing to bite that bullet if necessary.

Here's a sampling of other priorities revealed in the survey: