Jump to content

FINAL QUESTIONS

FINAL QUESTIONS

Edited by 3 users.
Last edit: 03:03, 9 February 2011

Hey everyone,

I decided to put together the results of all the threads so we can clearly state our five final questions. I think we can all agree that the current Canadian government is doing very little to protect the environment or prevent / deal with climate change. So, for our survey, I think its good we have focused on finding out what Canadians want the government to do, or what they think they should be doing, as well as incorporate where Canadians stand on environmental issues. I have tried to combine the questions and been inclusive as possible. In a couple places people were saying the same things and having the same ideas, so it actually works out pretty well. If you have any problems with any of the questions speak now! I'll post these into the course page at 11:45 with any changes. :)

1. "What resources do you think are most important for interest groups attempting to influence environmental policies? Rank in order of 1 to 7, with '1' being most important and '7' being least important

a) Money b) Public opinion c) Connections with government d) Control over Investment and Jobs e) Expertise f) Skilled Leadership g) Having an Appealing Cause

2. How effective do you think each of the following interest groups are in influencing environmental policies made by the government? Rank each of the following groups;

Energy firms: 1) very effective 2) somewhat effective 3) neutral 4) somewhat ineffective 5) very ineffective Industry Trade Groups: 1) very effective 2) somewhat effective 3) neutral 4) somewhat ineffective 5) very ineffective

Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations ('NGO's'): 1) very effective 2) somewhat effective 3) neutral 4) somewhat ineffective 5) very ineffective

Aboriginal Groups: 1) very effective 2) somewhat effective 3) neutral 4) somewhat ineffective 5) very ineffective


3. Who do you think is most effective in formulating environmental policies to ensure sustainability?

a)international organizations b)the federal government c)the provincial governments d)local governments


4. Agree or disagree with the following statements.

a) Carbon taxes should be used to fund environmental projects such as solar energy technology.

b) I'm unsure about current government policy on the environment.

c) Companies that release carbon emissions should be fined, taxed, or capped proportionally to their emissions.

d) Companies that cause environmental damage should pay for the restoration of the land or water to its original state before exploitation of that land.

e) Governments should monitor and regulate firms and their effects on the environment.

f) Firms should be responsible for the monitoring of their effects on the environment.

o) The provincial government should introduce a composting system in Vancouver.

g) Alternative green energies (for example solar or wind) should be subsidized to lower initial consumer costs.

h) I'm unsure if the government should or should not enact environmental legislation.

i) I'm unsure of environmental issues.

j) The environment should not be a major priority for any level of government.

k) The economy is more important than pollution regulation, carbon emissions, and environmental protection.

l) Global warming is not a threat to the environment.

m) Global warming is natural and has not been caused by humans.

n) Global warming is natural and has not been accelerated by humans.

o) BC's waterways and coastline should be free of oil tanker traffic.

5. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree that the following issues impact the environment ;

Alberta oil sands

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Loss of biodiversity

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Air pollution and air quality

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Carbon emissions

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Climate change

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Overfishing

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Waste disposal

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

Water pollution

1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

SamanthaRousseau03:05, 8 February 2011

I would like to add this statement to No. 5, as I believe it is an important issue for the BC's future endeavor to preserve its unique wildlife and ecosystems:

Protecting the BC coastal environment from Oil Tanker traffic__

Rasmus05:01, 8 February 2011
 

I think for question one the wording is a little vague "Contacts" - What contacts? and like in the government or just in general? and the quality of them or? "Control over investment" Control of any investment? Investment is a pretty broad word and a statement like control over investment could mean just about anything. "Expertise, skilled leadership" I don't know if this is really a good one, are we asking if interest groups most important factor is have expertise? or skilled leadership. I think maybe organization might be a better word here. "Ability to spread information" this again sounds a little bit non-descript maybe things like public influence, or simply the size of the organization.

ThomasWalker06:49, 8 February 2011

I agree....'ability to spread information' one would think would be dependent on all the other options given

Kevinenglish06:55, 8 February 2011
 

I agree with Thomas about question one, though I think we really ought to (at least partially) reiterate the question itself. I am relatively new to this thread, however the question ""What resource do you think is most necessary for interest groups in order to influence environmental policies?" seems somewhat long. To make it more concise, I propose we perhaps ask "Which of the following do you feel most help interest groups influence environmental policies" instead.

Returning to Thomas' point of the vagueness of some of the potential answers however, I feel that "contacts" and "ability to spread information" are two that I would like to see changed. 'Contacts' could imply a lot of things - are we talking about contacts in the government (if so, federal or provincial?), from private businesses, or extra-political organizations? I think we need to narrow contacts down to perhaps 'political contacts in government' since we are dealing with policy making, but this is my personal opinion. As for 'ability to spread information', we could change it to 'media-distributive capacity' or simply 'marketing'.

Just my two cents! :)

RastkoStanisavljevic07:14, 8 February 2011
 

I think the vagueness actually contributes to the generality we want to have in our questions, I dont think its so vague that we should change it. I think we should keep what samantha had originally.

SadieChezenko23:02, 8 February 2011
 

I changed tar sands to oil sands. I just feel it may influence people's responses if we frame the energy project as a 'dirty' one.

Kevinenglish02:12, 9 February 2011
 

I also changed trade association to industry trade group. Just seems a lot more colloquial. Also, I added the oil tanker moratorium question to the final question.

Kevinenglish02:19, 9 February 2011
 

Also i cleaned up the first question to bring it in line with all the comments people have posted. I opted to allow the respondents to rank the resources according to relative importance. Hope thats fine with everything.

Kevinenglish02:32, 9 February 2011
 

I changed NGO's to its full name just to provide clarity for participants. Also I'm a little uncertain about the possibility of redundancy in the question 5 by including Climate Change and Carbon emissions. Would someone who is concerned about carbon emissions only be concerned about it because of its effects on climate change? With Question 3 I'm also a little concerned that option 'e' may draw so many people to select it simply because they do not really have a strong opinion on it...hence reducing the validity of our results. Would not removing it and/or adding an 'I don't know option' improve the quality of our data? The wording on 4m and 4n also seems a bit awkward. Any thoughts?

Kevinenglish06:53, 8 February 2011
 

I edited the wording on 4m and 4n, as well as fixed some minor grammatical errors. Minor edits such as these everyone should carry out and not leave to Samantha! (it's a lot of work for her, and this final piece should have everyone's input)

Question 1: is this a "Circle 1" kind of question or "Circle all that apply" kind of question? (circle one is implied of course, since we say "most", but we should probably clarify.)

Question 3: Let's chose the label that's better, "local" or "municipal", and stick to that. Really though, I'm a little leery of this question, because I'm pretty sure the huge majority of people will just pick (e) so that they don't have to think about it (ignoring the quite probable logistical nightmare of such a collaboration and subsequent large costs in taxpayer dollars of such an endeavor.) I think perhaps we should think of a replacement question...

Question 4... is a little long and I'm unsure if people will fully read all the options... for example, I didn't read it fully until I edited this response like 4 times and finally saw this: k) The economy is more important that pollution regulation, carbon emissions, and environmental protection. Couldn't we just shorten that to k)The economy is more important than environmental protection. ? Or does that obscure/over-simplify something? And should we use "protection" or "sustainability"?

Another point for question 4: while I love the composting in Vancouver idea, it kind of looks thrown into this question. I think we should either remove it, or add provincial/federal options too, such as: The provicial government should regulate oil-related threats to the coastline. The federal government should regulate national airspace pollution.

Question 5 asks us to "rank", which suggests a 1st place/2nd place/4th place etc., i.e. placement of the issues in order of importance, however there are 8 choices... it's a little confusing. I forsee some people just choosing 5, in which case we don't know if they chose the 5 they thought was most important.

Should we maybe change "rank" to "classify" or something like that?

Or maybe we should restructure it into a Likert scale 1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree

instead of very important(1), somewhat important (2), not very important (3) not important (4) or don't know (5)

I'm not sure if very important/somewhat important/not very important/not important is very good at approximating intervals in opinion (and it has no neutral "0" point).

JenniferBradshaw08:01, 8 February 2011
 

I think Question 1 should be restructured. Like Jennifer says, it's kind of confusing. Maybe ask them to list them in order of importance?

As for question 4, I find it very long. But this might not be a problem, since people already sit down to answer the survey. And it has a whole range of issues that is good to get answered anyway.

And again I agree with Jennifer on question 5, we should use the LIkert scale 1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree instead of the ranking system.

NicolaiMadsen01:03, 9 February 2011
 

yes, i agree. I think the Likert scale would be more effective and less confusing for the people answering the survey

Kellihobbs02:15, 9 February 2011
 

I changed "contacts" to "connections", is that a better term? I think it's closer to what we mean, although it's still quite nuaced so... there may be better terms.

I also changed the framework of the last question. it uses the Likert scale now. Should the middle option be "neutral" or "undecided"?

JenniferBradshaw02:49, 9 February 2011