FINAL QUESTIONS

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).