Course talk:POLI380SEPT2010Cutler/Survey/Environment
Do we want to design questions that have a more 'Vancouver' focus, or Canada as a whole?--AidanKennedy 02:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Vancouver is probably a good focus simply because people who live here are more likely to be educated about, and care about, issues closer to home. That said, I think if they are broadly based or widely known issues relating to the rest of the country they should be ok.(Natalie)
Personally, I think that if we are giving this survey to people we know (i.e. friends/family) it is probably more relevant to discuss topics that focus on Vancouver. That being said, I do find your question on the carbon tax rather interesting and we can elaborate on that further. The question regarding the oil sands, however, does not directly impact BC and some people may not have an opinion on the matter. Also, I edited your first question to include "I do not own a motor vehicle" and "no opinion".--TaylorDong 05:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that questions pertaining more to Vancouver would be better because people will probably be more educated on the topics. As for the Alberta question posted I am not sure if that is the best question just because we aren't asking albertans their feelings on the use of the land so I think we will get one sided results. I also think that questions about the north would be relevant as they are a new and important topic in the area of environment and politics. (katy)
TaylorDong 21:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think gearing the questions to the people we are giving the survey to is the best thing to do, so I agree with everyone. I think we should focus on recent developments in our city like the transit system, carbon taxes etc. I don't even know anything about oil sands, so I wouldn't want to ask my frieds and family to respond to things going on in Albera either. (Victoria W)
I added a question about the relevance of environment policy to the BC population as i thought it would be important to know how Vancouver rates the issue. AlexJordan 19:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I also edited Taylor's scale as it was a little confusing.AlexJordan 19:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we need to maintain focus on topics that directly concern Vancouver citizens. I don't think that we should have the assumption that everyone is actively concerned with saving the environment or is aware of all the possible impacts of environmental degradation, but I think we can agree that from a citizen's perspective, it is a public and prominent issue (so maybe the question about relevance isn't necessary?) There are trade-offs between creating public policy to protect the environment and those same policies that may detract from economic growth, and I think we need to ask questions about the attitudes toward this. I've included two possible questions, I'm not sure which one is best. Also, I think that it might be interesting to discuss/measure how different income levels affect attitudes and participation with the environment, considering that many enviro-friendly products are typically more expensive. (Victoria Broughton)
I think your right that we cant assume everyone is concerned with saving the environment and i think we should look at how environmentally knowledgeable/sensitive the vancouver public is before moving on to deeper questions. We can relate this to a classic media question as well by looking at how the public is becoming aware of any environmental problems and measure the media's ability to raise public awareness on the environment. I included the recycling question to see the level of environmental involvement the public has at the most basic level.
I agree that it would be really interesting to look at the trade offs between the environment saving policies and economic growth policies. I thought both Victoria's questions are relevant but a little bit different as one asks for an opinion and the other doesn't. I have suggested a follow on question to the 2nd proposed one. (Dhruv)
I do understand why the survey questions should be centered around Vancouver citizens, however... there are many people in the GVRD who hail from other parts of Canada and/or still do have environmental concerns about different areas, as well as Canada as a whole.
That being said, I do like Victoria's questions and the suggestion to look into how income level affect attitudes and participation. We could propose a question that asks consumers to look into a cost/benifit analysis into how much they would be willing to spend on certain product, or 'Green Alternatives". ----AidanKennedy 01:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I dont think the question about relevance is unnecessary, several people i know dont consider preserving the environment as a big issue, and view several environmental issues as myth or exagerations. That being said if you guys think that its redundant then we can axe it.AlexJordan 02:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Alex... I think that we should keep the 'percieved' question in the survey... provides an interesting comparision between what people may know, versus what they say they know or feel. --AidanKennedy 03:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I also think we should keep the 'percieved' question...it says a lot about how much the respondents actually know. (Victoria W)
So have we come to a consensus? Should we address topics that are primarily Vancouver-centric or are we going to broaden our scope? This is actually a very important decision; Katy and I were discussing a possible question regarding Gregor Robertson (Vision Vancouver) and the creation of more bike lanes. If we pose federal policy, maybe municipal/provincial agendas such as this seem less relevant? --TaylorDong 05:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting point Taylor. You could tie this into the question that you posted by asking first whether you think environmentalism is an issue that should be addressed at the federal, provincial, or municipal level? An extra answer that can be provided is a possible combination of the different levels of government.--BrianScherb 01:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
In regards to what was being discussed previously, I think there is a lot of potential in focusing our attention to the way people living in B.C. feel about climate change/environmental policies and how far they think these policies should go regarding their effect on the economy. While it seems to be that more people are environmentally conscientious than they were in previous years, there could still be some variance in what people think ought to be done about it in regards to the economy. We could also see if certain environmental problems (some of which were addressed in question 1 at the bottom of the page) elicit more concern out of people than others as well. --NejlaBakhtiari 05:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Taylor about the importance of this decision. I think that asking Vancouver, or atleast BC, related questions will allow us to be more specific and have more quantitative results. Very broadly based or global questions have the tendency to be vague and sometimes those issues are too difficult to make "real" or to capture in a short survey. (Natalie)
I can see what you mean Natalie... for the size and scope of the survey, it maybe MUCH easier to utilize BC topics only.
It maybe best to keep the topics Vancouver centric to minamize the overall spread of data. --AidanKennedy 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I think everyone agrees that for the purpose of this survey, we are going to keep the focus of the question on BC/ Vancouver. There are so many saliant issues to discuss and since we only get to choose 5 questions, I think we should try to be as concise as possible. (Victoria W)
Yea i think the consensus is that we should focus on BC. I agree with Nejla in that we can apply Victoria's questions about the general public's willingness to sacrifice economic growth for environmentally friendly policies or vice versa. (We can limit this provincially) We can incorporate Taylor's idea of expansion of bike lanes as well. I think we should also look at the level of environmental awareness and which problems are of greatest concern in Vancouver or BC. --[[User:Dhruv Malhotra] 13:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it would be possible to modify Dhruv's question? I was thinking perhaps adding issues about water pollution into there too? since water is such a big thing for B.C? -just a thought --CamilleElizaWong 23:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm for the idea of focusing the questions on the BC area as well; it might make it easier to interpret our data should we have to make analyses about them in the future.
And Camille, I think adding water pollution is a good idea too. We should edit it in.
I was thinking maybe we could add acid rain to that same question also? It was only a few months ago that I found out its destructive impact upon the environment (and people too it seems) and the fact that in the future it will likely become more prevalent in other countries as well. I figured it would be interesting to see how it fares against the other options in the question. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it's an issue BC residents will identify with given that it doesn't seem to be a big problem in this region of the world. --NejlaBakhtiari 04:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
For the last question regarding heating-Would it be possible to add Oil Furnace, as well as Gas Furnace instead of only traditional?
Cheers --AidanKennedy 17:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Odd, I don't think my research question and discussion comment saved properly yesterday. I know that there's already a transit question but I think there should be a greater focus on using transit expansion, mainly SkyTrain, to curb car use and thus pollution and a whole load of other things that have to do with the environment. I would argue that it's one of the main tools we're using to 'combat' pollution and unsustainable growth in the region, and it's a very expensive (albeit long-term) solution. There's the proposed Evergreen SkyTrain Line, the proposed SkyTrain/light rail routes in Surrey, and of course the ongoing UBC Rapid Transit study (likely, SkyTrain).
We could also add a question about all the highway expansion going on (e.g. the massive new Port Mann Bridge)...
And of course, this all deals with our aim with focusing on local issues.
Best regards Kenneth Chan 15:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Kenneth, I think you're onto something about your questions regarding public transit use. However I feel like your question is too specific. For example, I don't always use public transit because of road congestion, I use it because I don't always have a car or I simply don't want to pay for parking when I go to school.--BrianScherb 02:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Kenneth. Yes, I think that a transit question is a really good idea (although the one I posted initially needs a lot of
editing) because it isone of the main areas that the govenment has already taken some action in. for that reason we can get people's reaction to the reality of changing transit methods not just the theory. Its also something that most people know a fair bit about. What style of question do you propose? (Natalie)
I'm not really sure , but what do you guys think about maybe a question about one's diet? whether or not they buy oceanwise products or locally grown/ harvested products. I know the 100 mile diet is getting popular now. But I'm not really sure how useful the answers would be? --CamilleElizaWong 06:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Camile, I think a question about diet is a good idea, but you would have to be careful as some of the answers may be irrelevant to our study. (correct me if im wrong, but I was under the impression that a lot of people are doing the 100 mile diet for other reasons mainly cost and health) but maybe if you asked if they were dieting specifically for the environment. (Dhruv Malhotra)
Camille, I like the idea of this....especially the oceanwise seafood part. But like Dhruv said, I think its too hard to link it to the environment. Would it be something like: Are personal choices you make like buying oceanwise seafood, based on environment sustainability? I don't know, it just sounds awkward, but I like the idea. (Victoria W.)
You could link this question up with Victoria B's point about whether there is a relationship between your level of income and level of 'environmental participation'. Oceanwise fish, and other organic food products, is better for the environment but its more expensive so there is an environmental/economic trade-off. I feel like it would be more of a specific example, however it may be limited. --BrianScherb 01:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Aidan, I will make the addition to the question regarding the heating question, thanks for the advise.
Does anyone think that question 5, regarding the opinion of citizens in terms of the importance of the environment, should this question not be made a bit more specific? For example if we just ask "How important is the environment to BC citizens", how does this individual know that? Based on everyday observations? Based on educational curriculum, as in how much emphasis schools place on informing individuals about environmental issues? Or on how much people recycle in BC?
(Andres)
@ Natalie. I like your Canada Line question! But I agree - we could edit it a little. I think a possible issue with it is that it's too general, although generality is usually a good thing, but I think this is an exception. It assumes the survey responder lives in Greater Vancouver or even lives/works/travels near the area served by the Canada Line. Someone could answer 'no change' not because the new system had no effect (that it did not make transit more convenient to use) but because they don't live in the region or more likely their travels don't require going anywhere near the Canada Line route. For example, someone who lives and travels only around Surrey/Langley/eastern suburbs would of course vote 'no change' ... while someone who used to drive from White Rock to Downtown everyday pre-Canada Line but now drives only to Bridgeport, uses the park and ride, and takes the train into the city everyday would answer with one of the "less driving" options. So I think this would skewer the findings (whereas a question on plastics or water usage for instance is applicable to most [can't say 'all', right? haha]) Therefore I think we might need to add a third answer option - something along the lines of "No, I don't live/work/travel in the Vancouver region..." ? What do you think? I think for such a question, we would need to narrow down their locale in order to be able to accurately evaluate the before/after effect of the Canada Line.
@ Andres. I agree, can this be surveyed? How would an individual know the views of someone else? I think no.7 by Taylor addresses this aspect better in that it's asking the individual what s/he thinks about the importance of environmental issues and whether it should be a provincial gov't priority.
Cheers Kenneth Chan 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to condense some of our questions and use the most effective ones, for example, 7, 8, and 9 are all very similar in gauging the complacency of citizens towards the issue. As for the Transit questions, will they be covered in the BC Issues section (for example, they already have a question about the bike lane)? If not, we need to be careful when we're asking about Transportation because people might, for example, want an extension of the Millennium Line because of convenience/monetary issues instead of because of the environment. I included a question linking income and pro-activity, but the wording needs a little help, same with the response options. We could also, as suggested by Aidan, include an option that will weigh the willingness to buy Green Friendly alternatives against the perceived benefit they have for the environment.--VictoriaBroughton 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yea Victoria i think your question about the income linked with pro-activity is a good one and somewhat related to the topic of environment vs economy. A suggestion for rewording it would be:
Does your income influence your level of pro-activity due to the relatively expensive price of eco-friendly products?(Dhruv Malhotra)
I just put in a question regarding the connection between the television media and the environment, but I'm having some trouble figuring out how specific it should be so I left it pretty general. Should it regard Canadian media broadcasting or media broadcasting in BC only? And should it be whether they address environmental issues in this province or abroad as well? If anyone has any suggestions I'd be happy to hear them.
I like the idea of the television and its connection to the environment...are you trying to see whether the media is a tool we can use to produce environmental change? For example, those 30 sec ads on tv about how to compost and why we should buy energy efficient light bulbs? I'm not sure what you're trying to ask, but I like the idea behind it. (Victoria W.)
And I like that reedit on Victoria's question by the way, it looks more concise now. --NejlaBakhtiari 23:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I really like the income question. One of the strongest criticisms I have heard of green products is with respect to thier price (ie local organic produce vs. non-organic shipped from California). People on a tight budget cant always afford to buy green even if they want to. Info in this area would be useful to help governments harness the power of the market to encourage green-buying; perhaps through subsidies on green products to make them more accessible? I like the range of answers Victoria has chosen already. (Natalie)
I agree I also like the range of Victorias questions. I think natalies comments on subsidies is a really good point that we should include. Are there any other subjects people feel we have missed? (katy)
I like Victoria's rebate question, but I was thinking that maybe we should have an option for people who haven't received these checks for whatever reason and so might skew the results a little bit.
@Katy: I think we've got a good range of topics here, and we could even add more questions later as they come to us, but I think we're going to have to start figuring out what our five questions are going to be soon. I personally like the questions we have so far dealing with public transportation, govt. and environmental change, and the high grocery store prices affecting the likelihood of them being bought. What about everybody else? --NejlaBakhtiari 19:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that there is a good range also. Should everyone start saying which questions specifically we want to keep so we can start narrowing the list down? (Katy)
This is regarding Victoria's last question; I think it is a great question to ask but I also think it is lacking some information. I was just thinking that not everyone in BC is going to know exactly what procedures the province has to take to maintain environmental sustainability, and even less so, their costs. So maybe a small amount of background info on one or two costs, and a figure, should be added to the question, just so those being surveyed are not completely just guessing "yes" or "no", because then it could make the survey unrealistic as we would not attain their truthful and informed opinions.
(Andres)
I've created a new section titled "Questions Shortlist". I say that we list our top five preferences, e.g. Ken - 8, 12, 17, 22, 26. (I've renumbered all the questions we've made, we have nearly 30! We rock!). After we have a good number of people list their five, we can choose our final 5 and do some final revisions to each question. What do you guys think? We need a system to choose our 5.
I really like the income question too, afterall "going green" is usually associated with higher costs...buying a green and energy efficient home (e.g. Olympic Village), having to pay a little more for plastic grocery bags...the list is endless...Ultimately being environmentally friendly has to do with how much people are willing to pay for it.
Kenneth Chan 16:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Kenneth, thanks for organizing and re-numbering all the questions. I agree that we need to start summarizing which questions we want to use. Here are my choices:
5, 8, 12, 25, 26 (Victoria W.
Firstly, Happy Thanksgiving everybody! Approx. 5 or 6 of us have submitted the questions we deem most suitable to fit into the survey; we need to get at least 5 more before we can start editing and as Kenneth said "do some final revisions". Furthermore, is it necessary that the questions have a continuous theme, or is it alright if we briefly survey on many topics? I understand that this is a "survey" but are we really getting the big picture (and useful information) when we ask numerous questions on several topics? This is just something to think about. --TaylorDong 18:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I changed everyone who put 7 or 8 as their chosen question to 7/8 because they are very similar. Katy and I need to re word the questions together so it is more cohesive, or we can just choose one or the other (since half put 7 and the other half put 8).--TaylorDong 18:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
so far everyone has agreed in the 7/8 idea - i personally like the wording of question 7 better. Should we have a vote on the 2 questions or do the authors want to work out a compromise bewteen them? (Natalie)
I'll talk to Katy about it, it's not a big deal. We'll submit a response by tomorrow or Wednesday. --TaylorDong 21:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Taylor, I was thinking about this the other day and was wondering what the overall objective of our survey is. Are we trying to get a grasp on what the general attitude is towards the environment by the residents of Vancouver? Are we trying to figure out what the perception is on the government by residents of Vancouver? I know the consensus is we're making the questions Vancouver-based, but maybe we should figure out what exactly we're trying to find out--BrianScherb 21:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Taylor and Brian, the feeling I got was that we were going to briefly survey many topics. I think we did focus these questions as 'Vancouver-based' and I think that generally speaking we are trying to figure out what people's perceptions and ideas towards the environment were. So far it seems like 7/8 are very popular (not sure if that's getting re-worded as one question, though) also 25 and 26 seem to be liked by everyone so far.(Victoria W.)--Victoriawilcott 21:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding our overall objective, it seems to be alright to keep our focus more general if we'd like. On the announcement page Dr.Cutler wrote: Note that you don't have to agree on one dependent variable to be measuring with these questions. You can include a mix of attitudes or behaviours you'd like to _explain_ and attitudes or behaviours that _explain them_. So I agree with Victoria in that I think that at this point we're trying to gouge how people feel about the environment, and that it's okay to stay this general for the time being. That's what I'm getting from this anyway. --NejlaBakhtiari 23:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the wording on question 25, and I think it's a great idea if we list the ones we deem most relevant so we can focus on revising those particular questions (I can re-edit 12 & 25 again too since they seem to be coming up as ones people like). I know you guys like the questions asking people how relevant the environment is to BC citizens, but the respondent could tell you it's entirely irrelevant and then we go on to ask them 4 more questions about the environment regardless of their initial opinion, so it kind of seems like a waste of a question. Just a thought. --VictoriaBroughton 23:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Do we have responses from everyone in order to move forward? I think there is a pretty general trend of selected questions to be included in the survey. --AidanKennedy 22:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
So what is the consensus on questions 7/8, should taylor and I re-word them to incorporate both, use just one, or use neither? (Katy)
Hey guys, so we're missing one person but I tabulated the results and here are the five most popular questions
5 – 7 times 7/8 – 10 times 15 – 7 times 25 – 13 times 26 – 9 times
Katy, I think you and Taylor should combine or reword your answers as soon as possible please--BrianScherb 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Could it be possible to plan a 'group meeting' in order to finalize questions, and talk about how we plan to interview? We could all input times into a 'Doodlebox' online and figure out what time is best-If people want to list emails, I can put that together and send it out... What dates would be good to start?--AidanKennedy 17:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Isnt Dr. Cutler organizing the interview stuff? he said he was going to explain it right?... because we are supposed to do some by phone and some online. If not then we should start ASAP. (Natalie)
Sorry to scare you there-I see now the draft version put out by Dr.Cutler. Do we like how the questions have been ultimately formatted? Any other suggestions to what can be done? For the most part seems well worded structured and a good variance of questions. --AidanKennedy 23:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]